Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2022.

New York railway station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#New York railway station

Philadelphia railway station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Philadelphia railway station

Philadelphia Commuter Rail (New Jersey)[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 03:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:XY situation as this can target the Atlantic City Line or SEPTA Regional Rail, which services two stops in New Jersey (Trenton and West Trenton). This should be deleted. TartarTorte 18:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Philadelphia#Rail where the reader will find links to both the systems with prose explaining why they are there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another garbage redirect by everyone's favorite iPod on Wikipedia. This is an inherently confusing redirect that merits outright deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with T&OT. The proposed retarget would be confusing (except for Dr. Oz) given this redirect has a New Jersey disambiguator and Philadelphia is located in Pennsylvania. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would be in favor of retargeting as Thryduulf suggests without the DAB in the redirect, but, as the nominator explains, this has multiple plausible targets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:23, 23 September 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.

Black K[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#Black K

Verónica Segura[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 23:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actress currently targeting the list of characters. Would it be better to redirect to the specific film that she appears in: Attack of the Clones? I honestly don't know what to do in this situation. TNstingray (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since she also appears in several non-Star-Wars-related places such as 7 mujeres, 1 homosexual y Carlos. Also delete Veronica Segura (same redirect without the accent) for the same reason. If this is kept, the current target is best, since she is (somewhat surprisingly) not mentioned in the film article. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let an article take its place when appropriate. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to include other redirect named in this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both to encourage article creation when appropriate. Attack of the Clones might be the only work someone might know featuring her, but it might WP:ASTONISH readers looking for other information on her, especially since the movie article doesn't mention her role. Regards, SONIC678 06:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the relister was the editor who had BLARed Verónica Segura in 2020. If notable, restore pre-BLAR revision. Jay 💬 05:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I had completely forgotten about my prior edits on the page when relisting. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 29 September 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.

Insider attack[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Insider attack

File:Winterlink Group.png[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#File:Winterlink Group.png

Sly Moore (Star Wars minor characters)[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 Sly Moore (Star Wars minor characters), Keep Sly Moore. Jay 💬 06:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable search format. Delete, or completely move the page to just "Sly Moore" or something along those lines (if it does not already exist), maintaining the redirect as is. TNstingray (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to include Sly Moore, as the nomination statement applies equally to that redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the recent addition of the Sly Moore redirect, I feel that this one is still important because it still redirects to a character listed on the page. My initial nomination was in regards to the excessive descriptor ("Star Wars minor characters") that is extremely unlikely to be used. "Sly Moore" serves the purpose it needs to. TNstingray (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sly Moore as a standard {{R to list entry}} (I still support deleting the disambiguated redirect) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Sly Moore, who is mentioned at the target. Delete the originally proposed redirect per nom. This discussion should simply have been closed as "delete," as the OP's rationale does not apply to the non-disambiguated redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sly Moore - it's entirely reasonable to redirect a term in a list to the list entry. Delete the other one, which isn't a reasonable search term, while it does have history I don't think it's of use anywhere. Hut 8.5 12:44, 24 September 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 Star Wars villians[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable typo. The redirect "List of Star Wars villains" already exists. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree this is an unlikely typo, but it is a very plausible misspelling per Presidentman. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Villian has existed since 2003. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep transposition errors are a very likely class of typo -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 03:43, 24 September 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.

Sovereign Protectors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 7#Sovereign Protectors

Allentown, Pennsylva.[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 03:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

(Disclaimer, I nominated this 1.5 years ago and this was kept) This is not an abbreviation for Pennsylvania. It is based on a misread HUD document (see File:Screenshot_of_HUD_Document_for_Pennsylvania.png). The Pennsylva is just because the nia wraps around to the next line. TartarTorte 18:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pennsylva. is not listed at List of U.S. state and territory abbreviations. But, try searching Google this way: “pennsylva -pennsylvania”. The minus sign will make sure the full name of the state is not in the search results. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this were actually an abbreviation used by HUD, I would argue for keeping, but it really is just the full name of the state cutoff to the next line. There are many other towns in the document with Pennsylvania cutoff the same way that don't have analogous redirects. Thus this seems like an obscure abbreviation at best for the target. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally I'd call this balance of arguments and !votes a consensus for deletion, but given that the last time this was discussed it was 3-to-1 in favor of keep, one more relist in search of a firmer consensus seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I thought we evaluate arguments, WP:NOTVOTEs? The previous close was wrong.
Paradoctor (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above - "Pennsylva" is not a widely used abbreviation, and it's barely an abbreviation at all. The one document which was cited as evidence that it was actually used the full name of the state with "NIA" wrapped onto the next line, so it's not evidence of usage. Hut 8.5 12:50, 24 September 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.

