Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fish567 (talk | contribs)
412 edits
Line 362: Line 362:
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
*'''Delete'''. These expressions are mentioned nowhere in Enwiki: do not redirect to a different article with still no mention. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. These expressions are mentioned nowhere in Enwiki: do not redirect to a different article with still no mention. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Devices with such names are mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia to my knowledge. They may have been merged at one time, but all the information merged has been deleted. They apparently aren't notable enough for inclusion. [[User:Fish567|Fish567]] ([[User talk:Fish567|talk]]) 17:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


====Convention No 192====
====Convention No 192====

Revision as of 17:59, 28 January 2024

January 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2024.

Bonus hole

Tagged for speedy deletion as repost, but Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_24#Bonus_hole says the previous target was Vagina so I declined. In any case, I believe this is ambiguous and it has not been shown to be a reasonably widely used way to refer to the yaoi hole concept. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, disambig or soft redirect. I have not researched the term in-depth again, but if anything has changed since my comment on the last RfD in 2018 it's that using the term to mean "vagina" has become closer to the primary topic due to a news cycle of noise from the anti-trans press in the UK in October last year regarding a (not unlikely intentional) misunderstanding of guidance from a cervical cancer charity. Yaoi does not appear on the first two pages of my search though so it definitely isn't the primary topic. If anything should be here it would be a disambiguation page or soft redirect to Wiktionary, but I'm presently neutral on whether that would be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambig or retarget. I'm also happy with MikuthoH's suggestion to retarget, and no longer support deletion, but I'm still not sure that this is the only encyclopaedic use of the term. As we do have encyclopaedic content though a soft redirect is no longer appropriate (especially as that target includes a link to Wiktionary). Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. a similar RFD resulted in retargeting Front hole to Transgender sexuality#Transgender men 2. Both terms are mentioned in the (sub)section. @Alextejthompson, Kusma, Thryduulf, and Utopes:. --MikutoH talk! 23:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is evidently ambiguous (and no-one here has considered the use in games), and use of Search would be better than a redirect which may be confusing. Consider WP:SALT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight's Not Alright (song)

This supposed song is not mentioned or alluded to at the target article in any capacity, making this an unhelpful redirect which doesn't offer anything to readers. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pig Farmer

This is not a name ever equated to the movie at the target page. This movie is inspired by Robert Pickton, who was often called the Pig Farmer Killer (which a redirect to his page). A redirect called "the pig farmer" seems to be describing a person and not a movie. Additionally, there is the presence of a Pig farmer redirect, which describes pig farmers at large. In the meantime, this redirect paints a confusing picture with the current state of the target, as this title can be interpreted to reference many different articles that mention these words, all while this article doesn't. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airport MRT station

There are several different Airport MRT stations that this title may refer to. This partial title match is often shared with other stations, and would otherwise be a generic title which can confuse readers, just as it confused me. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domain separation (cryptography)

I think that this redirect should be deleted. It is unnecessary and unlikely to be used, given that domain separation is not ambiguous. Evgeny Kapun (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The term is very generic. The most popular use AFAIK is in machine learning, see, for example, [1]. There is a gazillion other uses, see the search in Google Scholar: [2]. The NIST use of the term is actually fairly limited once the big world is considered. There is no reason to usurp the "domain crossing" for anything but a future disambiguation. Dimawik (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers first season

Per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, the redirect may cause confusion because the term "Green Bay Packers first season" could mean their first season ever (1919 Green Bay Packers season) or their first season in the NFL (1921 Green Bay Packers season). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Book 4

Implausible redirect for a laptop that does not exist and that seems unlikely to ever exist given Surface Laptop Studio appears to be the higher end 2-in-1 laptop to replace this Awesome Aasim 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jabari Banks

This page for the actor redirects to the show he's most known for, Bel-Air. However, the latter page includes basically no information about Banks himself, only really noting that simple facts that he was cast for, and stars in, the series. As such, readers searching for Banks, most likely recognising him from the show and wanting to know more, will get next-to-nothing out of this redirect. This page should simply be deleted and red-linked until a proper article on Banks is written. Loytra (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🏴󠁩󠁱󠁫󠁲󠁿

