Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 5, 2023.

Category:2020 World Para Athletics European Championships[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#Category:2020 World Para Athletics European Championships

General Roothaan[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) Cremastra (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misbracketing of "Father General Roothaan" (i.e., Roothaan, who holds the office of Father General), only linked on one page and there by mistake; not a likely error for anyone else to make — Moriwen (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

SP:EP[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 23:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid cross-namespace redirect. "SP" does not appear at Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a pseudo namespace, a very recent creation, and the only one of its kind. Doesn't need to exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Utopes. Additionally, redirects to special pages are always soft (see User:Thryduulf/R to special) so should never be used in the main namespace without an appropriate explanatory template. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Untitled Grand Theft Auto game[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 keep – withdrawn by nominator (diff). – bradv 00:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Game has a title now Isla 🏳️‍⚧ 22:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. It has been the article's title for more than a year. Redirect is totally reasonable here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for now. I can't find anything related to video games but WP:UFILM seems to indicate it's best to wait 30 days so pageviews can taper off. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 22:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At least for another ~6 months or so. In line with WP:RKEEP#K4, there are sure to be links that get broken if deleted so soon. Revisit later when traffic is more likely to have died down. - 2pou (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Not only is this still getting views every day, it's still getting thousands of views every day. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Ilovewikipedia[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. Euryalus (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, I see no relation between the redirect and the target page. Delete this please. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This wasn't mentioned in the target article at the time of the redirect's creation (January 2012) and google searches don't enlighten me regarding any connection either. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No connection to the target article. Yoblyblob (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 21:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not useful as no clear relation to target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Category:Aquatic cryptids[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. Page is no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was encountered following the closure Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 13#Category:Fictional water monsters, where it was selected as a split target for Category:Water monsters. It should either redirect to Category:Cryptids (instead of the current target) or be a standalone category. Dingonek is one possible member of the new category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was emptied and redirected by an editor who opposed the use of "cryptids" in the category names. It should probably have been discussed but I would have supported deletion. Other terms that have been used or suggested include "mythological", "folkloric" and "purported", which are recognised words whereas "cryptid" is not. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean also deleting Category:Cryptids? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should not be a redirect at all. The category can be populated with everything that is currently in Category:Water monsters, after I just moved a few entries to Category:Mythological aquatic creatures. This is entirely in line with the beforementioned discussion. If there is an editor who is opposing the outcome of this discussion, they should request reopening of that discussion or go to WP:DRV. Can we remove the redirect right away? Because it may screw up the implementation of the outcome of the CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it was obvious from my closure that the redirect was going to be converted into a category. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, not a redirect any more. The CfD was reverted and relisted. Jay 💬 07:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Abraham of kratia[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by bot, not being used anywhere in Wikipedia ―Eduardogobi (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – no valid deletion rationale given (no incoming links is not a reason, WP:R#K2, and neither is a redirect being created by a bot). On the other hand, this is a lowercase version of Abraham of Kratia, which is certainly a spelling in use (a quick google search pulls up many examples). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cratia is sometimes called Kratia, and the uppercase version exists as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Baragaon, Shahjahanpur[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 an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the target to Baragaon, Shahganj as there is another Baragaon in Jaunpur district so this is now a double redirect; it should be deleted as Shahjahanpur is another district that also contains a place called Baragaon (https://www.geonames.org/1277128/baragaon.html). Peter James (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Baragaon, Jharkhand[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 23:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally about a place in Karnataka, but was changed and is now about a place in Himachal Pradesh. There were several moves including one to this title and back, which left a redirect. There is no article about a place called Baragaon in Jharkhand (or any relevant content in the target page when it was moved) and I could not find a suitable redirect target. Peter James (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Ocado Man[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 14:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no lasting notability, not mentioned at target page for 15 years. This was created as an article in 2007, claiming that the advertising character was in one of the most successful UK marketing campaigns of that year. In Sept 2007 it was redirected without merging any content.