Proprietary saftware[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 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of a number of questionable {{r from misspelling}}s created by this user. I was going to R3 it as I have with some others by them, but apparently "Saftware" is Scots for software (or might be; CiphriusKane, any thoughts?). So I guess I'll bring it here as an RLOTE with no affinity to the other language. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmour's corpus lists saftware being used in 2003, well before scowiki was a thing CiphriusKane (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and because Saftware doesn't exist and has never existed. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's an WP:RLOTE or sorts, but using Gilmour's Corpus and a few other Scots sources, I can't really find a whole lot of usage of "proprietary" as a word in Scots. While I can't definitively say it's not a word in Scots, there is regardless no affinity between Scots and proprietary software. TartarTorte 13:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dalete per Steel1943. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:38, 25 September 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.

R Tauri[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be deleted because it redirects "R Tauri" to "66 Tauri", but 66 Tauri is r Tauri which is a different star than R Tauri. See, for example, the Simbad results:

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=66+Tau&NbIdent=1&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=R+Tau&NbIdent=1&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id PopePompus (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current target has contained the text "also known as r Tauri" since 13 August 2017 (Old revision of 66 Tauri) when it was added by Loooke (talk · contribs).
Looking at the links provided by the nominator, it seems r Tauri and R Tauri are not synonymous, and r Tauri is listed as one of the 39 "Identifiers" of 66 Tauri.
The redirect has {{lowercasetitle}} indicating that it's intended for r Tauri, so 66 Tauri is the correct target. The problem is that I don't think Wikipedia is capable of distinguishing articles based on the case of the first letter, so there's no way to create a separate redirect for R Tauri. Ideally, this redirect would be a disambiguation page listing both stars, linking to unambiguous titles. I don't know if Wikipedia has an article for the other star, or even a section or list entry for it in an article on another topic, so I don't know if a disambiguation page is viable. – Scyrme (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It is a deeply-embedded "feature" of Wikipedia that it doesn't and can't distinguish between articles where the only difference is the case of the first letter. There is at least one wikilink to r Tauri that is intended to find the variable star (edit: List of variable stars fixed to force a redlink since there is no article for the variable star), but there is no article for it. In most similar cases, there is an obvious primary topic and a hatnote to the other term (eg. R Centauri). In a few cases where both stars are well-known by a different designation, there is a set index page linking to them (eg. W Carinae). There are relatively few cases where there is a lowercase Bayer designation and the corresponding variable star article doesn't exists, but see u Herculis for an example where there is a set index with a redlink. I think that is only helpful where the variable star is obviously notable. R Tauri is borderline notable, but possibly as notable as U Herculis. Sending people to a set index with only one real option worth clicking on isn't very user-friendly. I don't think deleting the title completely should even be considered, it is a valid term albeit an ambiguous one so just make it the least confusing outcome for anyone linking to it. Note that mistaken links to a set index are not as easy to find as those to a dab page, but it allows for more information so it isn't necessarily a complete bust to find yourself on a set index with nowhere good to go. Lithopsian (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Since the software treats the same title as the valid representation of two strings, I think in this case we can say that both topics are the primary topic here. If there were articles on both, we would handle that by seeing if one is primary-er than the other, or otherwise by giving the R Tauri a title like R Tauri (Mira star) (or whatever's a good way to disambiguate a star, I don't know) and dabbing the two. But since the current target is the primary topic for one of the two strings that MediaWiki lumps under this title, I don't think that WP:PRIMARYRED applies, and that's the only guideline that would justify deletion in a case like this. If there is a good page to hatnote to from the current target, by all means, do so. And if the other article is written, then those with expertise in this subject can decide the primary landing page as described above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Tamzin. The {{Technical reasons}} may be useful in this situation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep r Tauri works properly and is correct. The only other option is to convert it into a set index for both "R Tauri" and "r Tauri". -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 03:54, 24 September 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.

James McLean(Irish footballer)[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 💬 08:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to no space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, James McLean (Irish footballer), exists and targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 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.

