Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 6, 2020.

Geko (rapper)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. A former target of this redirect, U.S.G., was redirected to this target without any information about its other members. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nina Kapur[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 2020 in American television. signed, Rosguill talk 23:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not mentioned anywhere in the target article. It was originally an article that was deleted via a recent AfD, stating that her death while tragic, has no lasting impact as nothing has been done in her memory and no laws have been enacted related to moped driving. 108.41.60.144 (talk)

  • Retarget to 2020 in American television, where she's mentioned with a source. (She's also mentioned and sourced in Revel Transit, but IMO that would be a less satisfactory target - she's mentioned there in the context of her death, not her career.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ram temple[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#Ram temple

Age-structured homosexuality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this describes pederasty in the classical world, though the phrase is only used at Homosexuality in Japan. The phrase is used in scholarly works, not limited to classical antiquity (ex.). I think I favor deletion, because we should be really, really careful with anything that conflates homosexuality and pedophilia, but I'm open to alternatives given the scholarly usage (and perhaps the phrase doesn't necessarily denote pedophilia?). BDD (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ephebophilia? Narky Blert (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose that, as that is no more (or less) related to homosexuality than paedophilia is - just as people with paedophilia can be attracted to people of the same or different gender as themselves, so can people with ephebophilia. I'm not sure there is a good target for this, but it certainly isn't that article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep our article defines pederasty as "a sexual relationship between an adult man and a pubescent or adolescent boy", which is the same thing as "age structured homosexuality" means when it is used in academic works. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing !vote) as ambiguous. I recollect reading of a sub-Saharan culture in which homosexual relationships were actively encouraged between young men before marriage, and that could be described as age-sructured. Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I normally don't relist a discussion when there has been no comments after the previous relist a week+ ago, but ... can anyone provide some more input on this to break the consensus deadlock?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And pedophilia and pederasty are not the same thing. Like I've stated before, the literature on pederasty is about men engaging in sexual activity with pubescent and/or older adolescent boys. Not prepubescent children. It is an ancient Greek practice. Pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia are about sexual attractions (what goes on in the mind); they are about primary or exclusive sexual attractions. Although the attractions can (and often do) lead to child sexual abuse, they are not the same thing as child sexual abuse. A person can be a pedophile and not a child sexual abuser, and a person can be a child sexual abuser and not a pedophile. A man showing a sexual interest in a pubescent doesn't automatically make the man a hebephile. Regardless, I see no need for the "age-structured homosexuality" category. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for this redirect and it doesn't really have a sensible target that discusses it. Crossroads -talk- 03:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test[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 Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the main article of the section. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just changing the capitalization of the section target? This shouldn't need further discussion. --mfb (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO nobody is going to search for such an abstract complex title and it should probably be deleted. North8000 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Osama Mohamed BINLADIN[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. Is creating a redirect like this a waste of time? Yes. Is nominating it for deletion a waste of time? Also yes. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary capitalisation of "bin Laden". Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a frivolous nomination. If I am not mistaken Arabic has no capital letters. Which I think means BINLADIN, in capital letters, is not wrong. Redirects are cheap, and this one has been used 154 times. Given that there is no real downside to helping people who encountered a different transliteration, I see no reason not to leave this as-is. Geo Swan (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If pageview is the only reason we should keep this redirect, then we should undelete the protologism Floydian protests, which had high pageviews. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF is a thing, and the cases are not directly comparable anyway since that redirect was deleted primarily because nobody found any significant uses of "Floydian protests" anywhere other than the redirect. Capitalisation and transliteration were not relevant to that redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soumya-8974: Keep - It's text from PT523 of The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century ("here the beneficiary was handwritten as "Sheikh Osama Mohamed BINLADIN."") by Steve Coll (ISBN 1101202726, 9781101202722), which described a handwritten note with the family name capitalized. Its common in French, BTW for people to capitalize family names. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geo Swan and WhisperToMe. It's a non-standard transliteration with demonstrated usage, which is about as clear cut as you can get in terms of redirect justifications. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for nominating this redirect is because it contains an unnecessary capitalisation of "bin Laden". --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spelling flame[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 Etiquette in technology. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article contains no information about spelling or grammar, and the target section doesn't exist. Not a very active user (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: For clarification, the term "spelling flame" is used to refer to a post that solely corrects another post's spelling (or grammar) out of spite. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Etiquette in technology which contains the only use of the term in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple redirection targets suggested, and neither seems to currently have stronger consensus over the other...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Etiquette in technology since it is mentioned there, although given that the article doesn't really explain the concept at all I wouldn't be opposed to deletion outright. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tick-borne virus[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 Tick-borne disease#Viral. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely accurate, e.g. Powassan is a flavivirus, Colorado tick fever is a coltivirus. PainProf (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related redirect also for deletion: Tick borne virus PainProf (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A good redirect target Tick-borne_disease#Viral PainProf (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portrait mode[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 Page orientation. There's not much consensus between disambiguating and retargeting to page orientation, but with no one supporting the status quo, I'll close in favor of the 6-4 majority. I'll get the hatnote set-up shortly. -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem to match the target at hand. I think it would be appropriate to retarget it to Page orientation. