Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24

February 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2022.

Constitutive nations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Constitutive nations

Noguera Ribagorzana/Noguera Ribagorçana

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 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noguera Ribagorzana/Noguera Ribagorçana → Noguera Ribagorçana (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Noguera Ribagorzana/Noguera Ribagorçana (river) → Noguera Ribagorçana (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is an overly complicated redirect that I believe is left over from a page move. No pages link to this page so there would not be any link corrections if this page was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled Noguera Ribagorzana/Noguera Ribagorçana (river). Delete both as implausible with the double name; nowhere online besides Wikipedia mirrors do they appear, and it looks like they totaled just 125 pageviews since 2015. eviolite (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking that other one down, I didn't know about it. Yes, they should both be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 25 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Galgalátz

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 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Nowhere in the article is Galgalatz reffered to with this diacritic.

Google shows only 4 results, none of them referring to the station itself as so.

In its 15 years of existence it only managed to get 38 pageviews, with an average and mean of 0 daily pageviews, according to this. QuickQuokka ^[talk] 20:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Galgalatz is a transliteration of גלגלצ, per WP:NCHEBREW á is not a transliterated Hebrew letter. Bonoahx (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was originally some content in the page, but that was part of a short-lived cut-and-paste move with Galgalatz (see early history). See Talk:Galgalátz#Incorrect Redirections for context. Apparently the accent has something to do with stressed syllables (according to that talk page section, also: Wiktionary has a similar system and I found a mention of it in this book). However, given that I cannot find any English use of accented Hebrew vowels outside of those examples or with the specific name Galgalatz, and that there have only been 38 pageviews since 2015 (not since it was created, though, because the Pageviews tool doesn't go back that far), I think there is justification to delete. eviolite (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. It serves no purpose and never will. --Muhandes (talk) 16:34, 26 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Il buio oltre la siepe

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 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Il buio oltre la siepe → To Kill a Mockingbird (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular affinity between To Kill a Mockingbird and Italian _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom QuickQuokka ^[talk] 20:16, 24 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Russian invasion of Ukraine

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 List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine. This target also fulfills the function of a disambiguation (with more context) by prominently linking the various conflicts this may refer to. If it is incomplete, please feel free to add other sourced entries to the list. Those arguing that the current invasion is the primary topic, while well argued, are clearly in the minority here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Russian invasion of the Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Russian attack on Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Russia invaded Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The following are Closed as retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine by Facts707 at 05:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC):
- Invasion of Ukraine → List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Invasion of ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Invasion in Ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Invasion in ukraine → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirected to Russo-Ukrainian War until I retargeted it in January to Invasion of Ukraine, a SIA I have since turned into the list List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine. NorsemanII has seen fit to edit-war with me by retargeting to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine despite me twice saying to take it to RfD, so I'll do what they lacked the decency to (without conceding that their actions are procedurally valid; if I were a more spiteful person I would have brought this to ANEW rather than here).

I propose to restore previous target (List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine) and restore hatnote at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact that this redirect previously pointed to two different Russian invasions of Ukraine (2014 Crimean crisis at creation, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) (which became Russo-Ukrainian War after that) should be evidence enough that this is ambiguous. It's not even unambiguous within the current conflict: As the list documents, Russian forces have been described as invading Ukraine twice in this war: Donbas in 2014 in the early phases of the War in Donbas, and (as characterized by some sources) Crimea a few months before that. Furthermore, the whole war has been characterized as an invasion, something I learned when cleaning up links to this redirect after I targeted it. Multiple articles referred to the whole war as the "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Furthermore, Russian forces from the Soviet Union twice invaded Ukraine in the 1910s, again as documented in the list.

I appreciate that the 2022 invasion is the most currently relevant one, but I'm not aware of any occasion in the past that that's been used to justify redirecting to a non-primary topic. See WP:RECENTISM.

I would not hugely object to refining this to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine#Russo-Ukrainian War, although that would skip past the 1910s invasions (sort of a semantic question of whether "Russian" here means "by Russia" or "by Russians").

