Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 4[edit]

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

Draft:Dr. Sunny Singh Ahluwalia[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 Discussion is moot,. target has been deleted at AfD (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leftover of title-correcting move to Draft:Sunny Singh Ahluwalia; despite redirect creation being suppressed all the time when such in-draftspace moves take place, housekeeping speedy deletion on this one was declined, so here we are. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Literally zero benefit whatsoever to deleting this. This could very well be moot anyway, since the target is nominated for deletion anyway. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true: I and others many others active in the draftspace use Special:AllPages extensively, and since there is no way to filter out redirects, and no way to display more than 200 pages, the deletion of every completely unnecessary draftspace redirect, of which this is one, provides a benefit to this work. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Then the problem isn't this redirect, it's the fact that the special page doesn't allow you to filter them out. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Note, I've opened a discussion at Village pump technical about this issue. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oiyarbepsy. Fix your tools to work with the encyclopaedia rather than making changes to Wikipedia to make it nicer for your tools. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Making changes to Wikipedia to make it nicer for your tools" is something we do all the time. Even you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? You're going to have to explain that one. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You created Category:Templates with no visible output. That's a change to Wikipedia, presumably because you did not have a tool that would allow you to query those templates. Happy to give other examples if you need them for some reaon. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The origin of that category is explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates/Archive 4#categorising article-space templates with no visible output. I take the point though that the "making changes" wording in my original comment was overbroad. We should certainly not be deleting pages or making other changes that negatively impact readers' solely to work around deficiencies in editorial workflows/tools. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and suggest that UnitedStatesian review WP:PMRC. In general you should not be suppressredirect-moving out of draftspace unless one of those is met. (Although note that PMRC 9 includes such situations as publishing a G7-eligible draft you created, at least the way I read it.) I mention this because the other day I had to recreate a draft you suppressredirect moved out of process, which had broken a number of incoming links to a page that had been at the title in question for almost a year.
    Every time some someone starts an RfD to delete a redirect that should be kept under WP:RDRAFT, I say "Maybe there should be another RfC about RDRAFT", because it does seem a lot of people are unhappy with it. But no one ever starts the RfC, so we keep going 'round in circles, and I'll do my part here by saying: Maybe there should be another RfC abotu RDRAFT.
    On the technical side, you can use Special:PrefixIndex, or you can add the following code to your common.css
    .allpagesredirect {
	display:none;
}
    That will apply on AllPages even outside draftspace. There's planned changes to CSS that would allow refining this to just Special:AllPages/Draft:, but in the meantime perhaps someone better than I at JS could code a simple toggle button. This still doesn't pull the next page's contents in to fill it out to its max size (you get 200? I get 345), but still allows for quicker browsing than ignoring all italics. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, correction: The reason to keep this is not under RDRAFT, but rather under the broader principle that redirects should generally be left behind when pages are moved. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fully familiar with WP:PMRC and follow it; would you mind striking through all the text in your first point that does not apply in this case so people are not confused? The principle that redirects should generally be left behind when pages are moved applies in-draftspce only when the old page is correctly titled (do you really believe that I should have kept Draft:Move/Wilhelm von Wrangell (politician) when I moved it to Draft:Wilhelm von Wrangell? If so, you are welcome to recreate it and please accept my apologies for creating that extra work for you), and I believe an argument can be made that it does not apply at all to moves entirely in the draftspace (note that the draftspace is not indexed, and so breaking links from outside Wikipedia is not an issue) UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @UnitedStatesian: There's nothing for me to strike. People are able to understand which sentences of my comment apply directly to the situation at hand, and which are more general. Now, no, obviously no one should leave a redirect behind under Draft:Move during a round-robin, but that's a bit of a straw-man. You can't say in the same comment that you're following PMRC and that you routinely move drafts under a circumstance not listed at PMRC. The fact that draftspace isn't indexed doesn't mean that no one can link to it from other sites. If a newbie creates a draft for their favorite TVs how, then posts a link to the show's subreddit asking for help developing the draft, suppressredirect-moving that draft could confuse countless editors clicking through from that off-wiki source. Or the page's creator may have bookmarked the original URL. If you want to make it standard procedure to suppressredirect moves from bad titles within draftspace, start an RfC; please ping me if you do. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The {{Rfd}} tag on the nominated redirect was not on it for about 2.5 days due to a WP:CUTPASTE move from the target page; I have corrected that issue. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 7 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.

