Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2022.

2021 Nürburgring Formula Regional European Championship round

[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) CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FREC event that was cancelled. All other FREC events were deleted for lack of notability as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Le Castellet Formula Regional European Championship round, but this one wasn't nominated with the others because of the cancellation. An AfD was later opened specifically for this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Nürburgring Formula Regional European Championship round), but it was closed as redirect despite most votes being delete.
Therefore I request deletion. MSport1005 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I participated in both of the above linked discussions, and I advocated to redirect this article to the season article rather than straight delete in its AfD. While I strongly feel that this, as with almost all rounds of Formula Regional does not meet GNG, that should not stop us helping our readers with redirects. The article 2021 Formula Regional European Championship has more prose about this cancelled round than it does any other round, which is something of an indication of why the other rounds were all deleted. Regardless of how (un)likely someone is to search for this term, what is the benefit of not taking them to somewhere which basically says all there is to say about what they have searched for? I would also support putting redirects for other rounds if brief overviews are provided (which they probably should be). A7V2 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pining participants at the AfD, @BestNamesJeff, Gildir, 5225C, HumanBodyPiloter5, and Czar:. A7V2 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While this is an unlikely search term, and I wouldn't waste my time creating similar redirects, it redirects to the article where information relevant to that term is held, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect is unambiguous, harmless and takes anybody using it to the most comprehensive coverage we have about this exact topic so it is clearly useful, especially when you consider that it will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people making similar queries to the target article. Deletion would bring no benefits, so this is a very clear keep. Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is not that it isn't useful—most articles that are nominated for deletion are. However it doesn't even come close to meeting GNG, and the prose on it at 2021 Formula Regional European Championship is minimal. I get that redirects are WP:CHEAP, but for consistency, if all other FREC rounds were deleted, then I think this one should too—even more so when it didn't even take place. MSport1005 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is only indirectly and marginally relevant to redirects. That the round was cancelled is completely irrelevant to the redirect. There is sourced content about the topic at the target so it is a plausible redirect. If there is sourced content about other rounds then redirects to that content can and possibly should be created as well. Thryduulf (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that this is not the topic of discussion but I strongly oppose the suggestion we should create redirects for individual rounds to season articles for low level motorsport series. This is a slippery slope which is entirely unnecessary to go down, and I cannot see what justification would be offered for doing so. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The slippery slope argument implies that there is something undesirable at the bottom, but having redirects from plausible search terms to content directly about those search terms when we don't have or want an article at that title is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the bottom is allowing redirects for effectively every motorsport round every held to be created as a redirect, no matter how obscure. If a race is somewhat memorable and remains a point of interest, then sure, redirects are cheap and we should have one. But we shouldn't be creating redirects for rounds just because they were held. Very few indivudal FREC rounds are going to be a viable search term, in the year they were held let alone 5 or 10 years on. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. Redirects I've nominated in the past for deletion from rounds to seasons were deleted when the only information about them was a listing on a calendar, and what can be extracted from the results tables. I (not wishing to speak for others) would only want redirects when there is actual content, by which I mean prose, probably a paragraph or two. The VAST majority of motorsport season articles have nothing of the sort, unfortunately. And then all we have are a few hundred rarely used redirects in amongst the countless thousands of other redirects which are only really kept as there is no reason to delete, and are potentially useful to someone. A7V2 (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A7V2 is correct. Redirects are only kept when there is useful information about the subject at the target, and in most cases that means prose (ideally sourced prose). There are limited occasions when redirects taking people to a page that basically says nothing more than "it exists"/"it existed" are kept, but they are few and far between and normally only when that is the only thing that could be said about them. However even then the existence of these redirects (where unambiguous and pointing to a page that actually mentions them) would not be causing any actual harm - I wouldn't encourage the creation such redirects but neither would I actively seek them out for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – I personally would like to see it gone since its an unlikely search term and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose, but on the other hand redirects are typically kept when they're harmless. I think it sets poor precedent but that is ultimately an unconvincing argument for deletion. As mentioned in the nominator's rationale the redirect probably shouldn't have been created to begin with, but since it has been there is very little policy with which to remove it. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:19, 10 January 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.

Janga Gana Mana

[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 01:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for "Janga Gana Mana" to be a redirect to Jana Gana Mana. No alternate spellings, pronunciation of "Jana Gana Mana" gives us "Janga Gana Mana". ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:08, 9 January 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.

