Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2022.

History of modern literature[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect points to Contemporary literature (defined in the article as post-wwii literature), which is not a synonym for "modern literature" (which can be variously defined, but encompasses the last 300-500 years of literature, not the last 80). The page was originally AfD'd last November; @LEvalyn:'s arguments there still apply. (See [1]). Redirect should be deleted. asilvering (talk) 22:25, 8 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.

Esplanaden[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Esplanaden

$ $[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "$" or "$ $" are listed at the target page. On the other hand, $ is a redirect to Dollar sign which is a logical target page. I don't know what readers looking for a double dollar sign would be looking for but they won't find it at List of emoticons. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion on the redirect, but I'm pretty sure $_$ (definition link) is the intended "emoji" here. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Primefac that this is intended to be $_$, but there is no information about that anywhere on Wikipedia I can find so there is no appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Originator is playing some sort of games with redirects, because the originator seems to be mostly playing games anyway. We don't need to play along. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:49, 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.

The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 00:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another overly long redirect title page that leads to the much shorter and more likely search term that is the actual title of the page. I think it is unlikely for the longer phrase will be typed in a search bar when the article title will pop up after the first 5 words. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 8 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.

So When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right[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 00:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this redirect will be used or is useful especially since So when you go solo, you hold your own hand already exists. The chances that a reader will search for this entire 45 word phrase when a shorter version will immediately pop up is doubtful. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to fix the stats link here which I assume is messed up by the complicated title of this page. Any help from a RFD regular? Or should it just be removed? Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I've removed the "stats" link, since it was highly distracting. Guess it doesn't work when the title is this long. CycloneYoris talk! 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, CycloneYoris, I couldn't figure out how to fix that. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz and CycloneYoris:  Fixed module-side; template reënabled. Interwiki links max at 255 bytes, and the toolforge: link sees 74 characters added prior to the actual title, so there's a whole dead zone where a title is valid as an enwiki title but invalid as an interwiki link to pageviews. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. It's highly unlikely this will ever be useful, and that is the one and only purpose of redirects. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The second half of an album's title is generally not a plausible redirect, whether that title is 2 words or 45. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Originator appears to be playing some sort of a game, maybe testing to see how long redirects can be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 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.

Sulur Aero[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Sulur Aero

Junker (SS rank)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Junker (SS rank)

Kylie Cantrall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD#10. This is the name of an actress that is presently redirecting to an article about a Disney show. Editors of the article Ron's Gone Wrong, a film in which this actress cast a major role, have been awkwardly avoiding wikilinking this name because it redirects to an irrelevant article. It would be better off if left as a red wikilink. This actress is not currently notable enough for own article. JAYFAX (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to allow for article creation in the future. wizzito | say hello! 22:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and tag for speedy deletion. WP:R#D10 doesn't apply as the actress is not notable per nom. Jay (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A restored article would indeed be eligible for speedy deletion (not under A7, which I'm assuming Jay is referring to, but under G5, since Pennlivia created it on 2020-11-28 but had been blocked on primary account Thatdollcalledriley on the 1st of that month), but in my mind the main exception to the general rule of "don't delete redirects that used to be articles" is if the previous article was speedyable, and I see no reason to go through the extra bureaucracy of restoring this just to send it to speedy deletion. We have no obligation to preserve a sockmaster's creation, and this should just be deleted outright. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking off my vote because of the sock angle. Yes, I meant A7. Would like to know why A7 won't be applicable. Jay (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: In my opinion, someone being the star of an encyclopedically notable TV show is a credible claim of significance, which is all that's required to survive A7. It's a much lower bar than notability. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:44, 17 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.

2017 Equatoguinean coup d'état attempt[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) 19:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of coup attempts for the specified years at the targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no mention of coups or coup attempts in the countries in these years on Wikipedia that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 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.

