Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11

< March 10

March 12 >

March 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 11, 2024.

Wikipedia:COURT

• Wikipedia:COURT → Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Arbitration Committee is not a court. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or retarget. Someone using this redirect is plausibly looking for Wikipedia's court, and they should be taken to a page that explains that we don't have a court (or at least not a court of law) but the closest thing is the Arbitration Committee. The current page sort of does that, but not perfectly - Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration doesn't use the words exactly but does state "Arbitration is not a legal process", so would make an equally good target I think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. It's confusing and misleading. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• 0 uses is kind of damning. The other redirects of the same sense have similarly low use [1][2][3]. (What the heck is [4].) Izno (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's only existed for five weeks, and lack of incoming internal links is explicitly not relevant to whether a redirect should or should not be deleted. As for your "what the heck" this was redirected after the original content was moved to User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius, which is effectively an essay that emerged out of the discussions that created the Arbitration Committee. Basically it is saying (in attempted(?) legalese that an arbitration case can be requested either directly or by or via Jimbo, that Jimbo can direct a case to be opened and that Jimbo can investigate matters on his own if he wants. The first part is obviously still true (anyone can request a case directly), the second is also technically true (Jimbo can request a case in the same way as any other editor, including related to disputes he is asked to look at). Jimbo can't direct that a case be opened (anymore?). He can investigate a dispute if he chooses to do so, although he is very unlikely to do so and is very limited in what remedies he could impose (he renounced the right to unilaterally ban people in 2022 and gave up other advanced rights in 2023). Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Of the other examples of links of this sense, the first is a decade old, the second well on its way to that, and the third a year and a half old (and was previously deleted at MFD an eternity ago). That this one is only 5 weeks old doesn't inspire. Izno (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  The other redirect's aren't relevant to this one, and the age isn't really relevant either. The redirect is not doing any harm - indeed as it serves to correct misunderstandings it's the opposite of misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Usage of the redirect in discussions would increase confusion, not reduce it. It's good that it's not being used and it should be removed before it is. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well if anyone did use this in a discussion, the context would make things clear. However, redirects like this are much more useful as search targets rather than for linking - for example a relatively new editor would plausibly search this, and be taken to exactly the page that explains what he have instead of a court, rather than unpredictable search results (sometimes several clicks/taps away) that may or may not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source were previously the top results for a "court" search in Wikipedia space. This redirect made search worse, not better. Bumping down other court-related results and repeating the top result is not a net positive. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - agree that it's misleading. In the unlikely event that a user entered this in the search box, the search results would be more useful than this redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: There's no good single redirect; there are several WikiProjects that deal with courts and law, so none of them are a great option, and ARBCOM is not a court. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The target does not need to actually be a court in order to be helpful. Coincidentally, I recently watched a Youtube video titled: "The Court That Settles Wikipedia Editor Drama" from Half as Interesting. Now, is ArbCom literally a court? I suppose not, but it's a widely popular misconception to the public based on several journal stories which have covered influential ArbCom cases. Pageviews might not be there as this was made recently in 2024 and people were hitting WP:Court instead. The lowercase title is what searches default onto, and has existed since late 2022 with 100+ pageviews since its recent-ish creation. WP:Wikicourt has existed since 2013, and ArbCom being a "WP:Supreme Court" isn't too far off the mark either, according to outside coverage for people unfamiliar with the ins and outs of what ArbCom is and isn't, such as: [5] [6]. Just like how the WP:Great Dismal Swamp isn't actually a murky wetland supporting sealife, adding redirect support for a popular misconception still fulfills the need for someone that wants to get to Wikipedia's court, but doesn't know what it's technically called. (Those long words'll get ya good! Both "Arbitration" and "Committee" with 9+ letters, who has time to memorize that?) Quite helpful for people who have a basic understanding of Project space, but are unsure of the names of the "complicated noticeboards". Nothing else seems to be more courtlike in WP space than ArbCom, but if there is something strongly-more-associated I wouldn't mind a retarget either. Deletion is not beneficial in my eyes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per Utopes and Thryduulf. ArbCom may not be an actual court, but the ArbCom page literally has scales of justice displayed right there in the center, for cryin' out loud, it's clearly "where justice is meted out". Heck, WP:COURT might even help with a few WP:ALP issues. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A Hovannessian