Back cover

[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 Cover. ✗plicit 01:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The back cover can refer to a back external side of any medium, like a book, an album, a single, or any other. Like front cover, the page should be retargeted to cover dabpage. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 9 January 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.

Patrick sylvestre

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Patrick sylvestre

Gordon S.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Gordon S.

Chew-Chew Baby

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Discussion continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chew-Chew Baby. - Eureka Lott 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted While I believe the current state is fine, there has been an edit war over this topic for the past two months, so a formal discussion as requested by Donaldd23 is necessary to get the involved parties to settle the matter in a constructive manner. Paradoctor (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of WP:BLAR, going to do that. Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 19:15, 9 January 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.

Disputed territories (Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria)

[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) 03:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, violation of WP:WESTBANK even if it were not Nableezy 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gaza is not a disputed territory even by Israeli definitions (the other is only "disputed" by Israel).Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pr nom, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundling Disputed territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) since all the same arguments apply. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy: Noting also the existence of Disputed Territories (Israel), but not bundling that here since it doesn't have the explicit reference to Gaza. Probably better for a separate RfD if you'd like to tag it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more logical title would be reasonable as either an {{r from incorrect name}} or {{r from non-neutral name}}, although perhaps with a better target. This pro-Israeli essay cited at the target does show someone advocating for Gaza as being "disputed" rather than "occupied". However, politics aside, this is a bad redirect for regular redirect reasons, namely that it's an unlikely search term. Pageviews are 146 and 83 all-time, which in my opinion falls in the discretionary range of "Okay, people are using it, but not enough to be clear why". Currently the first one is the second suggestion if I type in "Disputed territories" in the search bar, so that may account for a lot of curious or unintentional clicks. Importantly, this uses disambiguation syntax but doesn't actually disambiguate something. Even to those who advocate "disputed territories" as a term to apply to the West Bank and Gaza, it's not like "Disputed territories" is the proper name of that region; it's a descriptor, not a name, so any disambiguation would have things in the opposite order. So, delete, although I could see keeping something like "Gaza (disputed territory)" as permissibly incorrect/non-neutral... But also don't think it would be a good use of anyone's time to create that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It had previously been linked here, and I dont actually think "disputed territories" itself is an implausible search term, as that is indeed how the Israeli right would define what we (and the world really) call Israeli-occupied territories or sometimes more narrowly referring to the Palestinian territories, but we have disputed territories redirect to territorial dispute whereas it may make sense to turn that into a dab page. But I just cannot imagine somebody typing in "Disputed territories (Gaza Strip , Judea and Samaria)" (or West Bank for that matter). It seemingly exists to use in our articles instead of the neutral terms, and in that case it doesnt serve any valid purpose IMO. nableezy - 22:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think we generally agree here. All I'm saying is that something like Gaza (disputed territory) or Disputed territory of Gaza or Gaza territorial dispute would potentially be reasonable as a search term that someone who favors that POV might type in, although with a target of Israeli-occupied territories § Views on terminology used rather than the current target. Not trying to go too deep down a what-if rabbit hole here; I just think it's always important to make sure that an RfD doesn't set an overly broad precedent. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah agreed that we agree. nableezy - 23:04, 9 January 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.

Voluntary agency

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Voluntary agency

Caryol Smith

[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 per WP:G7 now that the author agrees with deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems part of an effort to create a walled garden adding nn person to various places by linking to the disambiguation page through a misspelling. I deleted use of this link from San Dimas, California, where it pretended to be a link to the person. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caryol was redircted by the same person to the same topic, ought to be deleted as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! My goal in creation was not to create a walled garden. I was doing edits related to the City of San Dimas, and wanted to create this link on the disambiguation page. It is not unusual to list people without Wikipedia pages, if they are somehow notable, on disambiguation pages for names. Happy to discuss though; I've done more than 5000 Wikipedia edits and am not trying to create some kind of trick. Was just using a very unique spelling of a common name, and trying to support more local civic service on Wikipedia. PickleG13 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but "local civic service" is not a basis for notability and supporting it is not Wikipedia's purpose. Intended or no you made a fake link so it would look like there was a page on the person when there is not, and that link must go. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are various names on Name Disambiguation pages that don't explicitly link anywhere. I did not want it to look like there was a page on the person, because there clearly is not. I apologize for my error in using the double brackets, and just want you to know that my intent is good. Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia too! PickleG13 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I can make a compelling argument to keep this name on the disambiguation page, as is true for various semi-notable (but less than standard for pages) figures, you are correct that the actions I took were in error. I will support this Articles For Deletion action, and thank you again for your work. PickleG13 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 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.