Piano rock (genre)[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) 19:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#DELETE #10; this could conceivably be an independent article, and the current target only states that pianos can be a rock instrument and will be unlikely to satisfy readers. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 8 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[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Standartenjunker

Easily confused words[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 move target back to mainspace at List of commonly misused English words and retarget redirect accordingly. There was little discussion of Thryduulf's original proposal. The main question is whether to move the target back to mainspace. Three editors supported a move back, while two supported deleting the redirect and one opposed the move on procedural grounds. I find no support for that procedural objection; reversing a move decided on in a decade-old AfD is within the scope of any venue that regularly moves pages, and that includes RfD.
What we're left with, then, is a dispute as to whether an article is suitable for mainspace. And that, unlike the question of reversing a move, is not within RfD's scope. Three editors in good standing support an article existing at this title, and the consensus against that is a decade old (and thus subject to reconsideration); therefore the correct thing to do is move the article back without prejudice against any combination of the following:
  • An RM to change the list's title
  • An AfD to renew the consensus from 2012—courtesy pings @Nohat and Uanfala if they'd like to do that
  • Enacting Thryduulf's proposal for a BCA/DAB/SIA at this title or some other title. (That is to say, the move consensus does not represent a consensus that the re-mainspaced page is the correct target here. This RfD can be considered no-consensus in that regard, simply for lack of substantial discussion.)
In recognition of the content concerns raised on both sides, as a content matter I'm going to remove all unsourced entries that aren't obviously justified by linked articles post-move, and will leave a link to the permalink pre-cleanup on talk for those who wish to go back and source them. That is not per se an action I'm undertaking as closer, but is relevant. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commonly misused English words moved the target from article space to project space, in May 2017 this redirect was created as a redirect to the project space page. In June-July 2017 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#Easily confused words was closed with consensus that the title should not redirect to project space but no consensus on what it should be instead. In the 4½ years since then nothing has happened and it is still inapropriately redirecting to projectspace. Re-reading that discussion, I think I now support Salvidrim!'s suggestion of a broad concept article/dab/SIA linking to some or all of List of English words with disputed usage, Common English usage misconceptions, Commonly misspelled English words, Homonym, Paronym, False friend and maybe others. Linguistic confusion was their suggested title but Uanfala opposed that, I have no strong opinion on the title. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • The recently-active people who contributed to the previous RfD were: @SoWhy, Train2104, Feminist, Uanfala, Tavix, George Ho, Salvidrim!, and BDD:. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words back to mainspace because this is an encyclopedic topic in the wrong namespace. I am in agreement with the "keep" position at the 2012 AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to mainspace. It's in better shape than I expected for mainspace. It might need some tidying up, but that's hardly a barrier. I suppose there's still the idea that the search term doesn't say anything about English, though I think that's excusable for the English Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:List of commonly misused English words about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't disagree with the move suggestions, but even if it is moved I still think there is scope for the page I mention above an addition. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would prefer deleting the redirect over moving the page back to article space. The page seems to be a magnet for people to give their language pet peeves the imprimatur of Wikipedia declaring them as "non-standard"—despite the entries being plainly contradictory to the criteria listed at the top: "frequently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition". Many recently added entries have supposed "non-standard" usages which are just ordinary usages of one of the senses of the word in the first dictionary I look in. I've started removing some of these erroneous entries, but I'm not optimistic it would stay clean. Nohat (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Easily confused" presents problems. Search results seemingly return just as many items for commonly confused words. Then again what about "often confused words?" The question of where to point this or what should be at the title itself is another layer of complexity. Thus, we should look at the sourcing available; if good sources can be found that establish this (or something else) as a regularly used term for the concept at hand, then there is an arguable case for such a broad article. If not, then perhaps deletion (of this title) is due (if it is not covered explicitly somewhere) because the problem of where to point this is likely too grand. That aside, I agree that Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words should likely be in the mainspace. However, I am unsure of how to title it at this time. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the target is moved back to mainspace, what would a proper title be? Will the redirect continue to point to the current target, or is there scope for a DAB/SIA?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think a lack of a clearly best title should hold up moving this to mainspace, if that is the consensus (I'm neutral on that). Move it to a plausible title and create redirects from other plausible ones. An RM can pick which title is best after that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving to mainspace For the same reason RfD shouldn't be used to delete article content, it shouldn't be used to overturn past discussions at AfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems overly legalistic, given that consensus can change, and that we're talking about an AfD almost 10 years old. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I too don't think that is necessary. An RM would be sufficient to reverse an old (or even recent) AfD move and RfDs not-infrequently function as RMs. There has been a note on the target talk page noting that this discussion may result in it being moved for all-but the first four hours of this now fortnight-long discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A redirect like that is definitely not acceptable. I can't see an article getting created (trying to write up something in an unfamiliar topic area only to deal with an awkward redirect is never a good idea). Deletion is the most easily defensible option. The creation of some sort of navigational aid (sia/dab) as proposed by Thryduulf may actually be in the best interest of readers. – Uanfala (talk) 01:06, 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.