• A Hovannessian → Raw foodism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title is short for Arshavir Ter Hovannessian (Artehov), a non-notable raw food writer. He is not mentioned in the target article, and elsewhere he is only referenced at Morris Krok#Books cited by Morris Krok. The original content of the page is thoroughly promotional and possibly fringe, so deletion is the only reasonable option. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete as per nomnomnom 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Glazed ham

• Glazed ham → Gammon (meat)#glazed ham  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. Looks as though the term was formerly in the article, but is no longer there. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• We really should have content about this somewhere, but Gammon is not that place. Glaze (cooking technique) is probably better (is the best, I'd don't know) but all what's there currently is not really enough. List of hams is another obvious place on the surface but there are multiple different types of glazed ham (e.g. Christmas ham and the honey-glazed ham mentioned at List of hams#Wales) and the structure of that article wouldn't work to anchor this redirect (it also links to this redirect expecting the encyclopaedic content about it to be elsewhere). The edit summary when it was removed from the Gammon article implied that it was being moved to the Ham article, but I can't find that it ever was, and there isn't anything useful there now. Maybe the text about glazed ham in this revision can be merged somewhere? I'll see if there is a relevant WikiProject I can ping about this. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:REDLINK. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see anything in REDLINK that recommends deleting an existing redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  When referenced at RfD, a reference to WP:REDLINK almost always means "delete this redirect to encourage the creation of an article, because there isn't anywhere that would make a good target for a redirect." Thryduulf (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's "not mentioned in the target article" only because an IP blanked half the article a few years ago. That (sourced) material could be restored by anyone, including the nom. Steel1943, I don't know if you ever noticed before (Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions), but the line in WP:RFD#DELETE about deleting redirects that aren't mentioned is exclusively for "novel or very obscure synonyms". Ordinary words that have been in use for at least two centuries can't be described as "novel", and an iconic holiday dish isn't ever going to be "very obscure". I think we should keep this. The only remaining question is whether to repoint it or to turn it into a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  "The only remaining question is whether to repoint it or to turn it into a separate article." Sounds like a "delete per WP:REDLINK" rationale to me unless a retargeting option is found. It may be worth investigating to see if the article could be restored to a state where the redirect is mentioned, which would also fix the issue for which I nominated the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, are you referring to this edit where an IP blanked the "glazed" mention? (I'm playing a guessing game there since you did not provide a diff.) If so, I'm not sure that restoring that content would validate the existence of this redirect since the subject mentioned there is both "glazed gammon" and "glazed ham", given that there seems to be a few notes around Wikipedia, specifically on Ham, that attempt to differentiate "gammon" from "ham", meaning restoring the content and then attempting to validate this redirect as a {{R from incorrect name}} may be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WhatamIdoing. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or retarget: to either List of hams or Glaze (cooking technique) as they make more sense as targets. Nobody (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• The IP had wanted to move the removed content into Ham but didn't have access, so left the content at its talk page for other editors to pick up. See Talk:Ham#Moving stuff from 'gammon' article here, as it not relevant/confusing to the British concept. I have notified of this discussion at the talk page of Ham. Jay 💬 10:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of hams, where topic is mentioned. Glazed hams are definitely out there. I feel like this is more appropriate than current target. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Job (economics)

• Job (economics) → Work (human activity)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure about this redirect being clear in what it is meant to refer. Is it meant to refer to a job in the economics field? If so, I don't believe the current target or Employment to be proper targets. I also do not believe that retargeting to Job (disambiguation) would be helpful either since the only correlation it would have listed there would be whatever Job refers to, which is currently a redirect to Work (human activity). Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also tagged the redirect as "R from merge".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Cinebooks

