Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 11, 2021.

Attack of the Galactic Monsters[edit]

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. According to some websites of unclear reliability, this was the title of a mashup of Zone Fighter together with another film, but unless this is mentioned at the target the redirect is not helpful. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1912 1912 Washington State College football team[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely error. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Claire Tran[edit]

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actress listed as cast member in five film articles. Readers are better served by search results than an arbitrary of the five. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnamed Tour[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

A follow up from June 6 of our regular cleanup of 'unnamed' redirects to things that now have names. None of the 'unnamed' redirects were singled out specifically for keeping. "Unnamed Tour" in particular is way too vague. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Useless and ambiguous as redirects. BD2412 T 17:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unnamed Miami team for now as it is still consistently getting hits indicating that that it is still providing value. Delete the rest slowly, as stats indicate that people have stopped looking for content at these titles (the slowly is that the fall-off is still recent in a couple of cases, e.g. the Spider Man one, so leaving it visible for a week will catch the last of any stragglers). Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unnamed Titanosaur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22#Unnamed Titanosaur

Crotch grab[edit]

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 disambiguate. ✗plicit 00:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can refer to the Michael Jackson move, the thing baseball players do (or Roseanne Barr's infamous impression of it), a form of sexual assault, a more specific form of sexual assault, or a superstitious Italian gesture. If mentioned at List of gestures, this could point there, but without a mention I think this should be deleted. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I've provided a draft—improvements welcome—but I can only see 2 articles: that's OK I think given the popularity of Michael Jackson. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate UserTwoSix (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Lost episodes/Use of images[edit]

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 Withdrawn. After further examination, turns out there are tens of thousands of these. Will be opening a new bulk nomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) Vahurzpu (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with no plausible use for readers. Seems to have been created as a counterpart to Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images, which is a legitimate page. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beryllate[edit]