Some procedural notes:

Russian invasion of the Ukraine bundled as an {{avoided double redirect}}.
Whatever the outcome here, redirects like Russian invasion of Donbas should probably be created to match it.
Whatever the outcome here, can we try to get this done in 24-72 hours? This is an incredibly high-visibility redirect and I think some deviation from standard procedure is justified.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Adding the year date will be helpful until a common name for this event has been decided on by the general population. Deathstar3548 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bundling Russian attack on Ukraine, which I think is even more ambiguous, as basically everyone agrees Crimea was an attack, and many individual battles and incursions could be described that way as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Support ~~Why not make it a disambig? Seems like the policy compliant answer to multiple potential targets.~~ Concern addressed belowSlywriter (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter: I think the list, which is fairly short, serves to disambiguate. I originally had this as a SIA for just that reason, but it got a bit more detailed than I thought made sense for one. I'm not necessarily opposed to disambiguating, but I think it would be somewhat redundant with having a list. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misread the redirects, support as it does serve the purposeSlywriter (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the list's format a bit to hopefully make it a bit easier to see which invasions have been by Russia (or for that matter the USSR). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination as these really are too ambiguous; targeting the list is probably the right thing to do. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - too ambiguous at this time and clear recentism. eviolite (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. If Russian invasion of Donbas is created, Russian invasion of Donbass should also be used as this is the Russian (and formerly standard English) spelling. —AFreshStart (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a disambig. page It can also refer to Russo-Ukrainian War (same conflict) and Ukrainian War of Independence, i.e. the conquest of Ukrainian People's Republic by Russian Bolsheviks. This is not the first occasion when Ukraine was invaded by "Russians". My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: Is my proposed target (List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine) inadequate for that purpose? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but excluding WWII, i.e. occupations by Nazi. Of course the similarity with Nazi occupation is unmistakable (see ru:Двадцать второго июня, ровно в четыре часа, a famous Soviet poem/song about Kiev being bombed by Nazi in 4am; now it was in 5am), but this is still another subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, seems like a fair argument. Bonoahx (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current target: The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine dwarfs the prior Russian incursions/occupations of Ukraine. The vast majority of English-speaking Wikipedians searching for "Russian invasion of Ukraine" almost certainly are (and for the foreseeable future will be) referring to this. Of course, for those who are not, the article has a disambig tag at the top linking to the list of other possibilities. This is in line with how we handle redirects for other major conflicts with an obvious intended meaning, see for example:
- "Invasion of Iraq" -> 2003 invasion of Iraq with a disambig tag at the top for other invasions of Iraq besides the obvious one.
- "Invasion of Afghanistan" -> United States invasion of Afghanistan with a redirect tag at the top for people who might have meant a different invasion from the obvious one, like the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
- "Invasion of Grenada" -> United States invasion of Grenada, though there's a redirect template at the top for people who meant to go to Capture of Grenada (1779) (by the French).
- "Invasion of Poland" refers to the 1939 invasion by Germany and the Soviet union, but there's an about tag if you were looking for the Slovak invasion of Poland or for other invasions of Poland, it links to Invasion of Poland (disambiguation).
- "Russian invasion of Georgia" -> Russo-Georgian War (the recent one in 2008), though there's a 'for' template at the top for anyone who meant the Red Army invasion of Georgia in 1921.
For those who have commented already, or will comment after this, I would ask that you indicate what you expect to find when you search for "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Is it the current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or were you actually expecting to be sent to a list of times when Ukraine was invaded by various countries (not just Russia) (this page is the actual nominated suggestion to revert to!) so that you can pick out which one you meant? Personally, I'd rather have Wikipedia take me directly to the page I'm most likely trying to find, but give me options at the top if it wasn't what I expected, just like we do with all of the other examples I've cited. -NorsemanII (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the examples you gave, Invasion of Iraq and Invasion of Afghanistan both should be DABs. Especially the latter, since the Soviet invasion is a more significant historical event than the U.S. invasion. I'll open discussions about both of them later. (Glad to see you finally feel like participating at RfD, by the way.