Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 25

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 25, 2024.

Brexit means breakfast

[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. Unrefined and removed subsection from target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target (was mentioned in a citation which I have recently removed, but not article text) GnocchiFan (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why a redirect needs to explicitly be referenced in the target? Deku-shrub (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because otherwise we would have hundreds of malapropisms redirect to this target, with no indication of notability. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without requirement of mention at target. Or... more clearly, Refine to no subsection. To answer Gnocchi's concern about hundreds of malapropisms, no need-- it shouldn't open any floodgates, as this one is in fact attested. Anyone searching this phrase is clearly coming from the news article about it. The fact that it redirects to Malapropism will be all it takes to explain what the news article is talking about... someone made a silly error of speech. Thus the user is informed and can move on with their day. No need for a mention, as the article would not be enriched by the inclusion... the mere existence of the redirect should be enough to convey what needs to be conveyed. Fieari (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 25 June 2024 (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).

Furiosa Road

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5#Furiosa Road

Minor league player redirects

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use these "minor league players" articles for incubating Minor League Baseball players who do not appear to meet GNG yet, but could soon. These redirects were created without a relevant section on these players at their target article, lack relevant history, and should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2024 (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).

Peanut butter burger

[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... 23:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any references referring to the target as such. However, on third party search engines, I did find recipes for burger sandwiches containing peanut butter and a ground beef patty, which is not what the target article is about. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. It's the Elvis sandwich. The article is about that. They sold peanut butter burgers at Sonic Drive-In for a while there. It was just a variant of the Elvis sandwich. Here is where the article discusses peanut butter burgers. Noah Tall (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you but around here peanut butter burgers have nothing to do with Elvis. It's your standard burger, but you replace the sauce/mayonaise/condiments with peanut butter. E.g. [1] "PEANUT BUTTER BURGER: Fresh beef patty, peanut butter (on both buns), lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, cheddar cheese, and bacon."
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure, Noah. Here's an article about the Sonic peanut butter burger, and it clearly has a ground beef patty and no bananas in sight. Also, the "discussion" in the article regarding peanut butter burgers is a single sentence, which could be easily removed from the article without breaking the flow of the article, only states that "burgers done Elvis style have become increasingly popular in the United States", and whose only source given is this recipe for an Elvis burger. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion thus far seems to lean towards deletion arguments, but participants haven't clearly indicated that they support this outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, yes, my vote is to Delete based on my comment above. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2024 (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).

Karli Smith

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete those suggested by Jay and No consensus on the others. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of a shooting generally do not have articles unless they become notable in their own right. It isn't appropriate to associate a search term of their names with an event which took their life. The individuals would already appear in search results on the event article without the need of an explicit redirect. I am unsure if there is specific policy around this, as WP:VICTIM merely mentions outright articles specifically. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well other victims of shootings typically get redirected to the shooting article. Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting for example. Victims such as Allison Wyatt, Grace McDonnell etc have redirects. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is poor and is not in itself a reason why the aforementioned should be kept as redirects. We have to ask for what benefit and purpose does an article or redirect serve in its existence? I don't see any value in these redirects and as the victims are all deceased, cannot decide themselves if they'd want their identities associated with such an atrocity. I don't see any policy specific to this circumstance, which is probably why there is no agreed precedent. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well like i said, most articles on mass tragedy events have redirects with the victims names. If you think its morally wrong or u dont agree with it, you should make this a bigger discussion and not just solely on the FedEx shooting. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but a poor existing precedent (generally speaking) isn't necessary justification to pursue further of a similar nature. That is the reason I brought them to rfd, as it's a community decision, not solely my own view. As for the bigger discussion, maybe it is warranted, but it's quite a minefield and this only concerns these redirects yet to be reviewed. If the consensus is to keep, then it's a moot point anyway, though in such a scenario i'd hope to see a better rationale than "others exist too". Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Existing precedent is the primary source of policies and guidelines, assuming that the policies Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are to be believed. If we have no written rule against it, and it is frequently done, then it probably is the community's normal practice to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not say "Wikipedia users are forbidden from using logical induction". jp×g🗯️ 17:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm surprised there isn't a clear policy on this. We should be guided by WP:RPURPOSE. If the victim's name is widely known enough that "Killing of EXAMPLE" is a plausible article title and existing redirect, then I accept a redirect from "EXAMPLE" as well, because it is a plausible way that a reader might search for the relevant article, eg. Philando Castile, Jeff Doucet. Otherwise, I think we should avoid these redirects. I hold this position even, and maybe even especially, if the person is approaching notability for an article in their own right for reasons unrelated to their death. If there are other relevant articles on their life apart from their death, we don't want to usurp those by redirecting rather than showing search results. Daask (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, anyone searching for any of these people will be redirected to the only information Wikipedia has on them. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this entirely misses the point I made in the rationale. Besides, the event article doesn't actually hold information on the individuals (besides age). Relying on search results alone would still return this article, plus any unrelated articles mentioning an unrelated individual by the same name (which touches a little on Jay's thoughts below, although I disagree with the suggestion that we keep any). Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As below:
    • Karli Smith - Delete in preference to search results as she is also an Australian beauty pageant contestant
    • Samaria Blackwell - Keep per Tavix
    • John Weisert - Delete in preference to search results as also the name of a tobacco company
    • Amarjit Sekhon - Keep, also mentioned wrt the shooting at Indian Americans
    • Jasvinder Kaur - Delete in preference to search results - very common name, seen in multiple articles, also spelled as Jaswinder Kaur (with a w)
    • Amarjeet Johal - Keep, also mentioned wrt the shooting at Indian Americans
  • Jay 💬 06:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:50, 25 June 2024 (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).