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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 00:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are doing a disservice by directing readers to Wiktionary instead of having an article about the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not the place to discuss this; there is nothing to be fixed S a g a C i t y 23:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, "redirects for discussion" is the correct place to discuss redirects of all types—hard redirects, soft redirects, redirects from any namespace and to any other sister project, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would also do a disservice by deleting a page which helpfully directs readers to Wikimedia content on what they are looking for. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results (including a link to Wiktonary on the right side), which will show searchers information about beryllate in Beryllium carbide and Beryllium nitride. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this is nonsense and indicates a fundamental misunderstaning of what a soft redirect is. S a g a C i t y 07:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well forgive my ignorance then. Can you please explain to me what a soft redirect is as you understand them? -- Tavix (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning toward keep on this one. On the one hand, search results when we don't have an article are great. On the other hand, those sources don't actually say the slightest thing about what beryllate is, and the search result link to Wiktionary doesn't actually say what beryllate is; it points to Wiktionary:Beryllate, and you then have to click the see also link at the top, and that might confuse people not familiar with how Wiktionary has separate pages for uppercase and lowercase titles. Ultimately, for the majority of people searching beryllate, the Wiktionary entry will probably be the most helpful, and we're trying to make it as easy as possible for them to get to the page they are looking for… right? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the difference between "keep" and "delete" is whether we would prefer to emphasize search results over the Wiktionary entry or vice versa. If this is deleted, you will be directed to the search results that show the articles we have that mention Beryllate, but it is still easy to navigate to Wiktionary because there is a link on the right side. On the other hand, by keeping it, the most prominent link is to Wiktionary, but you would have to click through the "Search for Beryllate in Wikipedia" link to see search results. -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect to Wiktionary where the most information currently exists. However, anyone remains free to stubify the topic, even if it just largely reiterated what is on Wiktionary, which would be quick and straightforward to do. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the Keep votes above, for the reasons mentioned. Current target is better than the 3 search results we have. The soft redirect prods the reader to search wikipedia or create the article, if they are not happy with Wiktionary. Jay (Talk) 20:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Average rating[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 23:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget to Arithmetic mean. I'm not sure why these redirect to Weighted arithmetic mean. I don't think people commonly use "average rating", "average score" and "rating average" to refer to a weighted mean. In fact I don't think there should even be redirects containing the words "rating" or "score". Only the word "average" is relevant here. Winston (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised that we don't have a broad-concept article for Rating (opinion), and part of me thinks we should redlink to encourage the creation of one. However, given that "rating" can mean a number of things beyond just opinion, and someone might want to know what the average credit rating or Nielsen rating is, I say retarget to Rating (a DAB page). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading Tamzin's comment and upon further consideration, I don't even like retargeting to Arithmetic mean. Basically, there are two main concepts in the redirect under discussion: average/mean/arithmetic mean and rating. I don't think Average rating should be a redirect to either average/mean/arithmetic mean or rating. Average rating is a simple combination of the two concepts. It doesn't make sense to redirect Average rating to just half of the combined concept, so the redirect should just be deleted. If editors really want to add links, they can use two separate links like average rating. In any case, it shouldn't redirect to weighted arithmetic mean. Winston (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it, whatever someone means by "rating" in "average rating", they can find that at the DAB, and then can read what content, if any, their desired "rating" article has about average-ness. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The comments so far demonstrate these are ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page Rating? SilkTork (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rating: Per above ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rating per Tamzin. I agree that these search terms are maybe a bit ambiguous, but it would be more helpful to retarget them somewhere instead of deleting them. CycloneYoris talk! 21:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Average score, Delete or retarget Average rating and Rating average to Rating. So far this discussion has made no distinction between "score" and "rating" and I don't think that those searching "average score" will always find what they seek at the rating dab page. The term is very ambiguous and leading users to search results makes the most sense I think. Similarly though, I think the other two are also ambiguous and search results are probably best, but I do see value in retargeting those to the Rating dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdewman6 Any reason Average score shouldn't redirect to Average or Average#Types? ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sending a user to "Average" when they search for "Average score" is helpful. It is a very ambiguous term that can be used in many contexts. It's highly unlikely they would be seeking mathematical information about averages. It could perhaps be targeted to Score which would be analogous to retargeting the others to Rating, but I think deletion is best in this case. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl I don't have a problem with the relist per se (though not sure we're going to get much more discussion here), but generally users should not relist discussions in which they participated per WP:NACINV and WP:NACD. Other than for cleanup or other logistical reasons, a relist generally presupposes that the user considered closing the discussion (per WP:RELIST), which involved users should not do for RfD or discussions where deletion is a possibility. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, while the suggested retarget is slightly better than the status quo, I can't imagine anyone searching for these terms and being satisfied with that target. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't see the utility in sending readers to a disambiguation page like Rating, since anyone using a search term that includes "rating" could probably figure that out on their own. Arithmetic mean is probably our best bet, but overall, I think these are too vague. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per BDD, and agree with Tamzin that it is curious we do not have a broad article on 'rating'. If redirecting, I think the key concept is "rating", not "average", so redirect to something rating related. - Nabla (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The woon doon doon things[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term does not appear on the target article (nor anywhere else on the internet). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I think this would fall under the category of "patent nonsense," and thus is eligible for WP:G1. Mlb96 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text at the target article, removed per WP:MADEUP three months after this redirect's creation, claimed Some riders have noted that as the trams travel around the length of the track they make a "woon doon doon doon" like sound. This had led to Skylink being referred to as "The Woon Doon Doon Doon Things" by frequent flyers and the general public of the DFW Metroplex. While that was definitely a valid removal, it doesn't appear quite to be a MADEUP situation: this YouTube video uses the term two months prior to the redirect's creation. That said, as you can see from the video's views and from the near-zero other Google results, it's an incredibly obscure in-joke that died out a decade ago. Delete slowly. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly per Tamzin. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Platform film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 19#Platform film