Lilla stjaerna[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 00:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related to previous discussions here and here, bot-created redirects for articles with Swedish- and Finnish-language titles with diacritic conversion which is not standard practice for those languages. Redirects do not help with navigation, and other redirects are in place to help with navigation without diacritics. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete aell this Euboet trash. These are noet laenguages with diaecritic coenversion, soe why do we need them lying aeround? Regaerds, SOENIC678 01:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bot-created, unhelpful redirects. Grk1011 (talk) 13:46, 5 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.

Integumental muscles[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 Integumentary system#Skin. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vague title, not exclusive to cats; I was considering retargeting to Integumentary system, but the word "muscle" is not mentioned in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 20:14, 4 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.

Moggy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Moggy

Communist holocaust[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. This is a very tricky discussion to close because there are several options that gained sizable support with no one obvious result emerging. There is also little support for the status quo, so the cop out of calling it no consensus would not be helpful. After a couple read-throughs, I noticed that disambiguating had the least amount of opposition amongst the options with sizable support. Furthermore, some (although not all) of the comments in support of a retarget to Red Holocaust can be read as an argument for disambiguating in general. As far as what the disambiguation will look like, all I'm doing is listing out the entries suggested here. Please feel free to add descriptions and refine as needed. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This dubious concept is not mentioned in the target article. The search results for the term largely bring up discussions on how Holocaust was treated / studied in the communist states post WWII [1], not mass killings under communist regimes. Borders on Holocaust trivialization. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you should ignore votes per WP:DEMOCRACY and act in accordance with what reliable sources say. As I demonstrated, they say nothing on "Communist holocaust". Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not matter if it was used "long before 'Holocaust trivialization' became a thing [sic]" (I am sure one can find Cold War era, fringe sources mentioning it), what matter is in what context and what scholarly sources say about — it is Holocaust trivialization and Holocaust obfuscation at worse. We should not treat it as anything other than that.
  • Goslan, Richard Joseph; Rousso, Henry, eds. (2004). Stalinism and Nazism: History and Memory Compared. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-803-29000-6.
  • Heni, Clemens (Fall 2008). "Secondary Anti-Semitism: From Hard-Core to Soft-Core Denial of the Shoah". Jewish Political Studies Review. 20 (3/4). Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: 73–92. JSTOR 25834800. Contrary to the hard-core version, soft-core denial is often not easily identifiable. Often it is tolerated, or even encouraged and reproduced in the mainstream, not only in Germany. Scholars have only recently begun to unravel this disturbing phenomenon. Manfred Gerstenfeld discusses Holocaust trivialization in an article published in 2008. In Germany in 2007 two scholars, Thorsten Eitz and Georg Stötzel, published a voluminous dictionary of German language and discourse regarding National Socialism and the Holocaust. It includes chapters on Holocaust trivialization and contrived comparisons, such as the infamous 'atomic Holocaust', 'Babycaust,' 'Holocaust of abortion', 'red Holocaust' or 'biological Holocaust.'
  • Hackmann, Jörg (March 2009). "From National Victims to Transnational Bystanders? The Changing Commemoration of World War II in Central and Eastern Europe". Constellations. 16 (1). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell: 167–181. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2009.00526.x. A coining of communism as 'red Holocaust,' as had been suggested by the Munich Institut fur Zeitgeschichte, did not find much ground, neither in Germany nor elsewhere in international discussions.
  • Voicu, George (2018). "Postcommunist Romania's Leading Public Intellectuals and the Holocaust". In Florian, Alexandru (ed.). Holocaust Public Memory in Postcommunist Romania, Studies in Antisemitism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 41–71. ISBN 978-0-253-03274-4.
  • Those sources use 'red Holocaust' because 'communist holocaust' is not used at all in scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was not good enough already, see also those scholarly sources for further context about the Holocaust and Communism:
  • Retarget to Steven Rosefielde#Red Holocaust. This seems like a thing a reasonable person could search when looking for Rosefielde’s book, so it would be appropriate to redirect there. Should the book be given its own article in the future, that article should be the redirect target by the above logic. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's only one of the things called "Red Holocaust," and it's not necessarily what readers might be looking for when they search for "communist holocaust". Levivich 03:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order of preference: (1) retarget to Red Holocaust and add an entry to that disambiguation page for "communist holocaust" pointing to Holocaust trivialization#Red holocaust; or (2) retarget to Holocaust trivialization#Red holocaust; or (3) delete. I have a preference towards steering readers who are looking for "communist holocaust" to Holocaust trivialization#Red holocaust so that the reader can learn what "communist holocaust" is (and isn't). But, I think it's better to do that "steering" at the dab page Red Holocaust rather than with a direct redirect (ha!) because people searching for "communist holocaust" may be looking for one of the things called "Red Holocaust". If there's no consensus to do either of these, then I'd say delete the redirect. Under no circumstances should it remain a redirect to the MKUCR article, because that wouldn't meet WP:V or WP:NPOV (since there's no such thing as a communist holocaust). Levivich 03:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there is no reason to assume anyone searching for such a term would be looking for any specific article. It isn't a term used in academia, and outside of that it could be argued to refer to multiple topics. If we have to guess what it is supposed to refer to, we don't need it. And yes, one of several interpretations is Holocaust obfuscation, which Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be indulging in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. From the stats, it looks to be a somewhat used term. While the current target of Mass killings under communist regimes is useful sometimes, the Holocaust trivialization destination is also plausible. Also Holodomor. Red Holocaust is a distinct term, and while it may be sensible to have an 'Also see' on the Dab, I don't think we should be overloading the Red Holocaust page. It's probably not so good to retarget to Red Holocaust unless we have some evidence that this is a common-enough mistake in search terms; it's possibly better for some user to interact with the perfectly good Search function. Chumpih. (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC) + 2022-01-08 14:20[reply]