Ruby and Sapphire

[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 Ruby / Sapphire, Disambiguate the others. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it pains me to say this, but the pokémon games don't seem to be the primary topic for mentions of those two specific minerals together. torn on retargeting to garnet (steven universe) as she's a fusion of the characters known as ruby and sapphire, to the list of steven universe characters as it includes ruby and sapphire, or just deleting, but will lean towards retargeting to the list cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems to need to be discussed further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2024 (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).

1.7 International Networking Working Group

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4#International Networking Working Group

Frank Blackmore (Emmerdale)

[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. Withdrawn by nom since issue was resolved. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is redirects for discussion and not deletion, when was the last time Frank Blackmore was mentioned here or in List of former Emmerdale characters? (in other words, not currently mentioned at target) Not only that, it was also a section link and now its broken. I wondered what had happened to it. Could this be retargeted to Daniel Coll where Frank Blackmore is mentioned?

I am also nominating DI Frank Blackmore for the exact same reason. (As a side note, I can't believe most of my edits today are to do with Emmerdale, where you normally sea me being involved with UK railways and video game related topics) JuniperChill (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added him to the appropriate list – List of Emmerdale characters (2006)#Frank Blackmore – and have changed the 3 redirects to reflect this. Hence, I advocate for keep. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now its safe to say that since the issue is fixed, this can be closed as "withdrawn" or "fixed" now. And well done on fixing the List of Emmerdale characters (2024) after I tagged it because it uses sources from Metro WP:METRO which is not reliable. JuniperChill (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2024 (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).

Sdn Bhd

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#Sdn Bhd

Chhota Bheem 1

[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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects doesn't make any sense. M S Hassan (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M S Hassan: I made these redirects (when I was going through the list of Indian film series), as a chronological search aid for theatrical films in order of release for the series.
These, 1 and 5, should be targetted to the relevant articles (for the 2012 and 2024 film) respectively. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M S Hassan: If you agree, we can close this. Jay 💬 05:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay No, I don't agree. If the redirects contained "movie" within them, then I would have agreed. M S Hassan (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd normally argue that Hassan's incorrect in that the redirects need the word "movie" in order to make sense, there's a bigger issue-- Chhota Bheem 1 and Chhota Bheem 5 are *not* the 2012 and 2024 versions of Curse of Damyaan. From what I can tell, the Chhota Bheem article contains a chronologically-sorted list of all Chhota Bheem films-- and the first and fifth films are Chhota Bheem Aur Krishna and Chhota Bheem: Journey to Petra, respectively, neither of which have articles. Even if that list isn't sorted chronologically, the article for the 2012 version of the film explicitly states that it's the eleventh Chhota Bheem film, not the first.
Delete, as we don't have articles or information for the correct targets beyond an entry each in the list of the greater Chhota Bheem article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we only go by theatrical releases the chronology stands fine. Gotitbro (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2024 (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).