Cargo film[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Cargo (disambiguation)#Films. ✗plicit 14:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstandard disambiguation format. More plausibly would be a search term for someone looking for a film about the concept of cargo, or who thinks there's some genre of this name, or perhaps is looking for these documentary producers. Delete, although if kept this should definitely be retargeted to Cargo (disambiguation)#Films, like Cargo (film). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Cargo film" looks like a specific term for a type of film, not the title of a film. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tatania[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear if "Tatania" is a misspelling, alternative spelling, or otherwise, and if it is a spelling variation it is also not clear that the current target is the primary topic. I suggest delete to encourage uninhibited use of Search which throws up a handful of other uses Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plausible misspelling for "Tatiana" (though there'd be no reason to favor this Tatiana), but also for "Titania"; and it does seem to occasionally be a name in its own right. With no clear primary target, best to delete and let the search engine makes it best effort. Failing that, Tatiana would definitely be a better fit than the current overly-precise target. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Possible misspelling of multiple things (e.g. Titania), in addition to being the correct spelling of some minor things which doesn't seem to be worth their own disambiguation page. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Titania since that is closer to match in syllables. Add Tatiana to the see alsos at the bottom of the dab. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tamzin. If a typo could be a typo of multiple targets, we should not attempt to predict which target is intended with a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Will Cosby[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike § Billy Cosby below, I don't see any usage of this even as a typo, although it's a bit harder to tell because "will" is also a verb. Still, generally I'd expect people to be more likely to overextend "Bill" to "Billy" than to mix up "Bill" and "Will" (which a surprising number of people don't even realize are short for the same name). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flogging frame[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Flagellation. signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has pointed to this target since 2005, when the article was, shall we say, uncomfortably detailed. There was no mention at the time, but one was added a few weeks later. The content that was once discussed so lavishly at that article is now mostly found (with less troubling wording) at Corporal punishment and Judicial corporal punishment. Flogging is a reasonable target given the name, but that article doesn't mention this term at all, nor does Caning (and it seems that flogging frames are today used more in caning than in flogging per se). The only article I find that does mention the term is Caning in Singapore, where it's mentioned in passing, but that seems too specific a target. Currently my thinking is that we should retarget to Corporal punishment, but I'm not sure yet. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Flagellation since that is where flogging comes from. On that article is a picture of someone tied to a flogging post, and Commons seems to have a picture of someone in a flogging frame, so this can potentially be added to the article. Otherwise add R without mention tag to the redirect. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to flagellation / flogging per Angus, and add {{R without mention}}. Jay (Talk) 12:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Infobox scientist biography[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I redirected this as it originally transcluded the template with no arguments, so I figured it was an attempt at a redirect.

I don't think this is a useful redirect, though. The name would imply an Infobox for books that are biographies of scientists, but that is an overly specific usecase that would never exist - and redirecting to {{Infobox book}} wouldn't make sense. Not used so no reason to keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particular opinion on whether this should be deleted, but I don't think that interpretation is correct - it could simply be a template meant to be used on biographical articles, rather than those about biographies. (Thus the redirect to scientist rather than book). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intent, but it's not in-line with what we use elsewhere - see Category:Biography - should probably RfD {{Infobox biography}} for the same reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Billy Cosby[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Billy Cosby

Joey Diggs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Joey Diggs

Horse Jew[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Horse Jew

🙏[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#🙏

Template:Image Comics Universe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 01:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is really the right place for this, but per WP:NOTBURO it's as good a place as any. Long story short the navbox specifically for the comic series Invincible (and it's current TV adaptation) was hijacked and improperly moved and expanded by a sock of a banned user. Per the talk page of the template, the template has been restored and moved back to its proper name (and the templates that were inappropriately subjected to undiscussed merger by the same user), but the redirect still exists and is linked to by too many pages. The redirect is completely inappropriate in any fashion and the deleting the transclusions is best handled by a bot, but that will be easier when the redirect is deleted. So basically this is cleanup after a sock of a banned user. oknazevad (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shamsul Ulama[edit]

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 restored disambiguation and convert to set index. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Owais Al Qarni with the reason "It’s an honorific, given by British Raj. Like Shaykh al-Islām, Allamah, Hujjat al-Islam & others. Not used for particular one." FASTILY 01:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Country data 한국[edit]

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these templates. ✗plicit 09:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirects. These are all editor-facing, not reader-facing, so having redirects from other languages is not useful (all page Wikitext should be in English, and these names will only be seen in Wikitext). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

2021 European Sambo Championships[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 09:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. A link to 2021 apears in the target artical and creates a loop. Moreover, it misleads readers to think the article exists. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_11&oldid=1038484478"