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom and Landscape mode. Nardog (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Page orientation per nom. Hatnote to bokeh as a later developed phone feature but it isn't what most of the computer industry uses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. The digital camera feature (covered at Digital camera modes and Bokeh) is the clear primary topic on google, but Page orientation is also prominent, particularly on Wikipedia and the redirect has incomming links intending both meanings so disambiguation seems the best way forwards. While landscape mode is similarly ambiguous, the page orientation meaning is the clear primary topic everywhere I've looked. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Disambiguation page drafted. I can't determine a clear primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Page orientation per nom. Bokeh is a different thing (closer to filters). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bokeh is indeed different to page orientation, but both are referred to as "portrait mode" in different contexts. Neither context is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Both the current target and Page orientation are used and i do not think there is a clear target 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to page orientation and add a hatnote pointing to portrait photography (or retarget to portrait photography with a hatnote pointing to page orientation). Bokeh is appealing blurriness of the background of a photo when using a wide aperture. People like the contrast with a sharper subject. It's commonly used with portraits as well as any photography where you may want to focus on a subject apart from the background. The precise function of portrait mode in a given camera varies a little bit, but generally involves settings to, of course, create a good portrait. One of those settings (indeed probably the most common and important one) is the wide aperture. Thus it will result in bokeh. In some digital cameras and phone apps, the software can artificially blur the background to create even more separation. Whether or not that should be considered "bokeh" would be controversial, but even if so, the Portrait mode doesn't mean bokeh. Hence pointing to portrait photography, which is closer to the subject and mentions bokeh in turn. I think "portrait mode" is much more likely to refer to orientation, though, which is why my first inclination is to point there. In summary: it definitely shouldn't point to bokeh or be disambiguated to bokeh; it should point to either page orientation or portrait photography, with a hatnote pointing to the other. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to page orientation per Rhododendrites' rationale. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still support disambiguation as it's clear from all the research I've done that there is no primary topic here - whether page orientation, the digital camera function or bokeh (the effect of the function) is meant depends entirely upon context. Whichever is chosen as primary will gather incorrect links intended for one of the other meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The simulated bokeh feature dominates Google results, but the aspect ratio has been around for longer. No clear primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The World's Oldest Library[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. Consensus is leaning towards List of libraries in the ancient world being the best target for a different potential redirect, World's oldest library, so feel free to create that one. This particular redirect, however, has been frowned upon due to the non-standard formatting. -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not claim that this library was the oldest, a Scholar search suggests that this title is contested. It may be possible to disambiguate, but unless someone volunteers to do the research required to do so properly I think that deletion is better than the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Undersea boat[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was requested with the reason: "Calque of Unterseeboot (U-boat)". However, I don't see how this is even a remotely useful redirect. It's not a likely search term ("undersea" isn't even used in English (Edit: yes, it's used, but not so much in this sense, and only rarely 15:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC))), the actual foreign term(s) already exist as redirects, etc etc. Suggest delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (I created the redirect per request at WP:AFC/R) U-boat says in the lede that it is short for Unterseeboot, and that Unterseeboot literally translates to "undersea boat", hence undersea boat is a valid search term for U-boat. It is a valid word in English, see, eg, wikt:undersea. Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Comment adjusted to reflect that "undersea" does actually exist, but it's fairly rare. The point, though, is that this is useless as a search term. No one is going to be searching for this (and on the super rare chance that they are, a normal search finds it anyway; let the search box do its job). Moreover, as this is an unused literal translation of the German word for submarine, it's unclear if Submarine would even be a more appropriate target. Redirects like this don't need to exist. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Whilst technically the German translation of U-boat, could be looking for e.g. submarine. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate since it means both submarine and U-boat. It is a standard practice for dab pages to disambiguate related terms, and the redirect isn't used that much so there isn't a big group of readers that we'll be doing a disservice to by intervening in their navigational path with a small dab page. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would further be a pointless DAB page because it's not a term that's even used. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not disambiguate. There are no full-title matches, only an unofficial translation of U-boat and an interpretation of submarine. See MOS:DAB. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a valid search term for a literal translation of the German term (especially since the German term sounds very similar to the English, and the usual term U-boat implies that the U stands for something in English so maybe that's what some people will search for). The first two sentences of U-boat do a good job clearing up any ambiguity (and provide a link to submarine) but if others feel that's not enough I suppose disambiguation is acceptable. A7V2 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unterseeboot already exists, but "Undersea boat" is ambiguous (Submarine, Unmanned underwater vehicle) and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud; ambiguous, not suitable dab. (t · c) buidhe 11:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to submarine, U-boats are submarines, robosubs are submarines, etc. -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Why are you constantly relisting this nomination, since the consensus is to keep the redirect? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I don't see consensus prior to either relist, more comments after each relist, relisted less than three times prior to my relist. Pretty cut and dry. Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Westward expansion[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 Territorial evolution of the United States. The central question is whether "western/westward expansion" is too ambiguous to be retained as a redirect, and the rough consensus is that it is not. Those advocating deletion did so on the basis of WP:XY which is an explanatory supplement to our WP:R#DELETE guideline (though R#DELETE doesn't list ambiguity as an explicit reason for deletion). Editors opposed to deletion argued that even if there are multiple potential referents, the American context is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and support this by pointing to Expansionism which only uses the phrase to refer to American westward expansion. Because PRIMARYREDIRECT is a guideline and XY is not, I assigned more weight to those comments given the wider consensus for that position which points to a rough consensus for retargeting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westward expansion and Western Expansion previously redirected to Territorial evolution of the United States and United States territorial acquisitions, but were changed by IP editors in June 2018. Are the terms exclusive to American history? If so, they should be changed back to either of the previous targets. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Westward Expansion, Western expansion and several related redirects with differing targets to the discussion. The westward/western expansion redirects should point to the same target, and likewise for the rest. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the non-capitalized non-proper nouns should not point to US territorial evolution. This is not the U.S. Wikipedia. It should point to expansionism. Westward expansion has happened many times to many entities in history. Julius Caesar made his career on the westward expansion of Rome into Gaul. The Mongolian Empire was built on westward expansion. As for the capitalized proper noun forms, they should be deleted, except for the ones that explicitly state America or United States -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with IP's recommendations above. Additionally, the remaining American redirects should be retargeted to Territorial evolution of the United States per pandakekok. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the United States and America ones to Territorial evolution of the United States per Pandakekok09 and Rosugill, and delete the rest as ambiguous, they can refer to westward expansion of anywhere. Regards, SONIC678 02:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only the first two redirects in this nomination were tagged with {{Rfd}}. The redirects missing {{Rfd}} tags have now been tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first four as ambiguous. They could refer to westward expansion of anything, e.g. Viking expansion, Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire or Canada#European colonization. Target/retarget the last four to Territorial evolution of the United States. Narky Blert (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget the ones that don't specify the United States at Expansionism, where other examples of westward expansion should be listed. Keep/retarget the Westward expansion of the United States redirects at Territorial evolution of the United States per consensus. Retarget the American westward movement redirects to American frontier which is probably the best overview of how Americans moved west over time. No deletion please, these are all plausible search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, the only mentions of "west" at Expansionism are in the American context. This discussion has gotten incredibly messy. All I think I can add for now is that we need to think about how readers actually search, not just how phrases look in a vacuum. Can anyone honestly imagine a reader typing "westward expansion" (alone) looking for Caesar's Gaul campaign? --BDD (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only seen the specific phrase "westward expansion" in an American context as well. I'd actually prefer them targeting an American target (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT), but my !vote was more strategic in preventing the outright deletion of the redirects since there have been several delete !votes due to "ambiguity". If the redirects target Expansionism, it would theoretically resolve that problem given it would be the location to describe other westward expansions. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ham (e-mail)[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. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's history indicates that this is a neologism for e-mails which are not spam. However, neither the current target or the main Email article mention this neologism. Not a very active user (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like we should be consistent with Ham e-mail, which would mean voting for a wiktionary soft redirect. I'd be open to arguments that both should be deleted, however. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results and potentially encourage an article on the topic to develop. -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spam bait[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. Participants have generally concluded that there isn't an ideal single target for this, with several vaguely okay destinations but nothing particularly compelling. This seems to be more of a symptom of our coverage of this are being rather scattered and poorly organised across overlapping articles, than a specific issue with the nature of this title. Consensus here does not preclude the recreation of this redirect if specific coverage of this term is actually added to one of the existing articles. ~ mazca talk 20:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia article contains information about "spam baits". Not a very active user (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Email-address harvesting#Countermeasures. Although it does not use the exact phrase the whole article is about spam and the section does discus baiting in the "Spider Traps" definition. Someone using this redirect will easily be able to tell from the context that this page has the information they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, per your rationale wouldn't Spider trap be an even better target? signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rosguill: No, because that article is about trapping webcrawlers rather than email harvesters. It does not mention email spam or baiting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about Spamtrap, this seems to be even more specifically about the idea of trapping spam. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes and no. That's better in some regards and worse in others, I think I have a weak preference for my original suggestion but it's not a strong one. The whole set of articles in this area could do with being looked at as a whole to be better focused and better interlinked though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, given that no article describes "spam bait", strengthened by the discovery of several "close but not quite" targets. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Spamtrap seems the best target among those suggested. Anti-spam techniques is probably where it should go, but I can't support that right now without mention of traps there. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Anti-Papal[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect created by a user blocked per WP:NOTHERE only for adding more blue links in his offensive edit summaries.[2] Wareon (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This could still be useful to readers, assuming it doesn't fall under G5. Anti-Catholicism was my first thought, but we might consider Antipope too. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its creator notwithstanding, the current target has relevant information, and is more specific to this term than Anti-Catholicism. While you could maybe argue that something pertaining to an antipope is antipapal in nature, in the absence of examples the term being used that way I don't think it should be switched to that target (although a hatnote may be acceptable). signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., The target article has been moved. I've updated it above. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd stand by my keep vote post-move, "Papism" is still mentioned in the lead and the subject remains the same. signed, Rosguill talk 14:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kiwi sticker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 16#Kiwi sticker

