Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 3

July 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 3, 2021.

Papua and New Guinea[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 Territory of Papua and New Guinea. ✗plicit 00:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papua and New Guinea → Papua New Guinea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget, potentially. Is there some reason to send this to the article about the current country? Does anyone use "PandNG" to refer to it? I expected to be taken to the article about the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, the only entity (as far as I'm aware) that used the "and" in its name. This redirect started in 2006 going to the country, was retargeted to the territory in 2007, and earlier this year was pointed back to the country. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom, and add a hatnote to New Guinea (the island) as that's where I would have thought it would go. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Territory of Papua and New Guinea per nom. The phrase "Papua and New Guinea" was used for the Territory (for example on the postage stamps), so it would make sense to target there. The official name change occurred a few years prior to independence, and I haven't seen "and" used to refer to the current country. CMD (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Territory of Papua and New Guinea per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:16, 5 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.

Andrew Janz[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 00:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Janz → 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 22 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This person also was a major-party candidate in the 2020 Fresno mayoral election - not sure if this should exist as a redirect, or if so, which is a better target. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. The search function will help readers better than a redirect would. At least that's my recollection of how we tend to handle non-notable repeat candidates. (And, if notable, then it'd still be delete, just per WP:REDLINK instead.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:11, 3 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.

Counter-terrorism policing in the UK[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 Terrorism in the United Kingdom. Avoided double redirect with Counter-terrorism in the United Kingdom; more appropriate title (non-admin closure) ―Qwerfjkl talk 17:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-terrorism policing in the UK → Counter Terrorism Command (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The CTC isn't the only UK police force/agency with responsibility for counter-terrorism; there's also the National Counter Terrorism Policing Network, and other forces have counter-terrorism units (e.g. West Midlands Police's), and there are multiple other non-police institutions for which this would nonetheless be a reasonable enough search term (the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, MI5 and MI6). As such this is an unhelpful WP:XY redirect. A disambiguation page would be a possibility, but wouldn't meet WP:PTM's requirements and would need to be at Counter-terrorism policing in the United Kingdom rather than this location. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Terrorism in the United Kingdom, which says a fair bit about counter-terrorism policing. I'd consider it an {{avoided double redirect}} to Counter-terrorism in the United Kingdom, which already redirects to that title and is probably an {{r with possibilities}}. The non-initialism form can be created if this RfD closes as something other than delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That works well enough, though it would be neater if the target had a section on counter-terrorism rather than having that information dispersed throughout. I'd missed the other redirect – might've been due to the search engine playing up, but also might have just been my own oversight. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:57, 4 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.

Oabam[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 00:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oabam → Barack Obama (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as implausible misspelling of "Obama". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requires transposing a letter from the fifth position to the second. I can find a handful of instances of this typo over the years (like this one), but for one of the most influential figures of the 21st century you're going to find a nonzero amount of basically any typo, and at a certain point WP:COSTLY and WP:AFFINITY kick in. Delete unless someone finds a notable instance of this typo, or evidence that it's more widespread. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jay ^(Talk) 19:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FWIW I think it more likely that this is two one-position transposition errors (caused by e.g. getting the timing wrong with the left-right alternation when touch typing) than transposing one character multiple places, which makes it more plausible but not plausible enough. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 5 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.

Former guy[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, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former guy → Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete; not mentioned at target. The redirect The former guy was deleted back in April. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AllegedlyHuman: Did you mean to link to something else there, for the one that was deleted? You linked to the same page as you nominated, but I don't see any record of it having been deleted. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my apologies. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reference: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#The former guy. Jay ^(Talk) 20:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. The substantive reasoning for that deletion still applies here even if there's a minor difference in the title. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a G4 candidate. This is demonstrably not the same, since with a redirect the only content is the title and the target, and the title is different. Remember that G4 is for reposts, not related titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend backup (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. With a redirect the "having any title" part doesn't apply, since a redirect's title is a core attribute of it, but the "sufficiently identical copies" part still applies. Is there any reason to think that the last RfD would have reached a different outcome if the "The" had not been present? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very long-standing precedent for redirects is that they are only G4 if the title and target are the same. Subjective opinions about what the outcome of a discussion would have been if it had been discussing a different redirect are completely irrelevant. Nyttend is completely correct to say this is not a G4 candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if we applied your standard, the deletion of one redirect to a certain page would be grounds for deleting every other redirect to that page, since the content itself is the same. (If the content of ernbdrggorebgou was #REDIRECTUnited States {{R from misspelling}}, and it was deleted at RFD, would you want us to delete USA, since its content is identical?) With redirects, the title is a core element, unlike all other pages where problems with the title merely result in moving the page elsewhere. Nyttend backup (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I take Thryduulf's point about precedent, I'd like to clarify: I think that G4 ought to cover redirects that have the same target and whose titles are "sufficiently identical copies", such as "Former guy" and "The former guy.". If that's a minority view, then fine; but it's not the scenario you're describing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"X" and "The x" are not "sufficiently identical" in the context of redirects because there are many cases where adding the can mean the terms refer to different things, have different connotations, primary topics, etc. For sufficiently identical you are looking at something like hyphen/endash or "The Color of X"/"The Colour of X". Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slowly unless mentioned somewhere. I'm seeing a lot of google hits for the term, and on the first four pages every single one is referring to Trump so it's not implausible that a mention could be DUE somewhere, but until it is mentioned the redirect will likely just cause confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 3 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Average rating