Double-redirect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Double-redirect

Quadratic field extension[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Quadratic field extension

Wikipedia:Headlines[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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Headlines. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just now reverted a sockpuppet's re-targeting to Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source, an essay. However, that still doesn't make either target suitable, despite the MOS being the first target when first created. It should be either retargeted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Headlines (per prior RFD discussion) or disambiguated. George Ho (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Headlines per last month's year's consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was last year actually. I think you misread the timestamps. George Ho (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Either that or my brain isn't fully in 2022 yet. Whatever the cause, I've corrected my comment and it doesn't change my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:29, 8 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.

Binding sites, antibody[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 Antibody#Antigen-binding site. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "antibody" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the association between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:00, 8 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.

Functional site[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. MBisanz talk 01:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the association between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but might need somebody more familiar with the subject to confirm. The word appears to be interchangeable, see this dictionary redirect, as well as this journal abstract. --Bonoahx (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add mention at target, ideally with a refererence. I'm not sure everyone in the field would use treat these as perfect synonyms (I think catalytic site is a more accepted synonym for active site), but for our purposes, users will find the most relevant content at active site. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 8 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.

5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This runs into significant WP:XY problems. Given that the 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate) (which is redlinked or discussed in a number of articles) existed as well, it is inappropriate to redirect it just to the Union unit. This could be a dab page once the article for the Confederate unit is created, but the redirection right now is too narrow of a target. Hog Farm Talk 22:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. How best to disambiguate is unclear. Since there is already the parenthetical disambiguation, we can proceed as if there is no primary topic and create a two-topic dab page that complies with WP:DABRED as I have drafted under the redirect content, or disambiguate at 5th Missouri Regiment and include infantry regiments. Alternatively, the broader 5th Cavalry Regiment (disambiguation) could be created with the redirects targeting there with appropriate entries, or the Civil War section at 5th Regiment could be expanded, though these might be getting astray of WP:PTM and MOS:DABNOENTRY. There are probably analogous issues beyond the 5th Missouri, too, that should be addressed according to consensus here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 8 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.

Single protein[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 Protein subunit. Based on minimal participation, the only vote has been taken into account. Jay (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target page seems unclear on how the subject of this redirect is supposed to be defined. There are synthesizations of the words "single" and "protein" in Protein, but a subject called "single protein" seems undefined. Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 8 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.