• Cinebooks → Cinebook  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• CineBooks → Cinebook  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects to Cinebook (a British publishing company founded in 2005) were created by Tajotep in 2017; however, as can be seen in Special:WhatLinksHere/Cinebooks, most (or all?; e.g., at Romance of a Horsethief) of the links are incorrect, referring to Cinebooks/CineBooks, an American company that published The Motion Picture Guide in 1985. J3133 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, we don't have any information on Cinebooks/CineBooks (American comany). If they had an article to point to, I'd recommend hatnoting the two against each other. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lunamann: I only support keeping if all of the incorrect links that currently point to the British company are removed, or changed to different (red) links if a future article is planned for the American company. J3133 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't think those links should stay. That said, I don't think it should point right here-- these links are a bit too close to the name of the existing article on Cinebook (UK). They need to be removed, or WP:BOLDly WP:REDYES'd, all to the same target, with that target having a disambiguator. CineBooks (American company) perhaps? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Since this redirect is in plural form, is it really a common way to refer to the target? Especially given the existence of the other company. I would suspect someone searching "Cinebooks" is more likely looking for information on the American company than the British one which uses the singular form. D2 and D10 seem to apply here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The issue I find with simply outright deleting is that the names are still so similar that I could easily see this issue continuing to occur without SOME sort of explanation. ...Is there precedent for a redlink hatnote?? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Midnight Miracle

• Midnight Miracle → 2022 Peach Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. This redirect was created shortly after a relevant / similar discussion was closed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_24#Georgia_Bulldogs'_Midnight_Miracle. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a different redirect. It just says Midnight Miracle. Abhiramakella (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This is far from the primary topic for the search term. Topping the list is a podcast, mentioned in a table at Luminary (podcast network)#Programming but that's not sufficient to anchor a redirect, and on the articles about all three of the hosts (targetting any one of the hosts would present XY issues; I can't rule out the podcast being notable. After that comes a skin oil/cream that doesn't appear to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all (and doesn't seem like it should be). Excluding both those brings up a myriad of different things, but none of them relate to American football. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Not found in target article. -Dyork (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to Miracle at Midnight. Jay 💬 18:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any evidence that Miracle at Midnight is called this? If not delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know, hence "weak". Jay 💬 07:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V, attestation as a name for this event has not been verified with a sourced mention at the article. Attestation as a form of Miracle at Midnight has also not been established. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Luminary (podcast network). "Midnight Miracle" is mentioned 4 times in enwiki: at the podcast article, and at the articles of the 3 co-creators whose articles are all linked from the podcast article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Luminary (podcast network) per Shhhnotsoloud. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retargeting to Luminary (podcast network), while not the most !voted numerically, has been unchallenged since the !votes to retarget here began. However, the concern that the entry does not have sufficient content to anchor a redirect has not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I still feel that mentions of the podcast network are insufficient to make this a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

~( 8^(I)

• ~( 8^(I) → List of emoticons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Furthermore, it does not seem like strings of characters such as this would be useful or helpful for readers on Wikipedia. This is not a likely search term, and the only information we have at the target list, for this topic, is "yes" (it exists) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It feels like this specific emoticon wants to be retargeted to Homer Simpson. It also does not feel like it deserves to be retargeted there. Delete as per nom. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reading the actual List of emoticons article, it does list ~(_8^(|) (which is this but with an underscore instead of a space-- keep in mind that Wikipedia can't afaik tell the difference between a space and an underscore in an article title)... with, as its meaning, a link to the Homer Simpson article. I have never been so simultaneously vindicated and trumped in my life. Keep as per Thryduulf.
  In other news, now I have to figure out why the 【=◈︿◈=】 doesn't show up there, and if any fish would get thrown at me if I added it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Harmless, unambiguous and mentioned at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