I can't verify that this is indeed the emoji. 🏴󠁩󠁲󠀱󠀶󠁿 is the emoji named "Flag for Kurdistan (IR-16)", while this one I can't find which one it is. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should delete all emoji redirects but the most common ones. We also have 🏴󠁡󠁧󠀱󠀰󠁿, 🏴󠁡󠁧󠀱󠀱󠁿, 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁶󠁩󠁿; 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁵󠁭󠁿, 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁰󠁲󠁿, 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁭󠁰󠁿, 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁧󠁵󠁿, 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁡󠁳󠁿... Putting one of these in the search box does give the most funny search ever though, but useful it ain't. Fram (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a large RFC recently about emoji redirects. There was no overall consensus, but there was clear consensus against widespread deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • And...? There is still no rule that one has to agree with consensus or is no longer allowed to express their disagreement, no? And emojis loose all purpose if you can't even see what they represent. Fram (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        There is indeed no such rule, but equally there is no rule or other reason why people should not point out what the consensus is when views contrary to that are expressed - especially when the person replying does not know whether the person making the original comment is aware of that consensus or not.
        Emoji display is system dependant, so what you see is not necessarily the same as what other people see. People copying an emoji they can't see and looking it up in a general purpose reference work such as Wikipedia is very common. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#🏴󠁭󠁭󠀱󠀶󠁿. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very weird closure, that last one, discounting some people but not clearly incorrect statements like "Keep. Deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. " when many other emojis have no Wikipedia redirect at the moment. "People copying an emoji they can't see and looking it up in a general purpose reference work such as Wikipedia is very common" for emojis that people who use enwiki are likely to encounter, which isn't true for all 150,000 unicode characters of course. Fram (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Do you have any source which shows which emoji readers of Wikipedia are likely to encounter and which they aren't? Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, do you have any source which shows that all 150,000 unicode characters are likely search terms for enwiki readers? Are people likely to use "⤵" as a search term? [₈]? [⁸]? Just found one which has already been deleted twice, it gives the nice text "Creating " when clicked (not even a blank square or so), but it is listed on our page List of Unicode characters anyway (which only lists about 1000 of the 150K characters). Fram (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a flag composed with the selector "IQKR", and a bit of googling indicates this is the code for Kurdistan Region, an autonomous region of Iraq. Both that article and the Flag of Kurdistan article state that this is the correct flag for that reason. Someone searching this emoji is looking for either what it is (e.g. because they can't see it) or because they want to know more about the subject. In either case the current target takes people to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdraw nom. Thanks for finding the code. I used that for searching and indeed per this it was supposed to be added in Apr 6, 2022. For some reason Emojipedia does not have that listed there. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emojipedia contains errors and isn't as comprehensive as it should be, which is another reason it's important to keep these emoji redirects. Enix150 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side question: Should I be seeing something other than a blank black flag here (in Windows 10)?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A plain black flag is Windows' default display for a flag icon it doesn't understand (see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#🏴󠁭󠁭󠀱󠀶󠁿). Lack of support for subnational flags is common at this point in time, and whether they should be supported by default is apparently contentious (so a yes/no answer to your question isn't simple). Rest assured though that this is not a problem with your system/browser. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous

Hi, the page was originally targeted towards Omnipresence.

Ubiquitous (adjective) was created by Starlighsky as they wanted it to explain the dictionary definition. (WP:NOT issues) They'd probably would like a redirect to Wikitionary instead.

It could also redirect to Ubiquity or serve as its own disambig ([3]) Justiyaya 11:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan

There were two articles about the same person, but it doesn't make for a good redirect now as Khaled bin Mohamed Al Nahyan doesn't have Sultan in his name. I would suggest deleting the former. Uhooep (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply You are right, different person. I would now suggest moving Khalid bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan's redirect to House of Nahyan, if we are to keep it as a redirect. However my preferred action would be to delete the entry as a redirect altogether. --Uhooep (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. Deletion seems fine with me, especially as he is not mentioned at House of Nahyan. I don't think the brief mention in Sultan bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan's infobox is useful enough to warrant targeting there either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page has suffered from persistent vandalism, including to versions of the subject's name. Restore Revision as of 05:39, 23 December 2020 [4]. Khalid bin Sultan (Khalid son of Sultan) is clearly a different person from Khaled bin Mohamed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary II of Hungary

Totally unknown term. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google finds only three instances of this exact term, 2 are related to this redirect and the third is a single speculative comment on Reddit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