Wikinese[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 00:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinese → Category:Wikipedia guidelines (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not an alternative name for the target or a likely search term, delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikinese and WP:WIKINESE redirect to Wikipedia:WikiSpeak, although neither is used (and IMO might be worth RfD'ing themselves). So if this were to be kept, it should point there. That said, an XNR to a project category should, in my opinion, be held to the same high standard as an XNR to projectspace, which I generally hold to be "Do casual readers or brand-new editors have any chance of looking for this?" In cases like Create an article or Administrators' noticeboard, that's a "yes" or "maybe". In the case of this, it's a "no". Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jay ^(Talk) 19:29, 3 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.

Our new overlords[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 Kent Brockman#Cultural influence. ✗plicit 00:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our new overlords → AI takeover (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Does not unambiguously refer to the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords redirects to Kent Brockman#Cultural influence. I think that would be appropriate for this title, too. - Eureka Lott 17:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Kent Brockman#Cultural influence per Eureka Lott, perhaps with {{R avoided double redirect}}. The snowclone is popular enough, and I find it very plausible that a reader might not remember that said overlords were insects in the original usage. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. The section serves pretty well as a DAB for other references people might be thinking of, like Jennings' memorable Jeopardy line. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Kent Brockman#Cultural influence per Eureka Lott. Seems to be a plausible redirect to the snowclone. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 5 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#2021 European Sambo Championships

Beryllate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Beryllate

En.wikipedia.org[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 keep. (non-admin closure) ―Qwerfjkl talk 17:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

En.wikipedia.org → English Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I suggest having this direct to the main page as opposed to English Wikipedia. I know we have redirects from domain names, but in this singular instance, we can have it go to the intended target. Even though the search bar is not meant to URLs, anyone typing en.wikipedia.org into it is more likely (in my eminent opinion) to be trying to get to the main page, as opposed to the very meta target of English Wikipedia. Even if I'm wrong, I'd like to open up a discussion as this is something I've been thinking about. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No evidence presented for such assertion. People wanting the main page will simply click the Wikipedia logo. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there’s no evidence in either direction. So we just have to consider what is more reasonable. I contend it’s more reasonable to think people will be looking for the main page. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree - without any evidence that someone using a specific search term that directly matches the topic of an article we have is not looking for that specific article but for a more general topic I don't see how we can conclude otherwise. In the (imo unlikely) event they are looking for something more general than the search term they are using they can follow the hatnote (or click the logo) and get there in a single click. The same is not true in reverse - someone looking for the article on the English Wikipedia who arrives at the main page will have to search again, and it's not unlikely that they'll try the same search string again (especially if they arrived from outside Wikipedia) only to arrive exactly where they were - an extremely poor user experience. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the most likely target for someone specifically using en.wikipedia.org is the English Wikipedia, if they wanted the generic article they'd search on "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia.org". Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the event you somehow manage to land on en.wikipedia.org, I agree with the nom you're probably looking for the main page and something went horribly wrong somewhere. Typing it directly into search engines brings up the main page first, and the search results include "main page" or "home page". SportingFlyer T·C 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. For those who type this into the search box (as opposed to the browser bar), it doesn't make sense that they would be searching for the main page. The existing hatnote on the current target article suffices. BD2412 T 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more likely someone would have used the search box as the browser bar than intentionally search for the URL, especially since a brief search of search engines brings up en.wikipedia.org first, but English Wikipedia in the side-bar. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkl talk 12:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the URL of the website. If I enter a URL, I want to be taken to an article about the website or about the entity that runs the website, and Wikipedia's no different. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From within Wikipedia, it is easier to go to the home / main page, than to the article English Wikipedia. A reader who puts in the effort to search en.wikipedia.org would be looking for the specific article. Jay ^(Talk) 19:53, 5 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.