[1] In January 2008 the mention of the campaign & character was removed from the target page.[2] – Fayenatic London 12:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: for the record, the citation was archived, but is not third-party. ""I am the Ocado…" MP3 downloads". Ocado. Archived from the original on 2007-06-21. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Soheb Porbandarwala[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A poker player that has some light mentions around Wikipedia, apparently, however none of such mentions are at the target article, and I don't feel it would be a super valuable redirect to keep around anyway if it's just going to point to a list entry. This title may be a bit more workable than Sean's, however. Utopes (talk / cont) 10:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Sean Yu[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 14:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A poker player not mentioned at the target article, or mentioned on any article to a passable degree, it seems. The only mentions of this individual appear to come from their existence as a black link (i.e. no link) on a template, possibly a couple with a bunch of transclusions. Utopes (talk / cont) 10:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Bradley Martyn[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 14:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at target article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned at target, exactly per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Untitled Mario film[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 and no consensus respectively. There's no consensus on where to point the first, so I have retargeted to the "Future" section as a bartender. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No longer untitled. It's been months since the movie came out and page views have died down. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refine Untitled Mario film to The Super Mario Bros. Movie#Possible sequel, the "untitled" film is now the next one. Delete Draft:Untitled animated Mario film to make way for a draft on the sequel. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Untitled Mario film. This is consistently getting many page views (133 in the 30 days preceding the nomination), the only day this year when it wasn't used was 15 August and some days it is still getting into double figures. I don't know why this is still getting used so much but deletion would very clearly be harmful. No comment regarding the drafts at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My only thought is that there are readers who may be looking for information regarding the sequel. Never the less, the redirect appears ambiguous and doesn't seem to be helpful in an encyclopedic sense, IMO. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to retarget to the sequel. That would seem to be a reason for the redirect getting so many views. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone who participated in the last discussion: @Kcmastrpc @MikeAllen @InfiniteNexus @Eureka Lott @J947 @QuicoleJR @2NumForIce @Steel1943 @Veverve @Pppery @Compassionate727 @Yoshiman6464 @Jay Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong user: @EurekaLott Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The film is no-longer untitled. The redirect had served its purpose before the film's trailer was announced. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 15:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Yoshiman6464. Veverve (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These redirects are not useful to readers. No one will be searching these terms in the search bar, and no articles (presumably) use these redirects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget first, keep second per Steel. Jay 💬 07:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with refining to the Future section per Significa. Minor but better change. Jay 💬 09:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Dispersive PDE Wiki[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 restore article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dispersive PDE Wiki (2nd nomination) has been opened. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 20:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be mentioned anywhere outside of external links on the English Wikipedia at this point. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The nominated redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dispersive PDE Wiki (December 2006) resulted in no consensus to delete, but left the option to merge open. In June 2007 it was merged and redirected to Terence Tao, the redirect was changed to the present target in April 2008. It's not immediately clear whether any of the merged content remains in the Terence Tao article (or elsewhere) but if it does then the page history needs to be preserved for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of Terence Tao.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don’t delete: as an {{R from merge}}, the history needs to be preserved for attribution, per K1 - and given the page’s age, K4 may also be applicable. I’m also conscious that there was no consensus to delete the page at its AfD (meaning its redirection was effectively a BLAR), and the previous contents might be useful for anyone wishing to turn the redirect back into an article/add a section about the site to another article.
    I’m not sure what the best target for this redirect would be, as I’m unfamiliar with the topic area (would it be worth leaving RfD invitations at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects?). Unless I’ve missed something, any target at the moment will result with in this being an {{R without mention}}; which isn’t ideal, but - given we need to retain this page for attribution - there doesn’t currently seem to be a better option, and we at least have targets that would fit as an {{R to related topic}}.