㊙

Very unclear why we would have Wiktionary redirects for non-Latin characters (or non-English words for that matter). Seems like a highly unlikely search term on enwiki. Fram (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added ㊙️ to this discussion, it's the same character "U+3299 CIRCLED IDEOGRAPH SECRET" with a variation selector. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All single Unicode characters are plausible search terms on en.wp, but we don't seem to have any content about this one I can immediately find. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All single Unicode characters are plausible search terms on en.wp": all 150,000? Why? Fram (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because people search Wikipedia for information about them, and for at least the majority there is encyclopaedic information about the character and/or what it represents. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I highly doubt that, but I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Fram (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or retarget. Don't delete.. Regarding ㊙️, that is an emoji and we already had a discussion that these should be kept. If the Wiktionary entry isn't a good target, redirect to Enclosed CJK Letters and Months. Gonnym (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the discussion can be found here for reference. Enix150 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Following the pattern of the other similar emoji redirects (🉐, 🈹, 🈯, 🈶, 🈲, 🉑, 🈴, 🈳, 🈺, 🈵, & for some reason 🔞) and the redirects that are based on Unicode symbols (🈷️/🈷, ㊗️/㊗, 🈂️/🈂), I simply added the last one (㊙️/㊙). Enix150 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a long discussion about 🔞 in October-November last year that failed to come to a consensus about the best target. Discussing it again in another 6 months or so when there is no concurrent contentiousness about the concept of emoji redirects might prove more fruitful. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Yeah, it is probably wise to wait. I also saw this discussion arguing whether the R from emoji and other redirect templates should be placed there. Though I checked every single other (non-flag) emoji on Emojipedia's list to make sure each has a redirect and the official name in its template, and this is the sole outlier as it currently stands (other than the curious case of #️⃣/#). Enix150 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudine (song)

No "Claudine" is mentioned at the target, nor are there any songs with this name mentioned at the Claudine (disambiguation) page. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going down to South Park, gonna have myself a time.

Unmentioned quote from the series' opening. Typing out the song would be implausible to get to this target. It also exists as a declined AfC draft at Draft:I'm going down to South Park, gonna have myself a time.. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Submission was declined from AfC as stated, this is a meaningless redirect that is highly unlikely to ever be used. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Man Freestyle

A freestyle done by Adonis Graham that was put at the end of one of Drake's tracks. While Adonis does get a mention at the page (one mention), "my man" does not appear in the article, nor is Adonis' freestyle ever alluded to. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoxianzu in America

While there are other related articles such as Chaoxianzu in Korea and Chaoxianzu in Japan, there is not currently any content for Chaoxianzu in America, which currently was created as a redirect to the general Chaoxianzu article. However, this article does not particularly discuss America, nor the Chaoxianzu whom are there, making this redirect unhelpful to readers. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas knife

Not an alternative name used as a synonym to the album title. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while Nick is a diminutive form of Nicolas there is no evidence that the album has ever been known under this name.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeezus II

A WP:OR redirect / alternative name for an album title that isn't discussed at the target article, although "Yeezus" is. Looking up elsewhere to see if these are equatable, the Kanye West wiki says that "Yeezus II is an unreleased album", which I'll go with here, because the designation of a spiritual sequel could be given to any album if you really wanted, but this wouldn't seemingly ever be verifiable to the point where a redirect could exist, maybe. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Yeezus, Kanye West, or Kanye West albums discography with or without a mention of "Yeezus II" (in the event that more than one does mention it at any given time, redirect to whichever gives the best treatment to the subject). Serves an obvious purpose. WP:RGUIDE applies. Claims of WP:OR are not substantiated. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't mentioned on relevant pages at any given time, to my understanding? Going through the links you provided, Yeezus does not say anything about a "II" or a "sequel" (nor does it make any claim that could be interpreted as one), and the Kanye West albums discography also expectedly does not have any songs from an album that does not exist. The only time this search term can be found anywhere is on the Kanye West, where it shows up once on the page but isn't mentioned in the reference, nor would I expect to find reliable sources covering it. What I DID find was a fanwiki say that it was a cancelled album, and pointing it to The Life of Pablo without any citations for verifiability of this title would seemingly make this OR. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Chi Ling

Is not referred to by the alternative name of "Bing Chi Ling" at the target article. While I don't have the full context behind this redirect's creation, Bing Chilling is a completely separate redirect to a cited bit in John Cena's popular culture section. This title was created with the knowledge of the confusion, as the creator of the redirect in question also made a Bing qi lin redirect to this pop culture section 9 days earlier. The pronunciations are all in reference to the same thing in Mandarin (ice cream), but currently these redirects are split. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Template:R from misspelling. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of what? This is exactly my point, there are multiple titles that this could be a alternate spelling / misspelling of. There's Bing Chilling which is arguably closer of a misspelling than what the current target is, also Bing Qi Lin, which the q and the ch would be more similar to my understanding, and also points to the same topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A misspelling of Bing Ji Ling.