Factory owner

[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 💬 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the current target of this redirect, the former targets Bourgeoisie and Means of production, and Factory which doesn't seem to mention "owner(s)" ... it does not seem that there is a specific article readers may be attempting to locate when searching this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I doubt readers are using "factory owner" to search up "business magnate". It is not a set phrase that means something other than the sum of its parts. Business magnate does not have any info about factories. It is too vague to be useful. Ca talk to me! 09:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to business magnate - agree with Ca that it is a bit vague - but the lead definition in the magnate article ("a powerful entrepreneur and investor who controls, through personal enterprise ownership or a dominant shareholding position, a firm or industry") does encapsulate factory owners, even though it's a little loose. BugGhost🪲👻 10:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe all factory owners are business magnates though. Some factory owners run small, un-notable squeaky duck toy factories and I wouldn't call them "business magnates" or "tycoons" Ca talk to me! 14:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on that, which is why I went weak - I wouldn't lose any sleep if this redirect gets deleted because what you're saying makes sense BugGhost🪲👻 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I feel that this phrase is significantly more commonly used in leftist discourse than otherwise. To non-leftist discourse, the factory owner is typically not a specific person or a social class but rather a legal entity such as a corporation, and would not generally be referred to as a "factory owner". I'm not sure business magnate is a good target, as while "factory owners" might be included there, said magnates also prominently includes non-factory non-"means of production" types of wealthy investors (such as Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch), which would be outside the usual discourse brought up when the term factory owner is used. Can anyone really find instances of this term used in a non-leftist-discourse context? Fieari (talk)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. I think it is likely we will eventually have an appropriate place to point this; however, despite extensive scouring, it appears that we currently do not. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:12, 29 June 2024 (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).

Drake LaRoche

[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 without prejudice against recreation when a mention is added. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to an article where there is no mention of him. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was mentioned on there, until that was removed. He should be mentioned, considering that he received wide coverage in connection with his father's retirement in 2016. This was not incidental naming, but news articles directly about Drake LaRoche.
See: The Athletic (2021), NBC (on the "Drake LaRoche saga"), Sports Illustrated, Washington Post, CBS Sports, Sports Illustrated, again, etc. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Content has not been added back to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:18, 25 June 2024 (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).

Kristian Taska

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 11:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:15, 25 June 2024 (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).

Hendrik Sal-Saller

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 11:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:14, 25 June 2024 (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).

Template:WikiProject Open Access/OAFD

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 11:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect that existed for 22 minutes. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Template → Wikipedia CNRs are uncommon but only problematic if transcluding the target would be harmful in some way (or it conflicts with something else). In this case it's not harmful (transclusion works fine) and it doesn't appear to be in the way of anything else. That said it isn't transcluded anywhere and I can't think of a reason why it would be transcluded (unlike {{OAFD}}). Ultimately I think I'm neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ignore - It's not that I'm expressly saying keep (although that would be the result of following my !vote here) I'm just saying that it's utterly harmless and not worthy of even the miniscule amount of time it would take to delete it. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:40, 25 June 2024 (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).

Emigration from North Korea

[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 participation after a second relist. There was no support for the status quo. Retargeting to Category:North Korean diaspora per the nomination and the support it received. Jay 💬 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may refer to multiple topics. I propose to retarget it to Category:North Korean diaspora. GZWDer (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The pages included in the category more throughly covers the topic. Ca talk to me! 12:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the category. The Korean diaspora article contains only two passing mentions of emigrants from North Korea, one simply noting the name by which they are called and the second relates only to the 1950s. Landing there provides essentially no relevant information for people using this search term, while the category isn't perfect it contains links to directly relevant information in multiple articles. In this instance the CNR is much more useful to the reader. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to the category? Or to the Korean diaspora article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:38, 25 June 2024 (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).