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Russian invasions of Ukraine include April 1659, November 1708, May 1775, January 1918, January 1919, May 1920, arguably September 1939, February 2014 (Crimea), March 2014 (Strilkove, Kherson oblast), April 2014 (parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), July 2014 to February 2015 (mechanized formations at Ilovaisk and Debaltseve), and February 2022. Primacy of 2022 is 1-day recentism, because for eight years it’s been 2014. —Michael Z. 02:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there might be a disconnect here between consistency in forming redirects and delivering the content that readers are looking for. I think, at this moment in time, it is not egregious to point a huge number of readers to our primary article on a recent crisis. I'm not casting a vote here because with all of the alternatives mentioned in this discussion (above), I'm not sure what I'd be voting for or against. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In complete honesty this is a very minor action I do however feel as though this redirect link is extremely important, one of if not the most used hyperlink for the Russian-Ukrainian war, I think there is a consensus to the new invasion, and via the Wikipedia:Snowball clause it would be preferable to establish it quickly. Des Vallee (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Des Vallee: Can you clarify what you mean by "I think there is a consensus to the new invasion"? Should "Russian invasion of Ukraine" link here (1) or here (2)? I agree that this needs to get sorted out quickly, so I'll go with whatever you pick. -NorsemanII (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NorsemanII: I think 2 is the one which suffers less of WP:CURRENT, even if the vast majority of current discussion is on the new invasion. I do however think there is a stronger consensus for the 2022 invasion among this redirect, which I am also personally fine with. Des Vallee (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I actually came to this redirect looking for information about historical invasions. Fephisto (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support reversion in order to keep things stable, but whatever the target is, if not the 2022 invasion, please place a hatnote to the 2022 invasion page for the ease of readers. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the number of historical invasions by Russia into Ukraine is very notable.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added "Invasion of Ukraine" which was changed to the 2022 invasion today. I reverted that change before finding this discussion. MB 17:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: The arguments for and against there are significantly different from the "Russian" variants. Perhaps that should be its own RfD? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, Since it was targeted to the same place, I think it's ok to discuss here, even if the final target is different than the others - especially since there seems to be no consensus yet and this will probably be open for a while. On the other hand, I have no objection to separating it either. MB 01:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Factual note: the Bolshevik Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (under various official names) invaded Ukraine in the 1910s: the Soviet Union didn’t exist until Ukraine contributed to constituting it in 1922. —Michael Z. 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Moved to correct place in discussion.] This is a good point, Mzajac, and I think strengthens my argument that the ambiguity of "Russian invasion" extends back to the invasions 100 years ago. (I've also updated the list to reflect this correction.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing "Invasion of Ukraine" and very similar as retarget to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine per apparent consensus and time sensitivity. Not closing "Russian invasion of..." at this time. Facts707 (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend keeping "Russian invasion of Ukraine" and very similar as redirect to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, at least until current invasion is resolved. Previous Russian invasions in 1910s were as Russian...Soviet Socialist Republics, and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and War in Donbas are already clearly not as important/notable as the current invasion of the entire country. Facts707 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bundling Russia invaded Ukraine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is such a confusing discussion, with so many alternatives proposed, that I don't think this RFD discussion will be closed by any administrator. Better to make a fresh proposal with a clear objective and outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the primary topic of the four remaining redirects are the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The only possible alternative is the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that is both less prominent and will remain less prominent, and typically uses names related to its limited scope. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - I like the idea of pointing this to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine because it puts the desired content 1 click away no matter which invasion is meant, and also performs an educational service by giving an overview of the history. However, the precedents noted by User:NorsemanII are persuasive. Even more persuasive is the sheer imbalance of traffic. Looking at daily page views we have millions at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and thousands at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, meaning nearly everyone is interested in the current conflict only. So making the 2022 invasion the target actually makes a lot of sense right now and will save a lot of clicking. Once the current conflict is over and interest has subsided, it might be appropriate to revisit the issue and look at the balance of traffic once again. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 5 March 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Genially

