Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 4, 2022.

Brassière or bra[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 Bra#Etymology. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect's usefulness is questionable since it uses the word "or". FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. It does get some pageviews though. Duckmather (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am leaning keep. It is clearly useful since it has 730 pageviews(maybe around 600 excluding WP:RDF participant views) and take the readers to where they expected. Roostt•c(Please Ping me) 13:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along the lines of "ketchup or catsup", "mayonnaise or mayo". AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unambiguous and I don't see the harm, if it is getting page views then clearly it is seeing some sort of use. 193.37.240.120 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Bra#Etymology. The use of "or" could indicate that the searcher is interested not in the current target per se, but in the contextual use of the terms. When do we use the word Brassière vs the word bra, or which is the more prevalent word for the subject. However I don't agree with the keep rationale that it has been getting pageviews, as I'll quote the argument from the previous RfD that .. hits on this precise search term involves someone clicking on one of the autofill results as he begins to type in "Brassiere ...". Jay 💬 14:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine per Jay as seemingly the most useful to someone searching this. A7V2 (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Aspekt[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. Jay 💬 09:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at target; no other plausible target. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any mention of Aspekt on the internet so it should be deleted because it is not notable for inclusion in the article. A mention cannot be added. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 11:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like what happened was that there used to be an article at Aspekt that has an AfD discussion that concluded with an easy delete. The link was removed from the Anjunabeats article and eventually Aspekt was created to point there. Thanks to that AfD, I did find non-primary mentions linking both Aspekt and Anjunabeats, but WP:RSDISCOGS applies, WP:RSPAMAZON applies, and WP:MUSIC/SOURCES does not recommend the other three locations (Apple Music, Pandora, and Spotify) that has the information. That leaves the Anjunabeats website. A search gives some results: The have one modern single with two songs and have their songs on three albums and two additional singles, though their only song on the album Anjunabeats The Early Years 02 is just one of the songs from their single. Anyways, the connection is there, but Aspekt definitely isn't notable enough for a standalone article and there doesn't seem to be a non-primary source that we can link to at this time. Unless the primary source can be used to re-add Aspekt to the list on the target's article, the only valid option would be to delete again. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Minister of State for Care and Mental Health[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 Procedural keep. Page has been converted into an article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea which one of Minister of State for Social Care (UK) & Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Mental Health is the most appropriate target. There had been some moves and histmerge among these 3 pages, but it is quite difficult to understand what exactly happened due to the histmerge by Wbm1058. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect and rewritten the article to describe the office itself, given that it combines the two policy portfolios. Willwal1 (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per drafted article. Jay 💬 08:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