Corona-jihad[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. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until such a time as "corona-jihad" is adequately treated in a neutral manner at the target, this redirect fails WP:RNEUTRAL. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gramsh, Albania[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 Gramsh. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Gramsh as all of the locations listed there are in Albania. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kiwi (slur)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 13#Kiwi (slur)

Kiwi (iPhone application)[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. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned in the article. There is a Kiwi app but it's not associated with Wikipedia, so even if there was an app for Wikipedia access, it's now ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

U:B[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. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts to non-subpage user and user talk pages aren't appropriate, even though they're explicitly not R2s (I'd argue they should be). Even if they were, single-letter shortcuts shouldn't go to a sub-thousand-edit user, and the obvious target for these two in particular are to User:B/User talk:B anyway. —Cryptic 16:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Here because the link to me tagged me) I don't see why this couldn't simply be speedy deleted as R2. This page is in the mainspace. It's a redirect into user space. That seems pretty straight forward. --B (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • R2 excludes shortcuts. That was originally aimed at WP:* and WT:*, but those aren't in the main namespace anymore; the only remaining ones not pointing into allowable namespaces are T:MP, MOS:FAQ, T:TDYK, T:DYKT, T:tdyk, and T:TDYKA. —Cryptic 23:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weirdly the U:/UT: shortcut format isn't even mentioned at WP:Shortcuts now, it's clearly not an approved one. I think it might be worth raising this for clarification as far as R2 goes, because the consensus on these shortcuts seems to have solidified since that criterion came in. ~ mazca talk 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as a clearly inappropriate use of a pseudo-namespace shortcut. ~ mazca talk 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see why R2 shouldn't apply: is there any reason at all why this criterion explicitly mentions shortcuts as exempt? I can't think off the top of my head of any example where a shortcut to a namespace that's not already exempt (like Portal: or Wikipedia:) would conceivably be allowed to stay. – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

French Words and Phrases[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 13#French Words and Phrases

100.7 FM(Barbados)[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. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect as 100.7 FM (Barbados) also exists. Raymie (t • c) 07:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Calling (2002 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no entry. Neither of the links on the DAB page looks like a good target. It is called from Leroy Jenkins (televangelist) and Jill St. John. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified Narky Blert (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target provides information about the film with links to the articles about the subject and the director. I don't edit film articles much, but a quick google doesn't convince me it would be notable enough for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The two links to it are problematic, they are causing WP:INTDABLINK errors. What should be done about them? Narky Blert (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous links. The Calling (2002 film) is unambiguous. Therefore, it should not target a disambiguation page. MOS:DAB, passim, and Logic 101. Narky Blert (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Retargetting to Damian Chapa also works but a redlink to encourage article creation would be preferable. The dab entry can stay. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not usefully discussed beyond the basic list mention at Damian Chapa, and in the style of director filmographies, I don't think it ever would be unless it was already clearly notable enough for an article. I think a redlink to encourage article creation if it can be sourced is better, and if it can't be - I still think it's better to avoid pretending we have useful content on a non-notable subject that we don't. ~ mazca talk 19:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tampa, FLA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fla.", not in all caps, is one way to abbreviate the state of Florida, and in April 2017, some random guy decided to move the page "Tampa" to "Tampa, FLA". I am listing the latter at RFD (possible deletion?) because when it comes to state abbreviations (not postal) like this, "Fla.", "Penn.", etc. will not be in all caps unless it's a state with two words in it. Nobody will type in "FLA" in all caps. Also no other cities in Florida have redirects with "FLA" in it. Prior to April 2017, the "Tampa, FLA" history was at "Tampa" and I would like to see the FLA history be put back to pre-April 2017 ("Tampa"). I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • I'm noting for the record that the requested history merge has been carried out. -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom fucking waits[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:G10 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, maybe a BLP vio? (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_6&oldid=974584289"