This is exactly my point

If that's your point (or the goal), then consider stating that in the nomination.
Bing Chi Ling cannot be an R from misspelling to Bing Chilling. That would be a double redirect. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit more nuanced than it looks. "Ice cream" is translated differently in different varieties of Chinese. In Taiwanese Mandarin ("Guoyu"), the standard word is 冰淇淋 bingqilin. In Mainland Standard Chinese ("Putonghua"), the standard word is 冰激凌 bingjiling. "Bing Chi Ling" is the correct Wade-Giles transliteration of the Mainland Chinese word, while Wade-Giles for the Taiwanese Mandarin word would be "Bing Chi Lin" or more correctly "Bing Chʻi Lin". So weak keep I guess? —Kusma (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address the crux of the argument either. Bing Ji Ling is a New York musician's name which originates from the translation of "ice cream". Bing Chilling is the spelling of a 2021 meme of John Cena speaking the same word, bīngqílín. They both refer to ice cream, two targets for the same purpose, which the goal is to figure out which of these is preferable. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Struck as I may have misread. I was expecting Kusma's rationale to be more direct about why X target was more plausible than Y with reasoning, which I did not connect at first, but now see. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Playlist

Does not show up at the target list of original programming, or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have now bundled Graduation (TV series) (and now also Hide (TV series)) which meets the same criteria as Secret Playlist. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finding (franchise)

This franchise is not referred to in the article (nor anywhere) as the "Finding franchise", even if it's a word that both movies share. It's a partial title match for the two movies that have come out, and this alternative name is not used in the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Special:PrefixIndex/Finding. Too many "Finding [capital A-Z]" titles to know which one would be preferred. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone actually refer to anything else on that page as "the Finding franchise"? Even if the answer is "yes", that's evidence in favor of disambiguation, not deletion. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless it can be shown that there are other franchises that are referred to as «the Finding franchise» (or «"Finding" franchise»), in which case disambiguate. The claim that is it is «not referred to in the article (nor anywhere) as the "Finding franchise"» is bizarre and flatly contradicted by a cursory search. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @C. A. Russell:. This is the wrong way round. The redirect should exist only if there is evidence that this franchise is known solely as «the Finding franchise» (using your quotes). So if they're from reliable sources, put one or more of your quotes below as references in the article, and we're done. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as generic given I've never heard it called just "Finding" and there are probably lots of media about finding things so is ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Voting to delete on the grounds that you, personally, have "never heard it" called that before is a very odd response. And to reiterate, the basis factual basis of the nomination—that this franchise is not referred to in that way anywhere—is flat out untrue, as revealed with two seconds of Googling. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search for Finding franchise doesn't return any results for Nemo. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being dishonest:

    • According to legend, the original film in the Finding franchise was green-lit with just one word, fish. "You had me at Fish" was apparently[...]

    • Hank the octopus, voiced by Ed O'Neill, is less comical than he is a charming, meaningful addition to the “Finding” franchise and[...]

    • [...] until it reaches the point that it returns to the jovial, wacky hi-jinks that we have come to expect from the 'Finding' franchise[...]

    • [...] we're talking about the "Finding" franchise, where the first film was an ode to fatherhood/single fatherhood [...]

    • [...] an animated film for the young audience, Pixar's Finding franchise has a certain element[...]

    ... etc. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to a multitude of results from places like reddit, TV Tropes, IMBD, and C. A. Russel's finds 1 minute on Google got me [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Saga epilogue

Total WP:OR WP:SYNTH not mentioned at the target article, nor wouldn't. It is not important for this film to be the epilogue of the "Infinity Saga", there are plenty of movies that have been made after the Saga ended that can be equally called an epilogue. This is not an alternative name for the movie nor a 1:1 search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Nazis