  • Delete - Worthless. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Red Holocaust per User:X-Editor or Disambiguate per User:Chumpih. Term was in usage long before "Holocaust trivialization" became a thing, as ngram shows, and drilling down into the results shows several different meanings. --Nug (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGFing this was inadvertent, but the ngram you posted is highly misleading because it is set to case-sensitive and your search terms are not using the right cases ("Communist holocaust", "red holocaust", "Holocaust trivialization"). Here is the case-insensitive version, which shows something completely different: [2]. Since your !vote is based on the incorrect ngram, I trust this new information will change your !vote. Levivich 15:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dang, you are indeed right, there is a significant change for "red holocaust" when ngram is set to case-insensitive. However the result for "Communist holocaust" and "Holocaust trivialization" alone remain mostly the same[3], confirming that "Communist holocaust" was in usage long before "Holocaust trivialization", so my !vote won't be changed. --Nug (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't think you know enough about how NGrams work to be basing an argument on them. There's a reason why "Holocaust trivialization" remains the same in both case-sensitive and case-insensitive versions: it's because the entire Ngram for "Holocaust trivialization" is based on one result. See the note here: [4] (Search for "holocaust trivialization" yielded only one result.). But we know there is more than one instance of that phrase appearing in the literature, by searching for the phrase at Google Scholar or Google Books, and it wasn't hard for me to find an example of Holocaust trivialization in the early post-war period: Here is it's discussed in a 1948 issue of Yale French Studies. Considering that the Holocaust occured in the 1940s, I doubt very much that there are any examples of "Communist holocaust" from much earlier than 1945 (and I can't find any). What this shows is that the corpus searched by NGrams is incomplete (a fact well-known, and this is one of the famous weaknesses of NGrams). In other words, NGrams isn't providing any helpful information here at all. Levivich 18:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have Jstor access, but can't find it in the 1948 issues of Yale French Studies, could you provide a page number? WRT Search for "holocaust trivialization" yielded only one result., I think that means Ngram is returning one result dataset out of the many possible capitalizations of the phrase "Holocaust trivialization". For an understanding of how ngram works this guide is useful. I'm pretty confident that ngram is showing a valid result. --Nug (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Red Holocaust. The term does appear in books like here [5] and other places like this. Yes, this is probably a Holocaust trivialization, but why it matters? As soon as a term appears in any sources, having such redirect (this is not a regular page) is helpful merely for the purpose of navigation. It does not matter if the term is "scholarly" or was used only in a small number of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source is about discussion of the Holocaust in the Soviet bloc, so it has nothing to do with the current target (it appears as though you just went to cherry pick sources saying "Holocaust" and "Communism" rather than a neutral research), and the second source just proves that it is a right-wing talking point to discuss all the killings under Communism as an holocaust, which is indeed a form of Holocaust trivialization, and by using the term to redirect at MKuCR, Wikipedia is engaging in trivialization and giving weight to such Holocaust obfuscations. No wonder scholars complain of our coverage about the Holocaust. Davide King (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. It does not matter if it was "right"/"left"/propaganda/Holocaust trivialization/science/cultural wars. It only matters that that the expression appear to exist in real life (not necessarily even in reliable sources). Therefore, the redirect helps navigating WP pages, and this is the only purpose of redirects. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not missing the point because the only appropriate and neutral redirect is Holocaust trivialization per sources. It is very much relevant per what Tamzin written below. Davide King (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do not have to be neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources", which does not seem to be the case, and opinion pieces are not generally reliable, as additional consiederations apply. Neutrality is not even the main issue (I also mentioned 'appropriate'), the thing is that scholarly sources see it as Holocaust trivialization; hence, that should be the target that does contextualize it (what do you think it should target to?), which would not be a deletion, so I do not see what is your point. Davide King (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Red Holocaust. Whether is is a scholarly expression is important, but readers may also look for said expression. Veverve (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs its own disambig page per User:Chumpih, since the term could also refer to History_of_the_Jews_in_Czechoslovakia#Communist_period, not to mass killing but to the complete destruction of jewish religious life. --Nug (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The specific claim in the section that the Orthodox Jewish community calls this period the "Communist Holocaust" strikes me as an exceptional claim, one which I am unable to find any additional evidence for on Google Scholar. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chumpih t 17:55, 4 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.