    So, don’t delete, no opinion on target, but allow conversion to article (if that needs to be said) should anyone wish to do so. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was merged to Terence Tao, but it was a poor merge (because the content was not about Terence Tao, nor was it a sub-topic), and the merged content was removed after a month. I don't see where else it could be merged. Restore and AfD. Jay 💬 08:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Paupers deck challenge[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16#Paupers deck challenge

Magic Game Day[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. Pace Tavix and Queen of Hearts, I don't think it's correct to say there's no attribution issue. While to my knowledge Legal has never clarified whether we're expected to maintain attribution for just current versions or also old ones, the common-sense answer would be the latter: An old revision of a page is an HTML document stored on WMF servers and as much subject to U.S. copyright law (including compliance with the terms of libre licenses) as any other document on the Web. All of that said, maintaining a redirect's history isn't the only way to preserve attribution! There was only one contributor of maybe-above-the-TOO text here, Sirconnorstack. I've added their username to Magic: The Gathering's history in an edit summary, satisfying their attribution rights under CC BY-SA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 07:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention yet added to the proposed target. Also notified of this discussion there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and was subsequently reverted. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t delete as an {{R from merge}}, per K1 (and possibly also per K4, given that this page has been around since 2007). As with § Paupers deck challenge above, I wouldn’t feel comfortable opining on the best target; but I’ll leave an invitation to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 15:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This merge argument is ridiculous. Just go ahead and revdel that one edit if you feel you have to to make a point. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of mention. If there is no extant content from the merge at the article, then there is nothing to attribute. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not mentioned anywhere, the merge was immedately reverted so there's no attribution to be worried about AFAIK. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 08:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Capashen[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. There was no new participation despite two relists. Retargeting to Rath Cycle#Storyline as a better target than the current one. Jay 💬 08:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned in passing in a few other articles but targeting to any one of them raises WP:XY issues. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Serra (Magic: The Gathering)[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 the angel, No consensus on the Gathering. There was no support to keep Serra (Magic: The Gathering) at the current target either. Retargeting it to Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering)#Storylines as a better target per the first preference of the lone participant. Jay 💬 08:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Mosque Street[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 12#Mosque Street

30 Days (upcoming film)[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. ✗plicit 14:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Released in early October; this is no longer an upcoming film. Does not make sense to maintain longer than needed, i.e. now. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Not only is this still getting page views, they were actually increasing in the days before this nomination. This is very clearly still needed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film's plot pretty much guarantees 'what is that movie called' traffic from plausible vague searches even if it's no longer under that title. Nate • (chatter) 01:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pageviews have crazily spiked for some reason since this was nominated. Jay 💬 07:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was surprising for me to see as well. The main page jumped from 600 daily pageviews to 8000 daily pageviews, and because this RfD gives it a smaller boost than similar titles, it's led this title to be a higher option for Wikipedia search results than 30 Days (2023 film). Similarly, this RfD is also one of the higher Google results for its key search terms as well, despite the notion that the film being "upcoming" is wholly inaccurate. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms

Human high-quality man[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 💬 07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This search term is only sometimes equated to Qingen Xu. Searching this term on google brings up a number of top 10 lists and how-to guides, before it ever gets to a sole individual in particular. A term such as this is likely too unspecific, and probably shouldn't be left to settle on one TikTok trendster. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the target article is not ripe for deletion, which it probably is, this redirect is no use to anyone. It should either be an article about the use of phrase in Chinese, if there is anything to say about that, or, more likely, not exist at all. Pointing it at one individual is just ridiculous. The term is being applied to him as a sarcastic insult which makes it even less defensible. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Patrick Chen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#Patrick Chen