Sickie[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. (non-admin closure) ―Qwerfjkl talk 17:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sickie → Sick leave (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Sickies → Absenteeism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Sicky → Absenteeism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target article doesn't mention either the term or, as far as I can tell, the concept it denotes. As such, this is a misleading redirect. — Smjg (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment adding the plural Sickies and alternative spelling Sicky to this discussion, since they should point to the same target or be deleted together. Its current target, absenteeism, doesn't mention the term nor discuss the concept of taking sick leave when you're not actually sick. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect Sickie to Wikt:sickie and Sickies to Wikt:sickie, which define the terms and give a more direct description than their targets offer. Plus, both of these seem to be getting a decent number of pageviews. Kinda weak soft redirect Sicky to Wikt:sicky, which also gives a more direct description than this one's current target (although it seems to be getting less traffic nowadays, it's still a better course of action than directing readers somewhere where descriptions don't exist). Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 00:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Sick leave since Sick day retargets there and it's the same meaning, including whether it's for a supposed illness. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I raised this RfD because Sickie already redirects to Sick leave but this is unsuitable. Sickies and Sicky were added to the RfD later. Furthermore, as I understand it they mean different things – "sick day" seems to mean a day off work due to actual illness, whereas "sickie" means pretending to be ill in order to get a day off work. However, if someone has the time, knowledge and inclination to add a section about sickies to Sick leave, retargeting all of these redirects to the new section would be a good resolution. — Smjg (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In British English at least it's not quite that clear a distinction. A sick day is what work gives you for illness, whether that illness is genuine or otherwise, and "taking a sick day" (and similar) cannot be reliable used to infer whether the illness is genuine or not. "Sickie" is more often (perhaps significantly more often) used for pretend illnesses than actual ones this is not always the case. I agree adding a section at sick leave is the best option and that Absenteeism is not a suitable target, in the absence of that section I'm torn between retagetting and soft redirecting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so maybe the distinction between the two is more one of usual usage than one of definition. It seems online dictionaries are split on the matter, especially that of whether a "sickie" is necessarily a pretence of illness, but this certainly seems to be the primary meaning. And it's certainly a phenomenon in itself - I suppose a form of job fraud. I'm surprised nobody seems to have written about it on WP already. — Smjg (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to have come to any conclusion. I wasn't sure if there's a better resolution than deleting the redirect as misleading. But I'm now inclined to think maybe the best resolution is to turn all three redirects into soft redirects to Wiktionary. — Smjg (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkl talk 12:15, 3 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.

Tired all the time syndrome[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 and retarget to Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago, respectively. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tired all the time syndrome → Chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
TATT → Chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Tired all the time syndrome isn't mentioned in the target. This isn't necessarily always a problem in medical articles where the redirect is a synonym for the target, but per Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Tired all the time syndrome and TATT it probably isn't a synonym so should probably point elsewhere. TATT, on the other hand, should probably be deleted unless tired all the time syndrome can be defined somewhere, as it can have various other meanings, most obviously "tatt" as an abbreviation for "tattoo", so is much more likely to cause confusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect TATT to Fatigue~~ TATT acronym is used in regular media for "tired all the time" https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wellbeing/a35274941/how-to-fall-asleep/ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/why-are-you-always-tired https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/tired-all-the-time-it-could-be-because-of-infections-and-inflammatory-diseases/articleshow/64551970.cms https://www.healthline.com/health/daytime-sleepiness/reasons-youre-tired https://www.dnaindia.com/health/report-experts-share-guidelines-to-battle-tatt-syndrome-2148046 Could potentially be its own article but it's a general symptom and not necessarily the chronic fatigue syndrome Add R without mention tag. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC) updated 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tired all the time syndrome since that's not a syndrome name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect TATT to Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago. Add hatnote to Fatigue explaining "tired all the time" AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fatigue. TATT is a symptom and not a "syndrome" and certainly not synonymous with CFS/ME. JFW | T@lk 13:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Tired all the time syndrome" isn't mentioned in the target or anywhere else, and if it were there would need to be compliance with WP:MEDRS. I can find no suitable target for TATT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#1: Delete because of no mention. There are articles in medical sites and doctors talking about it though, as a syndrome.

~~#2: DAB to Fatigue and~~ Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (multiple mentions on Wikipedia). - Jay ^(Talk) 16:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#2: Retarget to Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago and hatnote fatigue per Angus. Jay ^(Talk) 19:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#1: Delete. Agree with User - Jay. Ward20 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#2: DAB to Fatigue and Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago. Agree with User - Jay. Ward20 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Suggest redirect to Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago with hatnote to fatigue since the acronym is not mentioned in the fatigue article so a dab wouldn't pass DABMENTION. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 per all, redirect 2 with hat per Angus. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkl talk 12:11, 3 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.