Frozenness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Frozenness

Madalsa Sharma Chakraborty[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 Speedy Close. No longer a redirect (non-admin closure) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 08:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created due to page move which was done “just for fun”. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's her name and I don't see any spelling errors. This redirect should obviously exist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a legitimate redirect created by a move. But I suggest that move is reverted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loriendrew and @Shhhnotsoloud, would you be okay with closing this as wrong forum? It seems that the real issue is reverting the page rename. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:08, 6 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.

Beckton Riverside[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Beckton Riverside

IPad Air (5th generation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#IPad Air (5th generation)

Template:Aleph[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#Template:Aleph

Book 9[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 (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting the vague title Book 9 to a book series that happens to have a book #9 isn't useful or helpful Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:50, 4 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.

Book 2[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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title is too vague to be useful, this is similar to the Book 3 redirect that was nominated a couple of days ago Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:46, 4 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.

Cat breeding[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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is about the breeds of cats, not about the act of breeding cats. Compare to Dog breeding, which is an article; as such, this redirect should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Cattery -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks as though the appropriate section redirect for that would be Cattery#Breeding cattery, but that identifies a possibly place where breeding may occur, not the act or the practice of breeding cats, which I would think is the subject readers are trying to locate if they are searching this term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Misleading and useless. CycloneYoris talk! 02:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 4 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.

Greenside Primary School (South Africa)[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) Heanor (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion or page revert from Greenside Primary School (Limpopo) to Greenside Primary School (South Africa) as I believe the page was wrongfully moved for disambiguation (specifically to be differentiated from Greenside Primary School (Gauteng) as the editor who moved the page stated an invalid link here under Greenside, Gauteng) which is inappropriate since there is no active wiki article nor draft with that title} Motlatlaneo (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Axxter99: Please take a look at the above nomination for "Book 2", on top search for Book2 on Google depicts Power Book II: Ghost, however it is nominated for deletion which implies that Google can be proven futile within this discussion. Greenside Primary School (South Africa) was simply the first wiki article for Greenside school in South Africa (after Greenside Primary School (London, England)), are you also going to disambiguate the England school too?Motlatlaneo (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: The nom was asked to come to RfD (assuming Motlatlaneo and Neoinsession are the same user), but deleting redirects for (controversial) page moves are to be done via WP:Requested moves. Moreover, this redirect has not been tagged for RfD. The nom attempted it, but was reverted. Jay (talk) 08:55, 11 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.

Resurrection from the dead[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 various.