Plant protein[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Plant protein

High protein[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#High protein

Birthing person[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. Tamzin's arguments regarding treatment of "trans motherhood" in RS appear to be uncontested after 2 weeks both here and at Motherhood, and as such carry the day despite delete only winning a plurality of support. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. This term has generally been used as a more inclusive alternative to "mother", and given its current usage, someone who searches it is likely curious about that initiative and not simply looking for information on mothers. Not sure if we currently have any information on this topic though (there is some media coverage e.g. this). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at current target. There is a section in the article Mother about transgender motherhood, and the debate over terms "birthing person", "birthing people", "pregnant people", etc. could be discussed there, and the linked article from the Atlantic could be used as a source for the controversy over such terms.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage creation of an article or section of an article on the topic of gender-neutral terminology in pregnancy, similar to Menstruation § Terminology, to which People who menstruate redirects. The existing Transgender motherhood section does not cover that topic, and indeed per its title should only be about trans women having children. A trans man who gives birth to a child is not a mother under the definition given by that article ("the female parent of a child") (although individual trans men may identify with that term). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at current target. Birthing person refers to a human who gives birth. Let human childbirth be the resulting act from a mother. Inclusivity should never compromise well established biologic terminology. And I do agree with Tdl1060 that the relevant section at Motherhood gives enough coverage for those who seek such information, as does LGBT parenting. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The entirety of the relevant content in that section is Transgender men may have biological children when they have not had a hysterectomy before carrying and giving birth to children, which doesn't even belong in that section anyways, as a transgender man with children would generally be called a father, not a mother. This isn't about "inclusivity compromis[ing] well established biologic terminology", and if I'm understanding your meaning there, it's the opposite: "Birthing person" is a neologism, used solely in the context of discussing childbirth in a manner inclusive to trans men and AFAB nonbinary people. The redirect, as stands, takes people to an article that does not discuss this neologism. No one is typing in "birthing person" because they're looking for the broad-concept article on mothers. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But someone might possibly type in the term because they've heard it and don't know what it means. StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And would this article answer their question for them? It doesn't seem so to me. It would define a related-but-emphatically-not-synonymous term, without discussing the nuances between the two. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe redirect to Transgender pregnancy?85.58.45.151 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not. Most birthing is by persons who are not transgender. Certes (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I saw the term, the first thing that came to mind is Midwife. Retarget there, or disambiguate if there are multiple meanings. Jay (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create disambiguation page: we have had a multiplicity of suggestions (Mother, Transgender pregnancy, and Midwife) and someone typing in the search term might conceivably be after any of them. (Disclaimer: Redirect creator) StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That by itself is not a valid deletion reason. Jay (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per StAnselm. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with Elli and Tamzin. I'm not keen on disambiguating anything the sum-of-parts could vaguely refer to. Also, such a dab would fail WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For full disclosure, noting that, after reviewing the source cited for including trans men in the "Transgender motherhood" section and finding that it has a whole section taking the exact opposite position, I have removed the sentence in question. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:37, 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.

John Mason of Cheshunt[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 John Mason (minister). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no obvious ambiguity or specific target. Linked in Hugh Farmer. John Mason (minister) died in Cheshunt, but the article doesn't say he was known as "of Cheshunt". Tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} or retarget somewhere or delete; I do not know which. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to John Mason (minister). Was probably my intention in creating the redirect. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to John Mason (minister) per Charles Matthews. The only source I could find that refers to the subject as John Mason of Cheshunt was this. John, and Mason, are fairly common names in Britain - given this essay published in 1851 is the only reference is it clear enough to suggest that they were talking about the same John Mason? --Bonoahx (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (nom) "Of X" is a rare type of qualifier; a single source is good enough for me. Leaning retarget. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, just thought it was worth pointing out. Support retarget. --Bonoahx (talk) 16:16, 8 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.

Dictator of Letters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Dictator of Letters