I can see the rationale used when targeting this page to its target, but I'm not sure if this is useful and/or helpful. The target does not describe the members as "Jewish Nazis" verbatim, which leads me to believe that further eyes on this redirect may be warranted. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a term that gets lots of hits in a variety of reliable (and unreliable) sources, but it isn't consistently used to refer to a single topic. Referents include various WWII-era pro-Nazi Jewish people/organisations/ideologies, Jewish people/organisations that collaborated with Nazi Germany (not necessarily voluntarily), Jewish people that espoused/practised ideologies similar to WWII-era Nazis post-WWII (e.g. in Apartheid South Africa), Jewish people/organisations that espouse/practice behaviour towards (especially) Palestinians that is/are/are alleged to be comparable to the way people/organisations in Nazi Germany acted towards Jews, and in relation to conspiracy theories about Jews (I haven't looked to see if this is just an epithet, an analogy, literal accusation or a mixture). So in summary, I think the current target is not wrong per se, but too narrow, and there probably should be something at this title although I'm unsure if that's an article, a broad concept or a set index. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plebbit

Not a controversy listed at the target. In fact, the term "plebbit" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Unhelpful redirect. Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. WP:DICTIONARY. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hobby Magazine

Originally targeted Fanzine, which to me seems a bit more plausible as it has more of a focus at the target. However, this redirect had its target shifted to fan magazine, where hobbies are not addressed but is closer to this redirect's title. To me the two topics are so similar that it mind as well be the same article (despite how much the two are trying to distinguish the differences between). But I digress, I figured I'd bring it here to figure out where, if any, target should this title point to.

(I didn't initially intend on bundling these two because the characteristics of "specialty" =/= "hobby" =/= "fan" from my personal point of view, if another editor thinks these are virtually the same topic of discussion feel free to combine, as my initial reaction to keeping them as two diff sections was a subjective thought I'm not tied to.) Utopes (talk / cont) 06:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fanzines and fan magazines are indeed distinct topics (the key difference being the latter are professionally produced for fans while the former are amateur works made by enthusiasts), and a "hobby magazine" is closer to the latter than the former. The current target is much better than fanzine but it's still not great. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I weakly support keeping the present target and explicitly oppose retargetting to fanzine. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a redirect after decapitalization and include a Template:Redirect hatnote at Fan magazine pointing to fanzine and vice versa. WP:RGUIDE applies. Additionally proposed merges should be dealt with by a proper merge proposal—not an RFD entry. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally additionally: if the subject would benefit from a merge discussion, please do not initiate RFD before the discussion has been initiated and concluded. Order of operations matters; to do otherwise is a waste of finite resources. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Fanzine; based on the edit summary I provided when I created the link, I believe that I came across a source that used the term "Hobby Magazine" in reference to Fanzines. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Hobby Magazine", capitalised, infers a magazine called "Hobby" or "Hobby Magazine". If there is one, we don't have an article, or it seems any substantive content. "Hobby magazine", uncapitalised, is a magazine about hobbies. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty magazine

Not a synonym that is ever brought up at the target article, and doesn't seem like an automatic synonym to assume. There can be all sorts of "specialty" magazines that aren't necessarily "for fans". Utopes (talk / cont) 05:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget to Magazine#Types. I agree with the nominator, and the current target is not good. The content at Magazine#Types (which is the closest I can find) is a better match but I'm still unsure if it's useful enough. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreement: retarget. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grabahan

Ligma variant not mentioned at the target article, or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I just added it as a ligma variant. It's part of the "deez nuts" meme family since that's the punchline. It's mentioned in one of the existing ligma sources. I could see someone being told about the war in Grabahan or the mass shooting in Grabahan and typing that in to Wikipedia. Or we could just have people learn the hard way. Cheers! BBQboffingrill me 19:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSCIT

Unsourced acronym created from a number of disruptive page moves by a now banned individual. No reference to what "RSCIT" is on the page makes these redirects unhelpful and confusing. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gears of War Characters & Enemies

This used to point to a pretty hefty list of Gears of War characters, where the largest depository of page history now lies at the List of Gears of War characters redirect. There were quite a few redirects that used to point here, but after a 2020 BLAR, and a later presumed removal of content at the main Gears of War page, many of the redirects pointing here are scattered and misplaced. This is one example of such redirects. The Gears of War page does not have a list formatted at the page. While it might have characters, it most certainly does not contain a list of enemies. This is probably one of the less plausible "list of Gears of War characters" floating out there, with which there are many. An alternative to deletion would be restoring the List of Gears of War characters article and retargeting the rest of these stragglers there, but in the absence of that, they don't really have a great home at Gears of War either. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theron Guard