Template:Br

[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 Template:Break. There has been some pushback against the idea of using a bot to change every instance of {{br}} to {{clear}}, especially due to the logic that someone using {{br}} is actually wanting a break. I went ahead and corrected the nine transclusions that Tamzin identified and will now make the change. I will spotcheck a significant group (~50?) to see if anything broke (NPI) and will revert if I see issues. -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went through 55 or so articles and talk pages and I didn't see any issues. I did make one change where clear looks a bit better than break, but I don't see that as problematic. -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be controversial, but I think it makes sense on the face of it. This template currently redirects to {{clear}}, which uses div tags to create a break on a page. I think it should redirect instead to {{break}}, which uses a simple <br /> tag to create a line break. If we were starting from scratch with these names, I think it would be obvious that {{br}} should redirect to {{break}}, since br=br.

The reason that we are here is because {{br}} used to provide a <br /> tag, and it was changed over the years via various redirects to point to {{clear}}, which uses div tags. When the redirects were being discussed, {{break}} did not use br tags, but now it does. Each logical step made sense at the time, but nobody appears to have stepped back recently to say "Wait a minute, having a template called 'br' point to a template that supplies div tags instead of br tags makes no sense."

Having {{br}} insert div tags instead of br tags causes good-faith errors like this insertion of Template:br into templates that can't handle div tags inside them.

Since this redirect is widely used, I propose that a bot be used to change every call to {{br}} to {{clear}}, on the assumption that the existing uses are not broken, and then {{br}} be redirected to {{break}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per reasons mentioned above. I would not necessarily get a bot mentioned above but yeah. If you are calling {{Br}} you likely are trying to call the break template.
    Or this could be turned into a disambiguation page. br also refers to Brazil, so it could disambiguate the different Brazil templates we have as well. Idk Aasim (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The three-letter abbreviation "BRA" is universally used for Brazil, as far as I know. See {{BRA}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In formal contexts, maybe, but br or .br are overwhelmingly more common shorthand for Brazil in general usage (in my experience). Until I read this entry, I assumed {{Br}} was Brazil-related in some way, rather than a proxy for html. I'm not clear on why anyone would need a template to insert a single html element, but I'd rather see {{break}} used instead, for clarity. pauli133 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    4386 transclusions, so probably not feasible to disambiguate unmessily. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the assumption is being made that all extant uses are actually calling clear, replacing those uses with {{clear}} seems pretty straight-forward. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption is that the existing usages are not breaking anything. The editors may have once wanted a line break, since the template previously contained one, but Template:Br has been a redirect to Template:Clear since 2015 or before, so any problem usages should have been worked out by now. As for "Br" being ambiguous, Template:BRA has 8,000 transclusions, and Template:Br has 4,000, and their output is wildly different, so I don't think anyone is confused here. Converting to a dab page would be a radical change that I would oppose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. —Uzume (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's rough consensus here, the redirect has not been tagged. {{subst:rfd}}-tagged templates still work, and {{subst:rfd}} has a showontransclusions option, so that would be a good thing to do, just like advertising a TfD through transcluded messages. Only catch is that the message that displays is too large for a template that doesn't display at all. I'm going to look into adding something like the tiny version of {{subst:tfd}}. For now, relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: can we easily tell whether a given tag was placed before or after the template was changed from using br to using clear?
  • Support replacing current instances with {{break}} or {{clear}} as appropriate, then changing this rdr for any future use (once the change will impact almost no pages). otoh, some of the use cases are bretter suited to {{break}}, so someone going through by script and deciding might make sense. It looks like 4000 pages, but I think most of them are in a smaller # of templates. – SJ + 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC) + 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj: In response to your question: Emphasizing the word "easily", no. You could look through a database dump from before 2015-06-30, if there are any available, to see what the backlink situation looked like then, and then compare that to the current WhatLinksHere, and hope that the number of false positives (pages where {{br}}-as-in-<br /> was removed and {{br}}-as-in-{{clear}} was later added) is low, but that's the only way (well, not the only way, but the "easiest" way) I can think of to do it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal of the existing redirect, since as discussed it's confusing, but it's not clear to me that the best replacement for it is a redirect to {{break}}. Writing <br> is shorter and I'm fairly sure it's more common, so I don't see why that template is needed at all. A disambiguation page between {{BRA}}, {{break}} and {{clear}} would be fine. User:GKFXtalk 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GKFX: It looks like there are two edge cases that {{break}} covers:
  1. Template:Break says,

    Replaces <br /> where this is unsuitable, for example the rare cases where it is necessary to duplicate <br /><br /> which will be "fixed" by bots.