Wikiwikiwiki[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. Delete arguments predicated on the redirects being confusing or nonsensical are contested by arguments to the contrary made in this discussion and the prior RfD discussion. Thus, I'm comfortable closing this as a solid keep despite the close !vote count. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Repetition of target three times, not a translation from English to Hawaiian directly, implausible redirect. Faster than Thunder (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • wiki wiki is an older term for wiki, as in the original WikiWikiWeb. That term comes from wikiwiki, Hawaiian for "speedy". So a wikiwiki wiki could be a wiki about wikiwikis, or it could be a fast wiki. I don't see any indications, though, that anyone's used "wikiwikiwiki" or "wikiwiki wiki" to describe either of those things, so delete unless usage can be shown. (We should start calling CSDs wikiwiki deletion just to confuse people.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikiwikiwiki, the redirect makes no sense. It was supposed to be deleted through RfD in 2007, immediately after creation, this is a belated nomination. Jay (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Wiki Wiki Wiki as well as a misleading term. No mention at the target and I could not find external search results also except being used as the title (probably for effect) in a couple of writing pieces. The voters at the previous RfD did not provide any usages, and may have been referring to "Wiki Wiki". Jay (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added Wiki Wiki Wiki to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15#Wiki Wiki Wiki that this is/was an actively used term. It's also completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thruuydulf and previous consensus. SN54129 12:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia Wikipedia → Wikipedia, Indiaindia → India, and Qatar Qatar Qatar → Qatar would be deleted if they existed. Faster than Thunder (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Tamzin, and Jay. Nonsensical and confusing. CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 7 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 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious that Wikiwikiwiki and WikiWikiWeb could be confused with each other, so keep unless an example of confusion can be shown. Differences between strings:
Text found only in "Wikiwikiwiki" is marked like this.
Text found only in "Wiki Wiki Wiki" is marked like this.
Text found only in "WikiWikiWeb" is marked like this.
Wiki Wiki Wikiikieb
Faster than Thunder (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not nonsensical at all - it is a now (mostly?) historic term with a specific meaning. When terms with a clear use could be confused with something with a similar name that was never known by the name then we just add a hatnote to the target making it easy for anyone using the term to find what they were looking for whether that is the correct name or the misnomer. What we do not do is make it harder for everybody to find the content they are looking for by deleting something. Faster than Thunder's comment is correct but completely irrelevant as unlike wikiwikiwiki those terms are not plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, as it is a real term and not nonsense, since it used to be used for these things. Tag as {{R from former name}} / {{R from synonym}} -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:18, 14 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.

Find and Replace[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 Regular expression. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target had been Regular expression (for 10 years) which gets thousands of views daily. Current target get 4 views per day (and has Notability tag). I think this should go back to the prior target. MB 07:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget back to Regular expression. The primary topic for this phrase (regardless of capitalization) is surely the computing topic, not the audio drama. That said, "find and replace" functionality is also used without regular expressions, so it should probably be its own article, and I'm open to a suggestion of a better target. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Text editor#Typical features (or perhaps to Regular expression, though readers needing information on this topic might not be regexp users). Per WP:DIFFCAPS, we should guide readers to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for. The audio drama is fairly obscure and its title clearly derived from the editing feature. I bet at least one text editor has a button or menu item marked literally "Find and Replace" which is selected more often than the drama. Certes (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If retargeted there, Find and replace should similarly be retargeted. It might be best to reach consensus on that in a separate RfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Regular expression per Mdewman6, without prejudice against second RfD bundled with Find and replace to implement Certes' proposal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:51, 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 00:31, 8 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.

Medical isotop[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 Isotopes in medicine. Since there is consensus that "isotop" is a plausible misspelling (and, I'll note, also a translation in several languages), I will create Isotop as a redirect to Isotope. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a misspelling of "medical isotope" that should be retargeted to isotopes in medicine; however, isotop does not exist as a redirect, raising the question whether this misspelling is particularly likely. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to isotopes in medicine. I think this misspelling is plausible enough, and wouldn't have any issue with isotop being created. A7V2 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Isotopes in medicine per nom and A7V2. Plausible misspelling indeed. CycloneYoris talk! 07:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead of refining as a plausible misspelling. We have around 200 articles/redirects with "isotope" in the title, but not a single "isotop". And in around 60 of them, "isotop" is not the starting word too. The "medical isotop" results from Google probably indicate a different topic, and is not a misspelling. Jay (talk) 14:43, 6 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 00:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as stated by others. Many times I've typed something and hit enter but accidentally leaving out the last letter. This is indeed a probable misspelling.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:34, 8 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.

Pacho “El Antifeka”[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Jay (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since these are not the same subjects. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to add Pacho El Antifeka to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_8&oldid=1074735307"