SouthAfrica[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 12#SouthAfrica

Afen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11#Afen

Charles III of England (disambiguation)[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 Charles III of England and restore that DAB (without prejudice against AfD). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless we're making pages for alternate dimension versions of real people, I'm pretty sure there's only one Charles III of England. MightyArms (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This was originally a redirect to Charles III of England, which was a DAB page that listed both Charles III and Charles Edward Stuart, who was a Jacobite pretender to the English throne referred to as Charles III of England. That DAB was converted to a redirect, but this was retargeted to this DAB by the creator of the redirect. The DAB Charles III (disambiguation) lists both Charles III and Charles Edward Stuart. TartarTorte 18:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging SkyWarrior as he was the one who converted the Charles III of England DAB into a redirect and retargeted this, so he can participate in the discussion. TartarTorte 18:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of this discussion. I have no opinion on whether this should be deleted or kept. SkyWarrior 00:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TartarTorte. Potentially could be converted to a separate dab but that's probably not necessary. A7V2 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore dab at Charles III of England and restore this redirect to there. Agree with nom that the redirect as of now is unhelpful. enwiki shows only Charles Edward Stuart as Charles III of England (and Scotland), however readers will most probably be looking for the current king. I'm willing to change my vote if there are convincing arguments otherwise. Jay 💬 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore per Jay and my arguments above. It's easier if located at a more precise DAB. TartarTorte 21:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with the suggestion to restore the dab at Charles III of England and target this there. I still don't agree with the suggestion that the current target is unhelpful, keeping would be my strong second choice. But I think due to the current Charles III not correctly being "of England" (though it's a common/plausible enough mistake to think he is) that disambiguation is most appropriate. A7V2 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I said the current target is not helpful because first I started scrolling the entries hoping to find England, then I noticed most names were from other parts of Europe. Then I searched in the page for England, and there was no mention (even for Charles Stuart). Jay 💬 17:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Destroy Dick December[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 as long as it's mentioned. Maybe a slightly unusual close, but there are many delete !votes based on an understanding (some correct at the time, some not, depending which side of this diff they were made on) that there is no relevant content at the article, meanwhile many keep !votes are conditional on the content being present in the article. So, the redirect should be kept, but if there is later a consensus to remove the relevant content from the article (actual consensus, not just bold removal), anyone can feel free to tag this redirect with {{db-xfd|votepage=Log/2022_December_4#Destroy Dick December|redirect=yes}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. This was an article before being merged to a section of the article. The section was then removed from the article for being not notable. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Or nuke from orbit. Either way, you've got to be kidding me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is deleted, we should remove references of this redirect at Template:Challenges and DDD. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't count as being "notable" when we have other completely "irrelevant" articles on Wikipedia. Yes, it's notable enough. Maybe not notable enough to be its own article, but it sure is enough to be its own section in the No Nut November page. RickinBaltimore gave no notable reason as to why it should be removed either, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Twistedaxe (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually Reflecktor who removed it. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 22:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing to show this phrase is notable. It's a "meme" that has no traction. The actual November article got coverage in a number of outlets, but this phrase is just a random meme. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment directly above. Reflecktor (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy does not appear at the article and most likely should not. Jontesta (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The section has been restored by @Yuugone: ~~ lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the section remains at the target. The notability of the section topic is a separate question, but this redirect should remain while the section remains, and it currently does as noted above. 193.37.240.120 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention was re-added to the target two days back, and this fact was commented upon at the RfD yesterday. Giving another week may help in finalizing its status at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete, - the content of the redirects was merged into the article, and should not be deleted without deleting the article too (or history merging/moving the redirect). Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia Christian75 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the content (in the article) is not there, the content (from the redirect) is not there. I could see weak restore article and send to WP:AFD being a middle ground here, but deletion of the whole shebang is probably more appropriate at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlikely, non-notable, search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable meme that seems too random and irrelevant for keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 01:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as it has a section in the article. It seems like a perfectly plausible search term. Whether it is non-notable seems backwards to consider for the redirect, that seems like something that should be addressed on Talk:No Nut November on whether a "Destroy Dick December" section is appropriate for the article. Legoktm (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in light of the fact that most delete !votes are based on the premise that no relevant content is at the target, whereas content relevant to "Destroy Dick December" was added during this discussion and remains in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - rightly or wrongly the article seems to have stabilised with this section being a part of it, so we should direct would-be searchers to what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as there is a mention in the article. It takes the readers where they expect to find some info about the topic. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 10:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Rank and file (chess)[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 Chess#Setup. (non-admin closure) Clyde!Franklin! 01:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned in the lead section of Chess. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 20 November 2022 (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, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine target to Chess#Setup. It is explained well and readers will gain knowledge from where the retarget will take them to. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Timeline of Square[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. There was an early discussion here about disambiguation which itself found no consensus on what content would be included on such a page, as well as no consensus to disambiguate; later, there were many votes to delete conditional on satisfying attribution, however the pasting of the flat text history of the page into another does not satisfy attribution as there is no indication of which content was contributed by which editor, therefore the conditional deletes are invalid. Thus, overall there is no consensus, and I don't think a fourth relist of this almost four-month-old discussion is going to help. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this target Block, Inc.#History (formerly known as Square, Inc., target of the redirect for that name) or Square (financial services)#History? I lean toward the latter. (N.B., I just re-refined this from nonexistent section § Timeline.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig between Block, Inc.#History, Square (financial services)#History and Square (video game company)#History. Jay 💬 08:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also fine with moving without redirect to one of the alternate titles suggested by Uanfala. The AfD of Timeline of Square had suggested that it is unusual to have timeline articles for companies, and probably DAB pages too, per Uanfala's point about subtopic disambiguation. Jay 💬 10:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Jay. I have added the proposed disambiguation at the bottom of the page. BD2412 T 04:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to something like Timeline of Square Inc. or Timeline of Square (financial services company) in order to keep the article history here at a related title. Then retarget Timeline of Square to the dab section Square (disambiguation)#Brands and enterprises, which lists the three articles whose history sections have been linked in the draft dab above. I'm really not keen on disambiguating separately here, as that would mean we should be expected to create similar dab pages for the all commensurate subtopics of the thousands and thousands of articles with ambiguous names. – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC) -- Update: I continue to favour keeping the article history somewhere, but as for the fate of the title Timeline of Square, I won't object to deletion: such a redirect seems implausible, but I weakly favour retargeting in order to help any readers who may be arriving at this title get to the nearest best thing. – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#History of Bingo. We would need a discussion around subtopic disambiguation. Jay 💬 07:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see why that may be tempting in the context of a single RfD, but I thought it would obviously be a bad idea on account of how it doesn't scale up: there are over 400,000 dab pages, and probably the great majority of these will include articles with commensurate sets of subtopics. If we tried creating similar subtopic dabs for the rest of Wikipedia, we'd likely need to double the number of existing dab pages several times over. In this particular case, there's also another factor that makes such a dab less desirable: none of the linked articles contain actual timelines (one, maybe two, of those article's history sections feel a bit like timelines, but that's down to poor writing that should hopefully get improved in the future). – Uanfala (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. "Timeline" is not proper, and it may be moved to something like History of Square. Agree that subtopic disambiguation is a bad idea in the long term. Jay 💬 02:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is. Not seeing what the problem is here. "Square" was the former name for "Block, Inc." so it isn't a misleading redirect any more than any other rename would leave things as misleading (e.g. some "Timeline of OldCompanyName"). SnowFire (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are assuming that Block is the primary topic for things that could have timelines named "Square". There is more than one former company named Square. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a devout player of all the non-MMO Final Fantasies, I'm familiar with Japanese Square-pre-Enix, but I also don't think it's a problem until someone creates a "Timeline of Square" article (or at least a "Timeline of Square and Square Enix" article). If such an article is created, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. SnowFire (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire: By "don't think it's a problem", are you saying the ambiguity mentioned in the nomination statement is not a problem? How is a target of Block, Inc.#History better or more primary than Square (financial services)#History or Square (video game company)#History? Jay 💬 10:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, it's not a problem. To me, talking about "ambiguity" inherently means ambiguity on Wikipedia, not in the entire dictionary. As such, it's only worth worrying about when/if there is a competing article. In other words, if there was a redirect called XYZ of Apple, it wouldn't really matter if it went to the company, the fruit, or something else. Only if there were at least two senses on Wikipedia is it a concern. More generally, redirects are cheap. Having a merged article persist as a redirect is harmless, no need to create tiny disambiguation pages every time this happens.
    I will say that I have no objection to moving the article history to somewhere else if truly desired, e.g. Timeline of Square (financial services company) per Uanfala. I'd just keep the old title as the existing harmless redirect it is since there isn't any ambiguity-on-Wikipedia until somebody writes that timeline-of-Square-the-Japanese-company. SnowFire (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're either not getting what the nom, Mellohi and I are saying, or I'm not getting your point. We're talking about the redirect title "Timeline of Square" regardless of whether it used to be an article in the past. On the English Wikipedia, there are three claimants for that title. I'll sign off by saying I don't see how you don't see the ambiguity. Jay 💬 18:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I amend my previous delete vote into disambiguate. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, none of the proposed targets have a timeline section or even mention the word "timeline". The merged content from the aforementioned AfD has been removed, so the history does not need to be kept. Nevertheless, the timeline section has been preserved at Talk:Block, Inc./Archive 1#Timeline. -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tavix, deleting the history will make it impossible to repair the attribution of the content in the talk page section you've linked to. The copyright policy applies to all of Wikipedia, not just the articles. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My recollection of WP:MAD was a bit fuzzy. One of the options for what a merge and delete may look like is to paste the page history at the talk page, not the page content. I have now rectified that. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Tavix. Timeline and history are not synonymous. None of the company articles have formal timelines, though some of their history sections are closer. Second choice would be move and retarget per Uanfala. I'm not fond of the idea of a standalone disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. That, and a disambiguation page would be confusing since this is a generalized phrase to define subconcepts and not the name of a subject itself. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and Steel1943. signed, Rosguill talk 06:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. Very ambiguous term. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only if this section is considered to be enough to satisfy the attribution requirements. Otherwise, keep for now. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete as per Super Goku V. 141Pr 20:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