O3o

• O3o → List of emoticons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Speaking of which, this one is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• weak delete. wikt:o3o exists, and is displayed in search results, but that's the only meaningful content on any Wikimedia wiki. I don't think it's used enough (only 10 hits between January 2023 and the start of this RfD) to justify a soft redirect, but I'm not going argue against anyone who thinks it does. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

XD (Emoticon)

• XD (Emoticon) → Emoticon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• XD (emoticon) → List of emoticons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These two should have the same target, presumably. On this particular subject, both Emoticon and List of emoticons have a precedent of "random" incoming "emoticon" redirects, such as =) and O.o going one way, and ;-; and O3o going another, with the former article having far more incoming than the latter. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to List of emoticons per nom — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of emoticons per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of emoticons per nom. Straightforward enough. 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Notre Dame de Miséricorde

• Notre Dame de Miséricorde → Cotonou Cathedral  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Notre-Dame-de-Miséricorde → Cotonou Cathedral  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Far too ambiguous to point directly to a particular church. See for example fr:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Miséricorde, which lists many of these churches, none of which are the cathedral in Benin. asilvering (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget. Clearly Notre-Dame-de-la-Miséricorde, Notre Dame de la Miséricorde, Notre-Dame-de-Miséricorde and Notre Dame de Miséricorde should be a disambiguation page, even if it would largely be full of redlinks at the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenBlacker (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gelovani (disambiguation)

• Gelovani (disambiguation) → House of Gelovani  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page was leftover after I merged its contents to House of Gelovani. I had nominated it for speedy deletion under G14 as a redirect ending in (disambiguation) that didn't redirect to a disambiguation or disambiguation-like page (which I guess it wasn't a redirect when I nominated it), and then a user removed it and redirected it to House of Gelovani. I still hold that it should be deleted, as the section Notable people with the surname is not large enough for the page to be considered as "performing a disambiguation-like function". AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: as the section Notable people with the surname is not large enough for the page to be considered as "performing a disambiguation-like function" - well, you did copy over the contents of the disambiguation page (which performed the function of disambiguating) over to House of Gelovani, therefore making House of Gelovani the de-facto disambiguation - so this page redirecting to the de-facto disambiguation probably doesn't count as WP:G14. To be honest, I'd consider reverting Gelovani (disambiguation) back to being a disambiguation page, if House of Gelovani isn't supposed to be treated as a disambiguation page. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 03:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• I guess you make a point in the first half of that paragraph; I hadn't thought about that. My thought process was that Gelovani (disambiguation) shouldn't have been a DAB page, it should have been a surname page, so why not just merge it to a section of House of Gelovani since it already lists several people with the name, and since I have seen many examples like that before. Though now that I think about it, I'm not sure that every Gelovani listed is part of the family, so maybe it should be reverted back and changed to a name page. I'll let other editors weigh in. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it's safe to assume that Prince Varlam Gelovani definitely was part of the noble house (being officially recognized with the princely title). Did some digging on some Georgian genealogy/nobility sites It appears that Mikheil Gelovani was a first cousin of Prince Varlam[7], and it also appears that Archil Gelovani might have been Varlam's third cousin once removed[8] (assuming ofc that David Kaikhosrovich Gelovani did in fact have a son called Almaskhan, who might have actually existed according to Geni[9]). However, I can't see anything linking Mirza Gelovani or Sopho Gelovani to the noble house. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