Slender-spined[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 21:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Neelix creation. "Slender-spined all thorn" is a vernacular name for the plant Koeberlinia spinosa (although it's not currently mentioned there). There are likely other organisms that have "slender-spined" as part of a vernacular name Plantdrew (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no clear purpose. The fish is not nicknamed "Slender-spined" and it is not referred to as such. Slender-spined is a descriptor and not a topic in and of itself. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. While the porcupine fish is by far the primary result on Google it is always seen as "Slender-spined porcupine fish" not just as "Slender-spined". There are indeed though other organisms with "slender-spined" in the name, including Rubus elegantispinosus (Slender-spined bramble), Arius platypogon (Slender-spined catfish), Micaria longipes (Slender-spined Antmimic Ground Spider), and possibly Sigilmassasaurus (although everything about this genus seems controversial). None of them seem to be called just "Slender-spined" either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless redirect which coopts the actual name of the fish. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:23, 23 September 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.

Area codes that are actually country codes[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 14:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These have the Area Code XXX format (for example Area code 904) of numbers in the North American Numbering Plan, but instead are country codes for the places they are retargeting leading to confusion for the reader. From doing some research (albeit biased by being in America), I can't find much using country codes and area codes synonymously. TartarTorte 13:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - country and area codes are distinct concepts. These countries also have their own area codes. Misleading redirects which will cause suprise. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As someone who does use redirects of this format, the current targets would confuse me. My understanding of the NANP suggests that it's not impossible that some or all of these numbers may be allocated as area codes in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 22 September 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.

Baja, California[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 Baja California (disambiguation). Nominally no consensus between retarget and deletion proposals, defaulting to the frontrunner retarget proposal due to lack of support for the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Baja California about the administrative entity and Baja California peninsula about the geographic feature. "Baja, California" should probably either redirect to the former instead of the latter, or possibly be deleted as an implausible typo. Note that Special:WhatLinksHere/Baja,_California has a dozen or so entries, which would need to be inspected manually (from a cursory glance most of it should go to the peninsula).

(There might also be an argument to reorganize the state/peninsula articles with a DAB page, but I am not touching this.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget back to Baja California and tag as {{R from incorrect punctuation}}. This redirect was originally created because of editors incorrectly changing links for the Mexican state because they thought they refer to a town in the U.S. state of California. Indeed, this seems like an important redirect to ensure these links still bring users to the correct article. I agree all current incoming links should be manually reviewed and made to directly target the appropriate page. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there's no place called Baja in California, and any other interpretation is ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retarget to Baja California which should be dab page. See move proposal talk:Baja_California#Requested_move_2_September_2022.I just installed a hatnote at the target so people can easily go to the disambiguation page if they think they’re at the wrong place. But most likely they’re at the right place. The peninsula is much more well-known than the administrative state in the northern part of the peninsula, and anyway our article on the peninsula discusses that administrative state among other things. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anythingyouwant: I would find it extremely weird to have Baja, California and Baja California direct to two different things, which is the current state of things. Does your argument imply that we should move the peninsula article to Baja California and the state article to Baja California state (or similar)? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tigraan, I have looked into this a bit more just now, and I think it would be a heavy lift to get the name of our article about the Mexican state changed, given that it’s currently in the same format as the other Mexican states. However, there would be some precedent to do that per Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state). It probably would not be very difficult to get the name of our article about the peninsula changed so that the last word (peninsula) is put in parentheses, similar to Hawaii (island), in which case it would make more sense for “Baja, California” to redirect to the peninsula, would you agree? Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, the important thing is that "Baja, California" and "Baja California" should not lead one to the state and the other to the peninsula (even with hatnotes). I also would prefer that "Baja, California" and "Baja California" both lead to the same place, whether that place is the state, the peninsula or the DAB page. All that can be solved even with the constraint that the state stays in place (moving it seems to be contentious, cf. the link from "I am not touching this" in my OP).
    If I understand correctly, you propose to move Baja California peninsula to Baja California (peninsula) but otherwise keep the redirect logic. I support the rename (without having a strong opinion either), but I do not think it solves the problem around the redirects. So no, I do not think a redirect Baja, California → Baja California (peninsula) makes sense as long as "Baja California" is the state.
    What do you say to 64.229.88.43’s suggestion to retarget "Baja, California" to the DAB page? It would not be my first choice (per above I would prefer that it resolves to the same page as "Baja California"), but I think it is certainly an improvement over the status quo. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, retargeting "Baja, California" to the DAB page would be a good compromise. I have also started a discussion here at the talk page for the Mexican state. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a hard time seeing how the state is the primary topic over the peninsula in long-term significance. The state does have a solid pageviews lead though. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Baja California (disambiguation) -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a good compromise if we cannot retarget to the peninsula. I’ve started a move request here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the directly related discussion occurring at Talk:Baja_California#Requested_move_2_September_2022. The outcome of the RM may affect what happens to the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Baja California. The comma shouldn't make a difference here. User:Anythingyouwant's comment is an argument that the primary topic for "Baja California" is the peninsula rather than the state – I have no opinion about that issue, but regardless of what topic is covered at the title "Baja California", this redirect should target that title. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Baja California (disambiguation) or Baja California (the state)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsensical. Please don't encourage misinformation -- there is no place in California called "Baja". Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if usage of the comma is a typo, and if so, if it's a plausible typo. I found 35 instances of "Baja, California" in article mainspace and am in the process of wikilinking them. I wouldn't say all of them were inadvertent "corrections" by editors, since the sources they refer to also use the comma, such as couple of articles citing this book (see what's written on the book cover), and a NASA page. Jay 💬 11:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the comma in some articles, changed it to Baja California (region) in some and wikilinked some. Now the What links here shows 12 incoming. Some articles like Western skink say "Northern Baja, California" which I don't know what to make of, so I didn't touch it. I would suggest retarget to the DAB and fix the incoming links. Wait a few years and see if editors are still trying to insert the comma. I would support delete if it can be shown that it's a typo. Jay 💬 11:58, 2 October 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.