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why? Is this somehow related to the Genially commercial product? Not that it is mentioned at the redirect target or anywhere else in Wikipedia that I can see. Otherwise nothing to do with "genius". What to do with it? Wiktionary? Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not on Wiktionary, then I think it can be put there. I'm not sure whether the product Genially would be considered notable enough for its own article though. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being a logical search term or shortcut for the target. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. "Genial" as an adjective can be defined as "being marked by genius", but this is not the primary meaning of the word, and is less likely to be used as an adverb, so keeping as {{R from adverb}} seems unwise. The page Genial does not to refer to the adjective, so it shouldn't be retargeted there, and with multiple definitions, there is no single best place article to retarget to. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone looking for the commercial product is not going to find it at the current target, or anywhere else on enwiki. Someone looking for the dictionary meaning would look for genial (and not find it there either, but that's not a point of discussion for this adverb redirect). Jay (talk) 17:49, 3 March 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 the appropriate discussion page.

ICC International umpire panel

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. ✗plicit 13:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICC International umpire panel → International Panel of ICC Umpires (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is just an unnecessary redirects with typo. No need to keep this one. Sony R (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a typo; a fine alternative name. No reason to delete, but much to keep. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets a reasonable amount of pageviews, averaging about 5 a day since 2015 eviolite (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't find any typo here. Genuine case of {{R from modification}}. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 15:42, 26 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

General audience

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. By the way, @George Ho, it's better to draft a DAB beneath the RfD template on the page itself than in draftspace. If you do it in draftspace, only an admin or pagemover can close the RfD, whereas if you do it on the page itself, no advanced permissions are required. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General audience → Public (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

General Audience → Audience (meeting) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I thought both redirects would mean the same thing. Vatican News uses the title casing phrase for the Pope's meeting. However, Al Jazeera uses lowercasing one to mean the same meeting. Furthermore, I also thought "general audience" would mean viewership or popular culture. Also, the title casing one may also mean one of movie appropriateness ratings in various countries. George Ho (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig by turning General audience into a DAB and redirecting General Audience there, per nom. Veverve (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though consensus has been reached, a draft DAB is still needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: Draft:General audience is created. --George Ho (talk) 07:17, 24 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Avgp

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 AVGP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mis-capitalization, implausible BilCat (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retarget to corrected-spelling AVGP (disambiguation). That dab page (which was originally at Avgp and moved to the misspelled AGVP (disambiguation) by the nominator, creating the redirect we're discussing) includes mixed-case meanings, as dab pages like this one do, so we should allow mixed-case redirects to it. And redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and I concur with you. I didn't realize the original was mispelled by ~~another user~~ me, but I should have been more careful. Nomination withdrawn. BilCat (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to AVGP, the current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Sawol (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (revert move to the incorrectly spelled "AGVP") AVGP (disambiguation) to avgp, it's closer to AvgP than AVGP -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no entry that is avgp (all lowercase), "avgp" is not a word, and per WP:DABNAME When no word can be formed, all capitals is preferred.. Jay (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to AVGP, the primary, per Sawol. Jay (talk) 06:05, 3 March 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Michelle Davis (blogger)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Michelle Davis (blogger)

Yugoslavia-redirects

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 Former Yugoslav republics, Ex-Yugoslavia, Former Yugoslavia kept, Yugosphere deleted.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former Yugoslav republics → Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ex-Yugoslavia → Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia#Legacy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Former Yugoslavia → Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia#Legacy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Yugosphere → Yugoslavia#Yugosphere (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

All this redirects target different articles, I think that they should lead into one page. Heanor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFRY is the common meaning, it's just a question of where to describe Yugosphere. Honestly I'm not sure if it should even exist, because all we really have about it is that it's a novelty neologism, that part is barely referenced (tagged as problematic since 2012!), and everything else is OR editorializing and conflation of Yugonostalgia and a description of Serbo-Croatian (which leaves unanswered the question of how Slovenia and Macedonia fit in going forward). All the incoming links to it seem to be pipe links or duplication or in one case an error (that I just removed). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia#New states may be a better common target, although I feel the expected content on Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia#Legacy would be almost the same. I could imagine theoretically better topics for Yugosphere to redirect to, but in the meantime directing to either of those two article sections makes sense (it having its own subheader seems quite undue). CMD (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be a bit stuck here... maybe just soft redirect Yugosphere to wikt:Yugosphere as WP:POINTWIKT? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yugosphere and keep the others, given the lack of useful information at the current target. Searching for Yugosphere on GScholar suggests that it's probably independently notable, or notable together with other buzzwords for the continuity of linguistic/cultural connections across the former Yugoslav states. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 2 March 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Cornis