A title with a bit of history from 2006, which is now a misplaced redirect with hardly any mention at the general Gears of War article (and a non-existent section to boot. There's quite a few of these but I don't think I'm going to get to all as a lot of these are on the fence). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brumak

A redirect with some history that once targeted a list of Gears of War characters (that has since been converted into a redirect), this character receives some mention on various Gears of War related articles..... NONE of which, I should say, are the main Gears of War article itself (not to mention the Settings section which has since been removed). It's clear that this current target is not helpful due to no presence on the page, but is there an alternative? Or delete? Utopes (talk / cont) 03:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai The Gangster

Seemingly no reason for this page to exist. Bundling in the draft-space version as well, which began as a redirect to open world before moving it to an article-space location. Open world games that don't have articles shouldn't be redirects to "open world". Utopes (talk / cont) 03:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can’t imagine someone typing this a search term in order to learn about open world gaming in general.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragetreneren

WP:FORRED from Norwegian, who doesn't even have an article on the series (the page on the Norwegian wiki at this title is about the 2010 movie). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milo (Demon Road)

Used to be talked about on an article that no longer exists, as it was retargeted to the general page about the author. The character in question is left unaccounted for at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza genocide

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5 § Gaza genocide The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Keep. Likely to be a user's intent given recent events and news coverage. Consistent with WP:RNEUTRAL policy. too_much curiosity (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasoning above. Ecpiandy (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an old RfD list. I am neutral here, and am not saying that "Gaza Holocaust" and "Gaza genocide" are the same thing, but the two terms have been strongly linked in past discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Feminism

Created by a now-blocked user per WP:NOTHERE, the question becomes what to do with this redirect (a term not discussed or ever equated at the target page). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source I can find that equates these terms is a wiki whose article has a big banner proclaiming the subject to be a fictional ideology and which uses "Feminazi" is a completely different way to our article. In reliable sources, "national feminism" mostly seems to relate to feminist movements/organisations that are countrywide in a given country and/or which combine feminist and nationalist ideologies (for whatever "nationalist" means in the context of the relevant part of the world), most commonly in Cuba but far from exclusively so. As far as I've been able to find, we don't have an article about this/these concept(s). Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply an unlikely search term. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 13:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Feminazi is a combination of Feminism and Nazi. It's not a combination of Feminism and National Socialism. This doesn't seem to be an actual term and doesn't seem to be a likely search. GMGtalk 15:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incorrect target -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

不

WP:FORRED redirect for a kanji not discussed at the target article, with the target article having no affinity towards this kanji. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've since bundled four other kanji redirects to articles that don't necessarily have an affinity for kanji, or the kanji translation I'd expect to see related are just not present at the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majlis Al-Noor

This redirect was BLAR'd and has history (which I've now marked), but I'm unsure whether there's a better target out there because it receives some other mentions, but none at its current target. If nothing is suitable, there's also the ability to restore and send to AfD, but I was hesitant about doing so before looking at other R targets. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep(restore). I agree with restoring it. It's not meant to be merged into another, the sources are more specific to it- --Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 1:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

KENT PARK PS

Unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Fart alarm" and "Fart extinguisher"

Neither of these devices has any mention in the target article. They should be deleted. Marsbar8 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fart alarm was merged to the target, and Fart extinguisher was merged to the target even while the Fart alarm AfD and the Fart extinguisher AfD were in progress. The former AfD closed as merge, but the closer Johnleemk did not tag it with the {{R from merge}} (probably because this template was brand new then, having been created only 2 days before the close in 2006). The latter AfD closed as no consensus/keep, although content had already been merged by then. Jay 💬 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These expressions are mentioned nowhere in Enwiki: do not redirect to a different article with still no mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Devices with such names are mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia to my knowledge. They may have been merged at one time, but all the information merged has been deleted. They apparently aren't notable enough for inclusion. Fish567 (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convention No 192

Delete. There is no Convention 192; it does not exist. This was orginally made as a redirect to Convention 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour), but subsequently changed to a redirect to the ILO. Both are confusing, since redirecting to the ILO implies it might actually be something in existence, while 182 is clearly not 192 and a redirect could imply an equivalance, rather than a mistaken entry, which I do not see as a common problem. Furthermore, the next convention will be numbered 192, so at the point the new Convention is adopted (not likely for a number of years) a new article can be created. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with the other redirect as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 00:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_25&oldid=1200075965"