Despite the apparent vagueness, most of these redirects are terms of art for the topic of the target article, and the core question is whether their alternative uses are common enough to challenge that primary topic. The outcome is as follows:

Some of these questions continue to be discussed at Talk:Universal resurrection#Requested move 13 February 2022. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expressions are too broad and vague, so they can refer to numerous phenomenons, not primarily a Christian eschatological concept.
I suggest turning Resurrection from the dead into a DAB with Resurrection, Undead, Universal resurrection and linking all those expressions to this DAB page. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Do you have examples of each of these phrases being used in contexts other than universal resurrection (which article is not limited to Christianity)? I can imagine that someone unfamiliar with religious doctrine who read the phrase "resurrection of the body" or "resurrection of the dead" would not conceive it to have any meaning more specific that resurrection, but that of itself would not be not a reason to change the redirect target; a simple hatnote on universal resurrection pointing to resurrection would suffice. The expressions are used in the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed; they may have been broad and vague at the time, but it's too late to fix that now. jnestorius(talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms all save the bodily resurrections. "Resurrection of the dead" is a term of art and there's nothing vague about it. In fact, the article should be moved to that title. Srnec (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC) (edited 03:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Which article? - universal resurrection? As Resurrection of the dead already redirects there, why are you opposing? A rename is a different question, that could be done later. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a quick GScholar search shows various different uses for these terms, with the possible exception of Resurrection of the flesh. While Christian uses predominate, most seem to actually refer to Jesus's individual resurrection (or in one case, that of other biblical figures but still primarily in relation to the resurrection of Jesus), not Universal resurrection. signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: the link is broken. Veverve (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, not sure what to say it works for me. The paper in question is Wenkel, David H. "Abraham’s Typological Resurrection from the Dead in Hebrews 11." Criswell theological review 15.2 (2018): 51-66. signed, Rosguill talk 01:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't work for me either, it seems you've copied a cloudfront URL for it not the original, which has now expired. The article is also available at [6], however it requires an academia.edu login which I don't have. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Turn the first two into disambigs, as they’re vague terms that could mean any number of things. Neutral on the rest. Dronebogus (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. There is nothing vague about them unless you are hearing them for the first time. Srnec (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nom per nom & Rossguill Signed, IAmChaos 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the hatnote of Resurrection has been suggested as an alternative to disambiguation, there has been no discussion on Undead, the third disambig entry mentioned in the nomination. Will the Resurrection hatnote cover Undead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Resurrection, except for the "of the flesh" one, as resurrection in any culture is usually "from the dead: or "of the dead". Certainly in the context of role-playing games or horror movies, either phrase would mean something different than it would in religious contexts, and something different again from scientific contexts. BD2412 T 06:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: maybe a fourth relisting could help getting a clearer consensus. Furthermore, most votes here are in disfavour if the statu quo. Veverve (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the DAB. Seems like the cleanest approach. Chumpih t 16:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beland, Editor2020, Johnbod, In ictu oculi, Colin M, Buidhe, and Amakuru: Pinged because you participated either in Talk:Universal resurrection#Requested move 9 May 2021 or the merge discussion immediately preceding it. Srnec (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part support The four with "of the Dead/body/flesh" in should go to whatever we are calling the general/universal Resurrection, currently Universal resurrection. The others might refer to Jesus, Lazarus & other individuals, & a disam page may be best. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I had not thought about it, but reading you I now think the expression may also refer to the event described in Matthew 27:52 and Matthew 27:53. Veverve (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to a disambiguation page or even retarget to resurrection per Rosguill and BD2412. In common usage and in sources, "resurrection of the dead" is not limited just to the specific topic mentioned at universal resurrection. While it might mean that as a "term of art" in some contexts, I see no evidence that such usage is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term, and it could easily confuse readers.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice would be redirect all to Resurrection, since that clearly explains the general concept and links from the intro to the article on end-times resurrection in certain forms of Christianity, as well as the mythological resurrection of Jesus. My second choice would be the disambiguation page as proposed. I don't think even most people who are nominally Christian would recognize "resurrection of the dead" as a term of art referring to a specific event as opposed the thing you see in horror movies; the event is just as commonly referred to as "the Resurrection" which is also currently a redirect. "Resurrection of the dead" has perhaps entered the general lexicon from Christianity but not necessarily retained its original meaning. I do think undead should be included in hatnotes, as someone looking for the concept of evil creatures resurrected from the dead could easily end up there. The current situation is not intolerable; I just edited Universal resurrection to have a hatnote that points directly to Resurrection as proposed above. It was previously pointing to Resurrection (disambiguation), where it's easy to get lost amongst all the movie titles and whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I just added a "Supernatural" section to the top of Resurrection (disambiguation), and perhaps instead of creating yet another disambiguation page, this would be a better target if we do a disambiguation page and not an article. -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 13 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.