  2. Help:Line-break handling § <br /> or <br> says,

    While valid forms without the / (such as <br> or <br >) will work properly in the rendered page, the uncommon form <br > can break several of the available syntax highlighters for wiki code in the editing view (mis-highlighting all text in the page after the occurrence of that tag), and so should be avoided. As of April 2019, the rather common form <br> also causes this incorrect display in some of them, and is thus better avoided for the time being.

— W.andrea (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support the analysis at the top; i.e., yes, it should redirect to {{break}}. I have a question about this part:

    I propose that a bot be used to change every call to {{br}} to {{clear}}, on the assumption that the existing uses are not broken

  • "Broken", in what sense? Seems I have mistakenly assumed for years that {{br}} already redirected to {{break}} (or generated a <br/>) and as a result, I have been using it in that manner. In particular, when I find <br> in preview mode of articles or talk pages I happen to be editing, that screws up syntax highlighting due to the unterminated tag, so I not infrequently change them to either <br/> or to {{br}} with no particular preference for either, but I'm sure I've changed plenty of <br> to {{br}}, and I wonder if that has screwed things up, in the sense that the bot (that knows how to read my mind) should change those to <br/> (or {{break}}) and not to {{clear}}. Is this a problem? Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mathglot: My anecdotal impression, from all the pages I previewed the RfD tag on in my quest to not get de-TPE'd for cause, is that the vast majority of invocations could be replaced with {{break}} or <br/> with no change or with an improvement, and that in most cases this was likely the editor's intention. For instance, did someone really intend to put a bunch of {{clear}}s into the infobox at Cuban Revolution? Or the infobox at Heckler & Koch HK416? It seems much much more likely that those editors thought they were adding actual breaks. To confirm this anecdotal impression, I fiddled around quite a bit with some regex searches to gauge how often this template is used immediately after a file, and found 9 such transclusions out of 3,883... but that use case only accounts for 3,265 of {{clear}} and its other redirects's 3.4M transclusions... So I likely need to broaden the regex for more use cases. Improvements welcome. If there's any way to come up with a manual replacement or "smart" bot replacement here, I think that would be preferable. One starting point might be assuming that a {{br}} midway through an infobox parameter is always meant as a <br/>.
    P.S. Bundling {{BR}}. Fortunately this one only has 20 transclusions, a lot easier to deal with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. The reasoning is sound and having {{br}} redirect to {{break}} follows the principle of least astonishment. —howcheng {chat} 17:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of transcluding RfD tag
[edit]
Split off at 03:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC), splitting SJ's comment of 20:38, 9 January 2022 in half. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)
  • Template talk:Redirect for discussion § TPE code review request for the change I'd like to make to {{Redirect for discussion}} to allow this. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease § Template:Br for my request to lower the redirect's protection level to TPE, although I can do this by {{FPER}} if that's declined. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding a tag to a whitespace template on 4000 pages, often inside space-constrained table cells, where readers will be very confused about what is even being discussed. – SJ + 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC) + 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I've merged the changes to the module to make it possible to do this, and have tagged Template:Br in standard transclusion-tagless mode (which means, note to closer, the timer for a procedurally valid RfD starts now, although of course NOTBURO), but per SJ's concerns have not added the showontransclusion=yes parameter to the template. That said, I still think it would be worth doing. If you look here, you'll see that only an eighth of the transcluding pages (563) use the template more than once, and if you increase the 2 in the regex there, you'll see that the number decreases pretty linearly, down to a quarter of that (136) for pages that use it six times or more. I've previewed what a number of multiple-transclusion pages would look like with the tag on them, and to me it did not seem much of an eyesore, at least no more than when some high-visibility templates have been TfD'd. If the concern is about confusing readers, one could compromise with an autoconfirmed-show or extendedconfirmed-show class on it in this special case. (Would be easy to add that logic to Module:RfD.) I'll leave the final determination tagging-wise to someone else, but that's my rationale for it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it didn't occur to me you could show only to autoconf -- that fully addresses my concern. Go for it :) – SJ + 06:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the necessary changes to the module, and put it into effect on Template:Br. As noted in my edit summary there and in a hidden comment, if this proves disruptive nonetheless, any TPE or sysop has my permission to either upgrade to extendedconfirmed-show (by setting transclusiontagvisibility=extendedconfirmed) or to revert me outright, without discussion. And just going to put this in boldface for anyone coming here from one of these tags: The tags are only visible to autoconfirmed users. (If you want an easy way to spot autoconfirmed-only (and such) material, there's a guide to setting that up in my common.css.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if it's all right with you, Sj, I'm splitting off this portion from the rest of the RfD, just so people don't look at the thread and think there's been much more discussion of the substantive issue than there has been. So often long threads scare people away even when the discussion is relatively straightforward. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. Thanks for the update. – SJ + 11:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it would be a bad idea to transclude the RfD notice. We've got those notices on redirects because we want to catch the people who use them. That doesn't really work well for templates: an editor may attempt to use the template redirect but still miss the nomination because they haven't previewed their edit. On the other hand, you'll get disruption to a vast number of readers who have nothing to do with the template. Generally, it's best practice to noinclude the TfD tags for moderately-to-widely used inline templates. – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 20 January 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.