List of ancient Jedi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#List of ancient Jedi

Anno reparatae salutis humanae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11#Anno reparatae salutis humanae

Mud hen[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/retarget. Sentence case redirects should target American coot and the title case redirects should target Toledo Mud Hens. Existing disambiguation page at Mudhen to be moved to Mud hen (disambiguation) with the resulting redirect retargeted to American coot as a primary redirect. WP:NACINVOLVED close (as nom) per de facto close by Jay below. (non-admin closure) Mdewman6 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the current WP:DIFFPLURAL setup here is fine, and we just need hatnotes, or whether they should all target the article about the animal (which gets more views, and is the namesake for the baseball team), or maybe the capitalized forms should target the team. Additionally, there are other uses of the term too, such as a description for a certain coloration of lake trout that might warrant a disambiguation page, though not sure whether it should be at one of these titles. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: Mud Hens and Mud Hen are redirected to the baseball team. The other two to American coot. Create the Mud hen (disambiguation) page and add hatnotes that link to the disambiguation page and the other topic. If a person is looking for the baseball team, they would prabably search with a capitalized title. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 12:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roost:, that sounds fine to me. I just noticed there is already a dab page at Mudhen, which should probably be moved to Mud hen (disambiguation) (with mudhen redirected to the target of mud hen) and expanded/updated (one existing entry violates MOS:DABMENTION). I can handle that and add hatnotes pending the outcome of this Rfd. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mdewman6: I was going to close this with what was decided in agreement, but since you have volunteered to handle the changes, can you go ahead and make (the involved) close and finish up the changes? Jay 💬 08:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Gem corn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11#Gem corn

Hurricane, Mississippi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Hurricane, Mississippi

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_4&oldid=1135565874"