Prime Minister of the United States[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. Editors remain split between delete, keep, and disambiguation proposals, and I am unable to identify a basis for closing in favor of any particular option. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nonexistent title, also nonsensical because a PM is by definition not a president and many countries have both. The closest thing the US has to a PM is maybe the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Dronebogus (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is an unnecessary redirect. No such office exists in the U.S. federal government, and the POTUS does not serve in a prime ministerial capacity (nor, a few similarities aside, does the SotH). Drdpw (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drdpw, America does not have a Prime Minister and the president is definitely not the Prime Minister. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. The consensus from the previous two Rfds in convincing that those unfamiliar with the U.S. might believe there is such an office. POTUS is the best target, as those using the term prime minister are likely seeking the U.S. head of government, not a legislative leader. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (Struck head of state to head of government after drdpw's comments; Struck speaker suggestions per Scyrme's reasoning) Without knowing the American system of government and given at least 30% of the world, by a very conservative estimate, lives in a country where the Prime Minister is head of state government, including the countries with the second, third, and sixth most english speakers, it's a pretty harmless redirect. While it could theoretically target Speaker of the United States House of Representatives as that is a somewhat equivalent role, President and Prime Minister both serving has head of government, with Speaker not serving as such makes me think president should be kept. TartarTorte 02:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No where is a prime minister the head of state. Drdpw (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Meant to say head of government above where I said head of state, which is especially confusing given that I correctly used head of government later on. Correcting mistake now. TartarTorte 12:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or else delete The retarget would be to List of countries by system of government#Presidential systems without a prime minister. This is a way to explain that the U.S. does not have a Prime Minister. It’s not just a matter of titles. A presidential system is fundamentally different from a parliamentary system. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous RfDs; helps against brainfarts or is educational. Very well used redirect. Retarget second choice, think that may maybe be less helpful given it doesn't link to the POTUS page. J947 † edits 05:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    List of countries by system of government#Presidential systems without a prime minister now does link to the POTUS page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TatarTorte and the previous RfDs. I don't oppose retargetting but it is a distant second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as there's no such thing as a US prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's perfectly reasonable that someone who is unfamiliar with the US political system might think there is, and it is our job to educate people. We can't do that by deleting redirects like this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe they’ll get redirected to POTUS and say “Dagnabbit, I wanted the prime minister, not the president!” The only time “prime minister” is mentioned at President of the United States is to describe Benjamin Netanyahu. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the intent is to educate, then this redirect is counter to that intent. It misleadingly suggests the two offices are equivalent and that the difference is in name only. Someone without prior knowledge being redirected may come away with the impression that they're different titles for the same role, which is false. Also, retargeting to the Speaker (as some have suggested) would be especially confusing because parliamentary systems typically have a "Speaker" independent of the "Prime Minister", and that role is very different to that of the Speaker in the US.
    The closest thing the US has to a "Prime Minister" is not the President or the Speaker, as suggested above, rather it would be the presiding member of the Cabinet of the United States, since it's the closest thing the US has to a "cabinet of ministers", but basing a redirect on such a comparison would only confuse people because members of the US cabinet aren't also members of the legislature and generally hold the title of "secretary" not "minister". As I understand it, since 1919, the presiding member of the Cabinet is the Vice President, although the role of the Vice President is very different to a "Prime Minister" in even a parliamentary republic and they are never called the "Prime Minister" of the US despite heading the Cabinet. Really, the US system splits the responsibilities of a typical "Prime Minister" between the President, Vice President, and Speaker so there is no perfect equivalent even in the head of the cabinet.
    The best case for keeping this redirect is as an {{r from incorrect name}}, per past discussion, as a lot of people mistakenly believe the roles are equivalent and could conceivably be looking for the President when searching the phrases "Prime Minister of the United States" or "Prime Minister of America". However, it would be wrong to frame this as educational; it's more a concession to widespread confusion. I don't have a strong opinion on whether that's a good enough reason to keep the redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr - The redirect should either be deleted or kept [Edit: or disambiguated, see discussion below], but not retargeted to the Speaker or the Vice President since that wouldn't help misinformed people find what they're looking for. If the redirect is kept it may be convenient for misinformed people, but it would probably reinforce their misunderstanding, namely that the President is equivalent to a prime minister. It is not educational or informative. – Scyrme (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Edited: 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retargeting as Anythingyouwant suggested above would be improvement over keeping as it avoids a false equivalence, but it wouldn't address the problem that this office has actually existed in the past in other countries, so redirecting to information about the USA is not entirely appropriate. – Scyrme (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no redirects for other utterly nonexistent positions, such as or Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United States or Foreign Secretary (United States) or Monarchy of the United States or Premier of the United States or Supreme Leader of the United States, all of which are articles with different countries in place, nor should there be a redirect for Prime Minister of the United States. The most helpful outcome for anyone searching for any of these terms is to come up empty. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, that assumes it's actually used often enough to helpful. I had thought the phrase may be uniquely helpful compared to other non-existent positions, based on how often it's used so I tried searching "Prime+Minister+of+the+United+States" "Prime+Minister+of+America" on Google. The first page reports 12 million and 4 million results respectively, but weirdly when I tried navigating past page 2 suddenly millions is more like 30. Yahoo has a similar issue in that it reports hundreds of thousands of results, but when navigating past page 2 they magically disappear. Getting mixed signals. Honestly. not sure what to make of this. – Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I can see, the present target of this redirect is not appropriate, because this office actually existed in Indonesia and Belgium, and has never existed in the USA. The United States of Indonesia had a Prime Minister. The United States of Belgium had a Prime Minister. The expression "Prime Minister of the United States of Indonesia" appears in a number of books. The expression "Prime Minister of the United States of Belgium" appears on the internet, and is not as well attested in English (whereas the expression "Prime Minister of the United Belgic States" appears in books). These expressions are presumably translations from the languages actually used in Indonesia and Belgium. I am not sure what should be done with this page, except that it should not continue to point at its misleading present target. James500 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great point! Perhaps it should be converted into a disambiguation page instead of retargeted or deleted? Only two articles are required, per WP:TWODABS. Difficulty with that is that Prime Minister of Belgium discusses the modern office, and doesn't mention the United States of Belgium. – Scyrme (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always edit United States of Belgium (or any article in List of countries that include United States in their name). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything I could contribute would be unreferenced. I could add a bit to United Belgian States § Politics and United States of Indonesia § Governance regarding the office if someone knows of relevant sources which are open access or at least accessible through the Wikipedia Library which I could use; I could also draft a disambiguation page after making the needed content additions (or after someone else makes the needed additions, assuming they've not already drafted a disambiguation page first). – Scyrme (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per TatarTorte and the previous RfDs. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Anythingyouwant, or keep as a second choice. The retarget helps reduce confusion, but is still only one click away from the old target. -- Beland (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per James500 and Scyrme. Or it should be converted into a disambiguation page instead between Prime Minister of the United States of Indonesia and Prime Minister of the United States of Belgium. --Privybst (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have stated, this is a valid {{R from incorrect name}}. People who are not familiar with the differences in international governments could easily assume that the US has a prime minister if they live in a country that has one. This redirect helps their searches go to a useful place. --RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the recent "keep" votes at all. An {{R from incorrect name}} is not appropriate when the title is ambiguous and there are viable targets that aren't erroneous. eg. Prime Minister of Indonesia § United States of Indonesia. Sure they wouldn't be convenient for people looking for the POTUS, but making Wikipedia more convenient for confused searchers shouldn't take precedence over making correct information more accessible, especially when we all agree that the redirect is an error to begin with.
Regardless, I've added material to United States of Belgium § Politics and drafted a disambiguation page at Prime Minister of the United States.
If many of you feel having an incorrect term redirect to POTUS is important, I would suggest creating the unambiguous Prime Minister of the United States of America and targeting that to List of countries by system of government § Presidential systems without a prime minister per Anythingyouwant's suggestion, as that would avoid a false equivalence between the role of Prime Minister and President, while still sending people in the intended direction. – Scyrme (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like this solution and created the proposed redirect. Privybst (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Disambiguate per Scyrme. --Privybst (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Privybst: Assuming you mean disambiguate? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, thank you. --Privybst (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Scyrme. I would also support, as an intentional departure from MOS:DAB, writing after the bulleted list The United States of America [[Prime Minister of the United States of America|does not have a prime minister]]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify to POTUS, Speaker of the House, and the former pre-Constitution President of the Continental Congress; and any other office for which PM of the US might refer to mistakenly. The Set Index would be Offices which may be mistaken for or confused with being prime minister of the United States of America, an office which does not exist in the United States Goverment. -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So are we supposed to pretend the offices that actually existed in other countries never existed? If you were suggesting making Prime Minister of the United States of America a set index, I could understand, but I don't understand why you would ignore the non-erroneous cases for Prime Minister of the United States.
If others here think a set index for Prime Minister of the United States of America is appropriate, then I don't object to linking it at a disambiguation page at Prime Minister of the United States, but I strongly disagree with making Prime Minister of the United States a US-centric set index covering the conceivable erroneous false equivalences that people could make. – Scyrme (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know if this error is common enough to warrant treating this an exceptional case; set indexes like this don't exist for other countries, and I doubt anyone would suggest making one. As I noted earlier (ctrl+f so I tried searching to find it above), the search results give mixed signals. I've not seen any conclusive evidence that this is a unique case that warrants a unique solution. – Scyrme (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have already voted well above, but I do want to note that while there are countries that have had prime ministers whose names start with "United States", that the term "United States" without any qualifier pretty much exclusively refers to the United States. While I do understand that the United States of Indonesia and United States of Belgium had a Prime Minister, but it seems much more like a WP:PTM to me. I would have to imagine a vast majority of those searching for "Prime Minister of the United States" would be looking for at least some leader of the United States of America. TartarTorte 13:29, 29 September 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.