Mommy kink[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...no indication that this is an equivalent topic. This article mentions nothing about mothers or kinks, and it does not appear that redirecting from that would be of benefit here, as it is only tangentially related to what is actually discussed at the target, i.e. causes and effects of age disparity. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this is definitely a fair mindset, "ought to have content on Wikipedia eventually" and "already has content on Wikipedia" are very different categories. When there becomes Wikipedia content that IS tailored to this term, this can be recreated, but while there isn't, deleted until then. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Frasier (upcoming TV series)[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 23:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An upcoming TV series that is no longer upcoming as of two months ago (October 2023). Zooming the pageviews out to between August 4th and December 4th shows the massive cliff-dive in views more suitably, which aligns with the date of the page-move. Maintaining an "upcoming" redirect for a piece of media no longer upcoming is misleading. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep what matters is the absolute number of page views, and this is still being viewed multiple times almost every day (7 time yesterday for example) indicating that there is still a need for this redirect to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, revist in a month. Jay 💬 06:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment Redirect views have tapered off though. The page (before release date) was gaining 1k views easily a day. After the move, instant drop to 70 some a day, with a slow peak up to 200 on the day the show released two months ago, before a quick drop to 25 and 5. There hasn't been a page at this title for quite some time. This new title, while forgivable for the rest of October, has since become misleading. WP:UFILM suggests 30 days time to allow views to taper off before being deleted. It has tapered. Nowhere is it suggested that the pageviews need to be zero; a misleading redirect is a misleading redirect, and after months of tapering by 99.6%, it is not worth the resources to conduct weekly check-ins to make sure that actively misleading and confusing redirects hit zero pageviews before being deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says at least 30 days (emphasis mine), which is a decent recommendation, implying there will be cases (such as the current) where we may have to wait more. Jay 💬 08:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret that it shouldn't be nominated a day before the 30 mark, but nominate any time after that. There's not yet an automated process of getting rid of "no-longer-upcoming" redirects as soon as the titles are no longer needed, so in its absence once the 30 days pass, go for it. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances like the 30 Days' 2023 film title above (which I quite literally could not make up that level of irony if I tried, lol), but I would not consider this to be extraordinary, as it has exclusively declined.
Also, to me that piece of text implies that the outcome for WP:UFILM titles is ultimately deletion regardless, i.e. that "after at least 30 days of a film's release, nominate for deletion". Utopes (talk / cont) 08:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for not nominating redirects before ~30 days is because it takes time for people (and search engines) to find the new location of the article and the 30 days is an attempt to put an objective number on what is, and can only ever be, a subjective determination of when a redirect's utility has ended (because some people refuse to accept that these redirects do still have value to readers while technically incorrect, this was a compromise). What matters is both the number of page views and the pattern of them - whether they are increasing or decreasing, how quickly the number is changing, etc. Yes, the ultimate result is deletion but deletion happens only when they are no longer of use to readers looking for the formerly upcoming media, not because some arbitrary time has passed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the premise in principle. The thing about "upcoming" redirects is that from a literal standpoint, the titles become immediately problematic the day after the film releases: It's no longer upcoming, and is therefore a misleading title. But, because hawking every films' release day is unfeasible, and to account for different release schedules, a short (but generous) amount of time is allotted before its inevitable and guaranteed deletion. A redirect with inherent factual problems doesn't suddenly lose these problems just because of views. Redirects don't need to have 0 pageviews to be deleted. If the title enforces misinformation that a show is unreleased when its been out for 2+ months, it becomes a faulty disambiguator that should be removed, (bearing in mind the decently old release date and the ongoing/projected decline of views). In this redirect's case, the views have only gone down, from 1k to 5. This is a plenty valid taper (as suggested by WP:UFILM), meaning it's set for a deletion nomination.
In all other related situations, a Wikipedia search would answer every question about this search term. If someone was compelled to type in "upcoming TV series", they would find out that: "it's the 2023 series, it released two months ago and is no longer upcoming". On the other hand, counting on a title based on incorrect information would lead to a splitting pathway of finding the answer: "oh, the title says 'upcoming' so it must be upcoming". Removing this redirect now that plenty of time has passed cuts off the final trickles of the confusion pipeline, as the <1% of pageviews are imo negligible and do not justify the existence of a faulty-titled view-siphon. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