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. With no prejudice for the redirect to be converted to a disambiguation page with the suggestions that came up in the discussion. Retargetting to Moravița (Bârzava) for now, as there was no support for the current target. Jay (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornis → List of Formula One constructors (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target (this is primarily since while such a manufacturer probably existed (possibly just as a rebranded Kurtis Kraft), it was not a Formula One car as the Indy 500 was not a Formula One race while it counted to the championship from 1950-60). The only mentions I can find are at List of Formula One fatalities and Bob Cortner though I would struggle to call these even mentions, so I don't think either would be a suitable target unless Bob Cortner could be expanded to include some information about the cars. I also see online that this may be a plausible misspelling of "cornice" but I think deletion would be best. A7V2 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Moravița (Bârzava) (the target of Cornis River) and hatnote for Cornice and wikt:cornis. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. The 1959 Indianapolis 500 was a F1 race, but this has a much better potential target. If Cornis Engineering is ever created we can come back to this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly wasn't a Formula One race. As any half decent source on the subject will say (including for example, 1959 Formula One season), it was a round of the World Drivers' Championship, but was run for USAC specification cars, not F1 cars. Though non-F1 constructors are listed at List of Formula One constructors#Indianapolis 500 only, I think the actual reason for Cornis not being listed is since it didn't take part in a Championship race, just qualifying. A7V2 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. "Cornis" isn't any less incorrect a spelling for the Corniș River as it is for Cornice. Still, it is plausible for both, and given that the search engine is only of help for the former, then a disambiguation page will be in the best interest of readers. If it's created, it may be worth considering whether to also include a link for pl:Cornis Engineering, and for the search results for "Kornis" and "Cornies". If there is consensus against dabifying, then deletion is preferable to retargeting. – Uanfala (talk) 16:13, 28 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Over expression

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 Glossary of genetics#overexpression. (non-admin closure) Heanor (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over expression → Gene expression (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Overexpression → Glossary of genetics#O (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Over-expression → Protein production (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This phrase (Over expression) is not mentioned in the target article (Gene expression), leaving the connection between the redirect and the article unclear. (The term "over-expressed" is in the target article, but it's not defined in a way where it is clear this term is exclusive to the subject of the article.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Overexpression is a redirect to Glossary of genetics#O, where the term is defined. - Eureka Lott 21:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note:"Over expression" as a link was only in Caenorhabditis elegans as [[over expression|over-expression]]. Which I have now unpiped. Over-expression is a redirect with target protein production. I would suggest all three forms are best redirected there. Over-expression of genes, for proteins, is a big deal, for example in cancer research. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have bundled Overexpression and Over-expression to the discussion, and taken liberties to add bracketed terms to the nomination statement. Feel free to revert if it does not help this discussion. Jay (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the redirect to the directory. It could ap�ply to most genes. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What directory are you referring to - is it the glossary? And which redirect? Jay (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Re)target all to Glossary of genetics#O as {{R to list entry}}. Seems like the cleanest solution here, giving a succinct definition, and then allowing the term to be blue linked in genetics articles where it is used, if desired, rather than choosing a mention in an article to target. The term can be used in a variety of contexts, so choosing gene expression or protein production seems unwise. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, refine that to Glossary of genetics#overexpression. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Binding antibody unit

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Binding antibody unit → Antibody#BAU (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This currently redirects to Antibody#BAU; not only does Antibody have no heading or anchor "BAU", the string "BAU" doesn't appear in the page text, and nor does the longform "Binding antibody unit".

Either this redirect should be converted to a separate article, or an appropriate section should be added to Antibody (or to an article about the binding assay process). Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support creating an article (or section) about this subject, because it is a relevant topic. However, it's not my area of expertise, so I couldn't write it. I just created the redirect and linked it to the most closely related topic at that time so that building infrastructure around it wouldn't be hindered until we have the article or section about it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I added a mini-section on this in the target article. This certainly needs improvement by experts on the topic. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a citation needed, and hope that the experts will be on it. Jay (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added some refs. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Matthiaspaul. Jay (talk) 06:10, 5 March 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 the appropriate discussion page.