AILF[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 AILF and delete the other one.. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: American Immigration Council does not mention the AILF initialism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify and Delete per Veverve and Havradim. IIRC the term was a throwaway joke in the film so not really an appropriate redirect. --Bonoahx (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't see the relisting comment. It looks like someone added American Immigration Law Foundation with a source to American Immigration Council so I think the dab can be justified in that sense. --Bonoahx (talk) 12:00, 4 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.

List of dog races[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 20:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or weak retarget to Dog racing (disambiguation). Either way, the current target is a WP:SURPRISE, and I'm "weak" on the disambiguation page target since it's not a list but rather a disambiguation page, and thus has the potential to make the redirect inaccurate if a subject with the title "Dog Racing", such as a film by that title, is added to it later. Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dog racing (disambiguation) as it is a relatively sensible target. The current one is a total WP:SURPRISE as breeds of dogs are almost never called races of dogs and are certainly not called that in common usage. TartarTorte 13:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am unconvinced by the redirect to the DAB page. Cavalryman (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The best target would seem to be List of sled dog races, but there are other types of dog racing, WP just doesn't have any lists about them. So probably best to delete to defer to search results and avoid confusion, or encourage creation of a list at this title. I agree the current target is likely not what most users seek, and targeting the dab will leave searchers disappointed, because they are seeking a list of things. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by things, I mean a list of races, not a list of types of racing, which is what the dab is. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:54, 6 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.

Natural stupidity[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. There's clearly some interest in this as a search term if it can be supported. (Current search results are amusing.) --BDD (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed at the target, deletion seems better than redirecting this to Stupidity signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Mildly amusing but not a proper use of a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the phrase itself is not currently in the target article, as a distinct term it is most often associated with it. And a careful reading of the target's lead paragraph shows that a significant portion of AI research rejects the notion that machines can ever be expected to achieve human-like powers of cognition. Hence the idea that AI is something of a misnomer. This article is a good explainer of it. Havradim leaf a message 01:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are academic sources for this nickname dating back the 70s. Ex Drew McDermott 1976. If people search this expression on Wikipedia, it's a good thing there is this redirect. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absence of any content about this phrase in Wikipedia, it's a waste of readers' time to send them off to some random vaguely-associated high-level article in the same topic area that doesn't have any information about what they typed in, just because the phrase exists somewhere else on the Internet. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@61.239.39.90: The term also has a willful provocative tone. I would prefer to keep it as a low visibility Redirect. Adding first this expression into the AI article's criticism section would be a bit inelegant and increase its visibility, but there are solid, academic sources, so it can be done. Yug (talk) 🐲 10:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would say redirect to Philosophy of artificial intelligence but the phrase doesn't seem to be discussed there. There are reliable sources using the phrase but I can't see any serious link to AI beyond it being a sardonic comparison. --Bonoahx (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The stats suggest this is barely used. Chumpih t 11:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Moron (psychology) until we have mention at the current target. in which case we can think of disambiguating. Oppose keeping at current target, because I don't find any contextual use of it. I would still have preferred retarget to Artificial stupidity as an antonym instead. Jay (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Artificial stupidity, which I think is actually the closest match. All that need be done to make it right would be to include the redirect in the article as an alternate treatment of the concept. As for Moron (psychology) and Stupidity, the redirect concept is not mentioned in either. It could also be forced into the current target, but to a lesser degree. Havradim leaf a message 12:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Thesmp (talk) 09:11, 15 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.

AdSeg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#AdSeg

Kelmysh[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 speedy delete. Page speedy deleted CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, is mentioned but not described on various other pages, delete to allow for search results. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to Princess Jeguk whose personal name is Borjigin Qutlugh Kelmysh. "Weak" since I'm not sure if this is the surname or just a partial title match --Lenticel (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:45, 4 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.

Caribbean immigration to Florida[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 speedy delete. Page speedy deleted CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No information about this topic at the target, nor at History of the Caribbean, Caribbean#Demographics, or at Afro-Caribbean history. Deletion seems the way to go. signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to West Indian Americans or West Indian Americans#Locations, as Florida is mentioned prominently here. My recommendation is weak as the target is about people with this ancestry or ethnicity rather than specifically immigration, although as the two topics are highly related I don't think that is a huge problem. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:45, 4 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.

Haitians in Venezuela[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 Immigration to Venezuela#Haitians in Venezuela. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:44, 4 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.

Antinational[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#Antinational

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_4&oldid=1074576862"