MOS: HYPHEN and others[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 💬 07:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While the right intentions seem to be just fine among the redirects in this bundle, this is not how Wikipedia deals with namespaces. In all situations when it pertains to naming, the title is followed IMMEDIATELY after the colon, a la Category:Surnames or Template:Infobox. The space means that the "MOS" is no longer considered a "namespace", but just three letters followed by a colon and space. There are only 6 of these, all included in this nomination, and all of which created in 2019 or later making them very recent crop-ups. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: Unlikely terms (these weird versions with a leading space), and because all the "MOS:" redirs are a pseudo-namespace and actually live in the main (article) namespace, they are not "cheap". We should only have the ones we actually need, not "I can imagine this as a possible typo of someone" variants.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just throwing it out there that Category: Surnames and Template: Infobox and, for that matter, WP: HYPHEN all work correctly because, as real namespaces and namespace aliases, they have software support. MOS: HYPHEN doesn't without this redirect. Omitting the space is convention, nothing more. —Cryptic 12:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidental and verging on accidental. We don't need to create hundreds of "MOS:[space]FOO" redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

MOS:fLAG[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 💬 07:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created PNR. Wholly unlikely to have an inverted caps here. While this is likely created from hitting shift while stuck in caps lock, there are zero other pseudo-namespace redirects that do this, and we already have Mos:flag and MOS:FLAG. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlikely term, and because all the "MOS:" redirs are a pseudo-namespace and actually live in the main (article) namespace, they are not "cheap". We should only have the ones we actually need, not "I can imagine this as a possible typo of someone" variants.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely and costly PNR. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Celebi[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. There was no agreement on the Pokemon being the primary topic. Suggested actions such as moving of Çelebi to the non-diacritic Celebi or Celebi (disambiguation), or restoring / histmerge of the pre-redirect content of Celebi or Celebi (Pokémon) may be done or discussed at appropriate forums. Jay 💬 14:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to a dab page Thanawat200807 (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather classic {{R from title without diacritics}}, there's nothing wrong with it? The only thing I notice that could well be wrong is putting the small town at Çelebi instead of having that term disambiguated, I'll go investigate if that should be fixed. --Joy (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I updated the situation around Çelebi. The only question is if we should split Celebi into a separate disambiguation page per WP:SMALLDETAILS. However, the only other meaning is a Pokemon, so, does it really matter? Maybe it should just be reformatted to say {{for|the Pokemon|Celebi (Pokemon)}} at the top? --Joy (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question here is whether this should redirect to the Çelebi disambiguation page or to the same target as Celebi (Pokemon). Looking at Google results, the Pokemon is the clear primary topic - every single result on the first page and all but two on the second, with the other two being for a non-notable UK company and an acronym for some specialist astrophysics software. On page three is a mix of Pokemon, a singe result for a hotel in Cyprus and multiple people with the surname Celebi or Çelebi. So Retarget to List of generation II Pokémon#Celebi as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Celebi (Pokemon) and add a hatnote to the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf The weird part about the Pokemon list is that it's a table with several narrow columns, so the hatnote would have to be... in a row of its own above? --Joy (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that even if it were primary topic by usage that could still be WP:Recentism as it's the very latest in the series. Perhaps a compromise solution is to split out "Celebi" into a simple list of its own, with two items, one to the Pokemon table one to the Turkish term. Later there can be a discussion to short-circuit if e.g. WikiNav shows that everyone is looking just for the Pokemon. --Joy (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:DABNAME, Çelebi should be moved to Celebi or Celebi (disambiguation) to avoid diacritics. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. This discussion is essentially deciding between Celebi and Celebi (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page's name. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943 with most of the items there actually called Çelebi, and a clear long-term significance of the Turkish term, it merits its own list (WP:SMALLDETAILS). "Celebi" can certainly be its own disambiguation page between that and the Pokemon term; I've drafted it over there now. --Joy (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of generation II Pokémon § Celebi and add hatnote for Celebi (disambiguation). WP:SMALLDETAILS handles situations like The World Is Yours (disambiguation) vs. The Wörld Is Yours by asserting that someone who types the diactric is definitely looking for the one specific item (the album) and someone who doesn't type the diactric is looking for one of a number of things (disambiguation page), but this situation is quite unusual. The disambiguation page is the one using a diactric, and the single specific item is the only entry using no diactric. I don't think I've seen anything like this before, but I suppose WP:SMALLDETAILS still prevails, especially considering the Pokémon's popularity. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CopperyMarrow15 where exactly do we squeeze in the hatnote in that table, though? --Joy (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy, I was thinking something like this. Does it look okay on your end? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 00:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC); edited 00:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC); edited 00:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That or this alternative would work for me. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On my resolution the vertical spacing is so large that I just see the hatnote, and the vertical middle alignment makes the actual content there mostly variously colored empty space. But yeah, I guess something like that would be the way to go if we're confident that the amount of interest in the Pokemon will continue to dwarf any amount of interest in the diacriticless version of the Turkish term, that it's not recentism. --Joy (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We probably don't need 2 DAB pages, if the Pokemon is primary then I'd just make the title without the diacritic primary and put a hatnote to the DAB but otherwise move Çelebi here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Duckmather let's just try the retarget and add the hatnote and be done with it. We can measure clickstreams from the Pokemon list to the Turkish term later. --Joy (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Celebi (Pokémon), Move Celebi (Pokémon) to Celebi, Restore the edit history from 2007 and prior from Celebi post move (or history merge it to Celebi (Pokémon) prior to move) and do the same with the talk page, and hatnote from the top of Celebi to Çelebi (disambiguation). The Pokémon is the primary topic, and there was a full fledged article on the Pokémon for several years before being redirected without discussion a few months ago. Restoring the article and moving it to the base title then allows a natural hatnote to the Turkish term. -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should not be second-guessing the redirection of the Pokemon articles unless we actually thing we've found sources that eluded Cukie Gherkin's search, of which no claim has been made, and I don't see the absence of a diacritic as sufficient to establish a primary topic over the 15 other articles with this name. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Minor-attracted persons[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 soft redirect to Wikt:minor-attracted person. The previously deleted singular minor-attracted person to be recreated as a redirect to the wikt target. Fully protect all titles. Jay 💬 15:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Largely per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination), a redirect was rejected in favor of outright deletion. Minor-attracted person was salted thereafter, but this title was not, and so it was created. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm asking for deletion. I think that this is the consistent outcome. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:minor-attracted person (and recreate the variants as the same). We don't have encyclopaedic content that mentions this term, but the title keeps getting recreated and there is relevant content at Wiktionary that explains the meaning of the term and so this is the most helpful we can be to readers. Although the page at Wiktionary is nominated for deletion, the discussion has attracted only keep votes. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support keeping this redirect and creating the others as redirects to the same location iff mention of the term is added to the target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after reviewing the AFD, I gather that most editors don't have any idea of the prevalence. Please see [3] and [4]. I would be in favor of unsalting and redirecting everything to Chronophilia. Sandizer (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the soft-redir for Minor-attracted person for consistency with the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 9 § Minor Attracted Person, which in turn resolved the deferred redirection aspect of the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person. That redirect was then overwritten with the deeply problematic article that led to the second AfD. I don't see, in the second AfD, any strong consensus against redirection, and even if there were, consensus can change and RfD has the last say on suitability of a redirect. So soft-redirect, recreate variants as soft redirects, and extended-confirmed-protect all. Or fully protect even. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red-tailed hawk: I suggest tagging Minor-attracted people, too. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of the prevalence: it's a fringe term used in a small number of academic papers. Unfortunately it is also a term used by what might loosely be called "activists" seeking to legitimise pedophilia. Hence the original deletion and salting after AfD. As the janitor who did the salting, am not entirely opposed to a Wiktionary redirect though I think there's pretty strong arguments simply to keep it deleted. However if we do decide on a soft redirect we should also fully reprotect to avoid further attempts to breach WP:CHILDPRO. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm in favour of deleting these redirects per Red-tailed_hawk, for the reasons outlined in the successful AfD for the non-plural term. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, that term is used to glorify pedophilia. Wikipedia does not promote criminality. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many terms can be used to promote illegal activity. That has no bearing at all on whether they are suitable articles, redirects or soft redirects in an NPOV encyclopaedia (WP:RNEUTRAL). In this specific case, some of the uses (have been argued to) promote paedophilia, others very definitely do not - particularly as paedophilia is not a crime (abusing children is, the two are not the same). Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pedophilia and target with {{R from non-neutral name}}. I would unsalt Minor-attracted person and treat it likewise. (Protect them? Certainly. Soft redirect? No.) I agree with Sandizer that the prevalence of this term has been overlooked—or perhaps editors have been afraid that recognizing it at all legitimizes it somehow. I disagree with that. The status quo is the worst of both worlds, since "Chronophilia" truly is obscure, and includes categorizes such as gerontophilia with no relation to this term. Since it's a euphemism for pedophilia, it should point there. This does not legitimize the concept any more than any other coverage having an article on pedophilia does. Ignorance is a curious solution for an encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a euphemism for paedophilia (or more precisely paedophile) though - it's a broader term that also encompasses nepiophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles. As can be seen at wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#minor attracted person whether it is a euphemism is disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect all to wikt:minor-attracted person per Tamzin and others, except that I would prefer full protection rather than extended confirmed protection, since the creator of the article and other involved editors were well above that threshold. This is a term many people may not like (myself included), but it's no reason to not have a valid soft redirect to Wiktionary for those interested in knowing the term. Minor-attracted person would very likely still exist as a soft redirect had it not been derailed by the SPAs wanting to turn it into a POV fork. I don't see any clear consensus at the AfD against the existence of a redirect/soft redirect, even when including the more emotional !votes. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a reason a redirect, either to wiktionary or to a good target article, is unacceptable. I can get behind full protecting the redirects, but they're useful for searchers; there's no real reason to delete them. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 to what Skarmory said. It would be an {{R from non-neutral name}}, but it’s definitely a known term, which would be useful for searchers (engaging WP:R#K3). Redirects from verifiable non-neutral terms are allowed per WP:RNEUTRAL - perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion.
    Unsalt and recreate Minor-attracted person. Don’t delete the nominated redirects. Fully protect all. No opinion on targeting. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 16:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect: Don't see a reason for this to not target to Wiktionary; seems to be the least controversial target. Fully protect per D1998AEOS. I personally think full protection is overused for salting and redirects, but this deserves it per them. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Characters in the Paper Mario series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 12#Characters in the Paper Mario series

History of X[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 X (disambiguation). Jay 💬 07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X as in new Twitter doesn't have much history yet. Should this target to X#History instead? NotAGenious (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If History of X would be useful as a redirect to X#History it would have already happened at some point in the past 20 years, so this doesn't seem like a valid or reasonable suggestion. X does however have lots of history, given the Twitter history is absorbed into it by default. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, walk it back a bit... You may disagree with it but the suggestion was both valid and reasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I'm ok with this redirect. I know this is somewhat WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but it's notable that of all the 26 letters in the alphabet, the only redirect other than this that exists is History of V. That redirect was created 9.5 years ago and does get around 0.5 views per day, which suggests people generally are somewhat interested in the history of a letter, but I think that twitter is probably the primary topic for this. Having said that, I feel a bit uncomfortable with my argument as it is a bit WP:AADDy. TartarTorte 23:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – people looking for the history of the social network may very well look for it using its current name, even if Wikipedia doesn't use that current name, and it seems like the most likely target for anyone who would search this term. A hatnote for the history of the letter is probably warranted, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can also get behind redirecting to X (disambiguation); there are plenty more topics than just the social network and letter here. Not sure whether I'd prefer keeping and adding a hatnote to the DAB or just plain retargeting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to X#History and add a hatnote. We're not Elon Musk's business directory; the primary topic for X remains the letter, not the social network that everyone still has to disambiguate with "(formerly Twitter)". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate "History of X" can clearly mean the history of the letter X, which is the primary topic of "X", and thus the expected topic for which a history article is about, since Twitter is not the primary topic of "X". It could addtionally mean the history of various things listed at X (disambiguation). Those with history sections can be mentioned in the new dab page. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I follow 65's logic, but I don't think a separate DAB is needed. And while the letter is the primary target for "X", I'm not sure it's the primary target for things named "X" that readers are interested in the history of, especially phrased this way without qualifying as "the letter X" or such. (Consider, History of Apple redirects to History of Apple Inc., even though the primary topic for apple is the fruit.) Retarget to X (disambiguation). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to X (disambiguation) - Have come around to this logic given the shear quantity of topics in this section I wasn't aware of.
CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the closure, retargeting to dab sounds good to me. NotAGenious (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retargeting to the dab seems to be gaining momentum. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_5&oldid=1191048701"