Original television series[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 Original programming, recognizing this as withdrawn --BDD (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original television series → Television show#Seasons/series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

In 2008, this redirect's creator predicted that the target (then an article, now a section of a larger one) would eventually have some discussion of when series are "original". Well, it's been 13 years, and I don't think that's happened. "Original" can mean a few things in this context, including "creative", but the primary meaning of "original television series", I would think, is a series that has since been sequelled or remade, like Star Trek: The Original Series. The linked section acknowledges this concept in passing, but there's nothing really about what it means for a show to be "original". Given that original-ness is only relevant when there's been a sequel or remake, I currently lean toward retargeting to Remake#Television as an {{r from antonym}}, but I'll hold off on !voting till I see what others have to say. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Original programming as a {{r from synonym}}. - Eureka Lott 15:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, that's a better target. Sorry I missed that. Would anyone object to me just withdrawing, and then retargeting as a non-RfD action? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:39, 3 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.

Bug scrub[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 retarget to Wiktionary:Bug scrub. Wiktionary is the correct place to edit 'big scrub' (non-admin closure) ―Qwerfjkl talk 17:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bug scrub → Software bug#Software releases (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect points to a section that I wrote that was reverted twice. As such, it technically qualifies as WP:G8, but I would rather have a discussion since plausibly, there could still be a viable target for this redirect – for example, Wiktionary. Bwrs (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Software project management which is where things such as hosting bug scrub meetings would be appropriate, since it's also where they identify a severity metric. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no standard definition, so we dealing with a neologism, and WP:NOTNEO. Definitions range from 1) being similar to a bug triage where new bugs are are classified and priority of repair is assessed (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bug_scrub and https://technobeans.com/2011/10/04/daily-scrum-meetings-what-it-is-and-what-not-and-what-can-be-improved/ for examples), 2) reviewing old bug reports to determine if they should be closed, 3) the one Bwrs is promoting where known bugs are listed in release notes, and 4) where bugs that may affect customers or clients are told to those clients only. Without a standard definition, the target becomes fodder for edit wars over a new, "correct" definition. I tried to find reliable sources that describe it, and I could not. The wiktionary.org should be all that is needed. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect, seems a common phrase at the very least. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 03:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nom's third attempt at the target was reverted with the comment "YOU DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE". The content that was reverted had cited 4 sources, 2 of which were Pearson Education and O'Reilly. Walter Görlitz may want to justify the revert. - Jay ^Talk 06:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not bother to read it, but only two reliable sources were valid. The problem still exists, but the content is better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to "bug scrub" at Wiktionary. If other definitions are useful, that is the place to edit them in. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Various suggestions, no agreement on any of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget to Software bug#Bug management~~ where I added it back. - Jay ^(Talk) 20:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been removed again. Jay ^(Talk) 05:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Bejnar. Jay ^(Talk) 19:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as Jay has stated with a new target. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors now appear to largely agree on redirecting, but not on where to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkl talk 12:08, 3 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.

Fernsehserien[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 20:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernsehserien → Television show (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is the German term for "television series," I gather. There is no particular affinity between the German language and the concept of television shows and thus, per WP:RLOTE, this should be deleted. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'delete. WP is no dictionary and the other languages are already linked. --Zac67 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Television in Germany. There's a particular affinity between German television and a German term for "television series". Nyttend backup (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XY plus WP:RLOTE. Germany is not the only German-speaking country. Even if we were going to retain this, there's no way of deciding whether it should point to television in Austria, or television in Switzerland, or television in countries with small German-speaking communities like television in Belgium, and it's not suitable for disambiguation either. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:15, 4 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.

Horse Jew[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Horse Jew

London Road North[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 00:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Road North → Lowestoft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. London Road North is not mentioned in the article, and is ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: Too ambiguous, as stated above. —Qwerfjkl talk 17:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to London Road North Shopping Precinct, which is the only place on Wikipedia that a London Road North is mentioned so there is nothing to disambiguate (the only other roads of this name I can find are in Merstham/Redhill, Surrey and Poynton, both of which seem to be entirely unremarkable roads; the other primary result is for the irrelevant here London Road in North Cheam). In the likely event the shopping precinct article is deleted then this redirect can be speedily deleted as G8. While there is former article content here, the article was nothing more than a duplicate of the first sentence of the shopping precinct article so the only outcomes possible at an AfD would deletion for no content or redirecting to the shopping centre article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC) [updated !vote, see below the relisting Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)][reply]
Retarget to the shopping precinct or delete. As noted its ambiguous and it is also not mentioned at the target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And the suggested target is no more. Jay ^(Talk) 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that the article about the shopping precinct has been deleted (I didn't expect this discussion to be still open when that happened) there is no suitable target anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 5 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.

🙏[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#🙏