The Death of the Moth

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 Virginia Woolf bibliography as an outcome all three commenters were okay with, even if two had other outcomes they preferred. (That said, DGG's preferred outcome is still possible, as (almost) any user can turn (almost) any redirect into an article at (almost) any time.) (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of the Moth → Virginia Woolf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target or discussed in any depth in any other article. This could be retargeted to Virginia Woolf bibliography, where there's at least a bit of bibliographic information, but the essay is probably notable in its own right—see e.g. Dubino 2013 (p. 9), Kranzler 1993, Sandbach-Dahlströ 2008, and conceivably also per WP:NBOOK #5—so deleting per WP:RDEL #10 would be preferable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expand I agree that the essay is probably notable in itself, and therefore instead of deleting the redirect, we should expand it into an article. Until we do , retargeting to V W bibliography would be more helpful. `` DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Virginia Woolf bibliography and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 24 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Mambo Kingz

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo Kingz → Bad Bunny discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misleading. Bad Bunny is not part of Mambo Kingz Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the artist is mentioned in the discography and biography. They might have a single that charted though so a page could be considered if there are articles to back it up. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, need hatnote to and from Mambo Kings. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for uninhibited search results. The subject is not specific to Bad Bunny. Jay (talk) 04:51, 2 March 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Brain Sucker

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#Brain Sucker

Junker (SS rank)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junker (SS rank) → SS-Junker Schools (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. As far as I can see, there is no mention of a corresponding rank as such within the given target. Hildeoc (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mention in the target article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a rank of the Waffen-SS mentioned at Fähnrich#Fahnenjunker until 1945. Jay (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 24 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Standartenjunker

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standartenjunker → SS-Junker Schools (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mention in the target article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a rank of the Waffen-SS mentioned at Fähnrich#Fahnenjunker until 1945. Jay (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 24 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Serbo-Romanian

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. (non-admin closure) Heanor (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Romanian → Vlach language in Serbia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect implies that the Romanian spoken in the Timok Valley, commonly known as "Vlach", is a mixed Serbian-Romanian variety, but this is false. See Talk:Vlach language in Serbia#RfC on the status of the article, there is consensus that it represents a Romanian variety. Super Ψ Dro 08:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Serbs of Romania which is the target of Serbian Romanian. Jay (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Romanians of Serbia? feminist (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the target of Romanian Serbian. See Association of Serbo-Macedonians which refers to Macedonians who identified with their Serbian identity. I am fine with a disambiguation too, just as we have for Serbo-Croatian (disambiguation). Jay (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Make Serbo-Romanian a disambiguation page, point Serbo–Romanian to it, and Romanian Serbian/Romanian-Serbian/Romanian–Serbian, and Serbian Romanian/Serbian-Romanian/Serbian–Romanian. Make entries for Romanians of Serbia and Serbs of Romania and Vlach language in Serbia (and explain why this is listed) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Elf cat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Elf cat

⊚

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was part of a bulk nomination about a month ago that was closed as a train wreck, but I think some of the redirects in that discussion merit individual discussion. This redirect points to a page on wiktionary that seems to have been created purely so that this redirect could exist and which is completely inadequate as a target. The wiktionary page contains, in it's entirety, an autogenerated infobox, a mangled version of the unicode character name and a message that someone needs to add a proper definition. The page contains basically no information on this symbol and I don't think it would help people searching for this. Do we have a suitable local target for this? perhaps a page on the mathematical operation this represents or a page on the symbol? If we have no proper coverage of this perhaps deletion would be preferable? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess this is close enough but it's still not quite the same I don't think. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this page doesn't discuss this symbol, doesn't contain any situations where you would use this symbol and doesn't mention circled rings I don't think that's a suitable target. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per my !vote in the last RfD, ~~delete for now~~, without prejudice against recreation of the Wiktionary entry gets a definition. Redirecting to an entry without definition is only the slightest step above redirecting to a redlink. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment someone added a definition on the 24th -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then keep :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its present state the Wiktionary entry is a useful target, and I've not found anything better locally. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 27 February 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 the appropriate discussion page.