≙

• ≙ → Binary relation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: Unicode symbol that does not appears in any WP article (including the current target) D.Lazard (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this is actually mentioned in several places, but it isn't showing up in search for some reason, e.g. Mathematical Operators (Unicode block), Glossary of mathematical symbols#Equality, equivalence and similarity (although like many symbols on that article it is only used as an image for some reason), Equals sign#Other related symbols and List of mathematical symbols by subject#Equality signs (the latter includes it at both "bijection" and "equal to by definition", but I think the first is an error). Searching the internet though there appear to be at least three different definitions. The unicode character is "U+2259 ESTIMATES", which is backed up by [10] and the second post at [11], the first post there states that In German secondary-school math and science classes, it is used to denote "corresponds to". de:≙ is a redirect to de:Gleichheitszeichen#Das Gleichheitszeichen und seine Abwandlungen ("Equal sign#The equal sign and its variations") where it is defined as "Das Entspricht-Zeichen" ("Corresponds sign") but its definition in the unicode table translates via Google as "right by definition" (i.e. "is defined as"). The redirect here originally targetted Correspondence#Mathematics, which is now a section of a dab page but might at the time have pointed to binary relation. The "defined" meaning is also given at [12]. To me this suggests we should have an article about the character giving all the competing meanings, but more reliable sources than those I found in 2 minutes would be needed and maths is really not my strong suit. I'll ping the Mathematics wikiproject about this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for this search. However, there is a confusion between this symbol (U+2259 ESTIMATES) and the symbol U+225C (DELTA EQUAL TO). The symbol under discussion is not mentioned at all in Glossary of mathematical symbols#Equality, equivalence and similarity and in Equals sign#Other related symbols. In Mathematical Operators (Unicode block), the only provided information is its Unicode name (ESTIMATES) and a link to the redirect under discussion. In List of mathematical symbols by subject#Equality signs, the provided information is a link to bijection where the symbol is not mentioned. In short, only the existence of the symbol appears in English Wikipedia, without any information on its usage and its meaning.

  From the second external link and the link to German WP, it seems that this symbol is used only in German elementary schools. The first external link seems not really reliable. The third external link is about U+225C (DELTA EQUAL TO), not about the link discussed here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  @D.Lazard – Apparently this is used in statistics. A search turns up stack exchange "What is the symbol ≙ ..." where a commenter explains, "The hat above the equals sign is an estimator. Originaly estimators are used on terms. For example ${\hat {\theta }}(X)$. But it has appeared (sometimes) more convenient to use it with an equals sign, especially in statistics. [...] $x\mathrel {\hat {=}} \ldots$ then reads '$x$ estimates ...'." Another page that turns up has people discussing whether to use ${\hat {=}},$ ${\widehat {=}},$ or ${\stackrel {\scriptscriptstyle \wedge }{=}}$ for this in LaTeX. –jacobolus (t) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:REDLINK, due to Thryduulf's findings. This needs to be its own article, not a redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Equals sign § Other related symbols. The triangle or delta equals symbol, Latex "triangleq" which renders as $\triangleq ,$ is clearly a (somewhat) common symbol, as are the symbols $:=$ and ${\stackrel {\text{def}}{=}}$ which mean the same. However, I have never seen this equals sign with a circumflex accent on it, or several of the other entries at Equals sign § Other related symbols. In my opinion at least all of ≌, ≖, ≗, ≘, ≙, ≚, ≛, ≞, ≟ should redirect to that section, and their possible meaning(s) can be discussed there. –jacobolus (t) 19:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - I don’t think a redirect is appropriate here. - Dyork (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - No redirect. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Equals sign#Other related symbols. There is no reason to remove valid redirects. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Equals sign#Other related symbols per jacobolus and Gonnym, this seems to be the most helpful for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Equals sign#Other related symbols as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Equals sign#Other related symbols per above — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

LGBT reproduction

• LGBT reproduction → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• LGBTQ reproduction → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• LGBT Reproduction → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lesbian reproduction → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gay reproduction → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• LGBTQ+ Production of Family → Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(please also add LGBTQ reproduction, LGBT Reproduction, Lesbian reproduction, Gay reproduction and LGBTQ+ Production of Family to this discussion)

As noted in the move discussion at Talk:Use_of_assisted_reproductive_technology_by_LGBT_people#Requested_move_4_February_2024, this is an odd phrase and can have multiple meanings. Without going into original research, the best thing to do is to delete this redirect as a possible WP:NEOLOGISM. – GnocchiFan (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled the five mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)