Cho Jun-young

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Cho Jun-young

BMW Z2

[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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been a speculated new model (eg see [1]) which was never produced. Not mentioned at target or anywhere. I would suggest delete, or potentially retarget to BMW Z if others feel a mention is justified (I do not). A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 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.

Future Science Institute

[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 01:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Searching online, I found results for...whatever this is. It certainly looks like cult-adjacent mumbo jumbo that could plausibly be connected to Happy Science, but it does not appear to actually mention "Happy Science" or other terms related to it. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:05, 9 January 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.

Orthodox Church of Byzantium

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox Church of Byzantium

Kypris

[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. There seems to be consensus that a two-item DAB is the "least bad option" here. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on Kypris online that is independent of Wikipedia, let alone independent content linking this deity to Aphrodite.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Yes, this is absolutely a real name for Aphrodite – perhaps most famously used in several of Sappho's poems, including fragment 2. I suspect that the current target has a better claim to the redirect than Yorgos Kypris, both by long-term significance and judging by the fact that over the 2019-2021 period, Kypris had almost exactly twice as many pageviews ([4]). If Kypris Beauty is deemed notable and gets an article, that might have a claim to the primary topic for the redirect, but until that point I would be inclined to retain the current redirect and add a hatnote at Aphrodite. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I'm not convinced Aphrodite is not the primary topic, but I'm not keen on trying to accommodate that search term with more hatnotes at that article, or by mixing the sculptor into all the entries at Cypris (disambiguation). A separate dab page over what is a relatively little used redirect seems like the least bad option. A draft dab is available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Uanfala's draft. Although it has only 2 entries, support the idea of using this dab and avoiding the sculptor's hatnote at Aphrodite because of a minor alternate spelling. Jay (talk) 06:44, 16 January 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.

Orthodox civilization

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox civilization

Fundamental theory (canon law)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Fundamental theory (canon law)

New Catechism

[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 Dutch Catechism. MBisanz talk 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this expression being one of the main ways to designate the Catechism of the Catholic Church at Catechism of the Catholic Church. The expression itself is too broad and vague.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:41, 9 January 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.

Independent Catholic Church USA

[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 13:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this "Independent Catholic Church USA" denomination in the target article. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Topics of the redirects should be present on the target, otherwise the redirect serves no WP:RPURPOSE. Veverve (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's useful to the reader to get an understanding of independent Catholicism, then we should keep it. It is better for the reader to find something about this topic than find nothing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: how do you know this denomination is Independent Catholic? Is it because of its name? If so, by the same token this would imply the Churches of Christ are truly willed by the messiah, and that the Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ followed Jesus Christ's will. Veverve (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm not going to address the straw man you've set up in your reply since I think its obvious to any rationale closer that calling oneself a specific sect is typically evidence of belonging to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: Thanks for pointing this AfD out. The AfD of the article was to delete it, not to redirect; therefore, the redirects I nominated should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Validity of Catholic Church Authority. Also pinging the admin who did the closure of the AfD @Sandstein:. Veverve (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:38, 9 January 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_January_9&oldid=1067543099"