The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 29#The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)

Tom (programming language)

[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 TOM (programming language) (disambiguation) and retarget the others. Whether to move the target is outside the scope of RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and List of programming languages only lists one programming language called Tom or TOM – Tom (pattern matching language) – so I suggest retarget, delete, delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mwwv converse∫edits 16:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PANDORA should not be used; see user:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box
That said, support these actions; save for the citing of WP:PANDORA, all of this seems correct to me. (WP:CONSISTENT can support the deletion of TOM computer language on its own.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that the last discussion on double disambiguation that I know of (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation) ended in no consensus, so unless things have changed without my knowledge and none of those redirects have been deleted since, there is not a consensus against double disambiguation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:34, 25 June 2024 (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).

Druisk

[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... 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect is simply incorrect. It stems from a misinterpretation of a redirect in a paper encyclopedia printed over 100 years ago. Druysk is an agrotown in Vitebsk Oblast, Belarus, near Braslaw. It is situated over 200 km away from Kaunas, Lithuania. The mixup arose because the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) contains the following entry:

DRUISK. See Kovno.

However, this just refers to the fact that Druysk belonged to the Kovno Governorate of the Russian Empire, an administrative division which covered a fairly large area, including Braslaw and its environs. For confirmation of this fact, one may consult this 1864 map of Kovno Governorate. Druysk (Друйскъ) is in fact the easternmost labelled locality on the whole map, found within the yellow-green (i.e., primarily Orthodox) region centered around Braslaw (Браславъ).

The Jewish Encyclopedia does this with other localities as well. For example, the entries for Dusyaty (Dusetos; Russian: Дусяты Dusyaty) and Eiragoly (Ariogala; Yiddish: אייראַגאָלע Eyragole) also redirect the reader to Kovno, and the entry for Eishishki (Eišiškės) points to Wilna.

What's even more confusing is the online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia hosted on StudyLight.org, cited in the previous RfD discussion, which includes full entries for these redirect entries that just transclude the content of the redirect target, without any indication that this is what's happening. Thus, the entry for Druisk is identical to the entry for Kovno, except for the header; the same applies to Eishishki and Wilna, and so forth.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to solidify the argument for deletion by showing that other written sources that talk about “Druisk” are in fact referring to the city in present-day Belarus and not using it as a synonym for Kaunas.

  • Cholawsky, Shalom (1998). The Jews of Bielorussia During World War II. Routledge. ISBN 9057021935.
    "Druisk" is mentioned alongside other towns in Belarus (e.g. Braslav, Glebokie, Dolhinov) and eastern Lithuania near the Belarusian border (e.g. Swienciany, Podbrodzh). None of these locations are near Kaunas.
  • Lokotko, Aleksandr; et al. (2013). Tourist Mosaic of Belarus. Belaruskaya navuka. ISBN 978-5-457-63663-7.
    “Druisk” is described as being in the region of Braslaw, listed alongside other nearby Belarusian localities such as Opsa and Ukolsk. Again, this description definitely does not apply to Kaunas.

By the way, in the course of researching this, I also noticed that Eiragoly → Eiguliai is probably another incorrect redirect. As mentioned above, this refers to Ariogala (here's a source to support the identification), not the Eiguliai neighborhood of Kaunas whose name is pretty different anyway. I hypothesize that the author of this redirect also created it based on the Jewish Encyclopedia, but in that case tried to make sense of it by finding a part of Kaunas with a somewhat similar name.

98.170.164.88 (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the redirect creator's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very thorough, I'm certainly convinced. Druisk should ideally redirect to an article about Druysk if/when created. – Ploni💬  00:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think per above that deletion (or retargeting) is fine if there isn't a good current target with no objection to recreation if a suitable target is found or content added to one. (I voted keep in the earlier discussion.) Skynxnex (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per the evidence mentioned above and WP:RETURNTORED for the Belarusian city of Druisk/Druysk. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:18, 27 June 2024 (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/2024_June_25&oldid=1237420750"