Käpt'n Blaubärs verrückte Schatzsuche[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video game listed at Shin'en Multimedia and List of Game Boy Color games, but not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could've just asked me about it.... Retargeted to Shin'en Multimedia. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created a blurb about it on the Bluebear page. Sources are spotty but the game definitely existed and it starred Capt. Bluebear. Makes sense to keep the redirect now. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've restored the original target and reverted Salvidrim! edits since the redirect shouldn't be changed while this discussion is open. CycloneYoris talk! 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - it appears that the title is Käpt'n Blaubär: Die verrückte Schatzsuche. This is supported by the cover art. In light of this, I would support moving the redirect to Käpt'n Blaubär: Die verrückte Schatzsuche. However, this discussion should still run its course, to determine if the blurb at Captain Bluebear warrants a redirect. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, per the boxart. Weirdly the official website lists it as "Käpt'n Blaubärs verrückte Schatzsuche". Maybe both can be valid redirect. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: - In light of all of the facts now known to me, I would support keeping both! Thanks for the ping ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Salvidrim!'s findings that this is an official rendering of the title. The version suggested by El cid should be created as well. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 29 September 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.

Valimar[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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to only refer to the fantasy meaning; Valinor seems to be the more appropriate target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:09, 22 September 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.

Hammer and chisel (tools)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#Hammer and chisel (tools)

2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_22&oldid=1114585556"