Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2020.

Orthodox Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30#Orthodox Church

$teve Job$[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, not a common usage, was part of a bundled nom in 2010 that WP:TRAINWRECKed. Another creation of User:KennyStrawn, who has been indeffed for vandalism. See Kenny's talk page for many more notices of past deletions of redirects in this vein. Hog Farm (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, while it might be used for $atirical purpose$, Google $earche$ return nothing, saying "did you mean $steve job$?" which make$ thi$ job even more confusing. Regard$, $ONIC678 23:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete due to unnecessary symbols. Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:22, 29 June 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.

G$$gle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just nonsense. Not mentioned at target article, usage of $ to replace o is very uncommon ($ replacing s is more common), creator has been indeffed for vandalism. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 22 June 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.

Windozer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned as an example in the target article, no evidence of common usage from Google search. Was part of a mass nom in 2010 that closed to WP:TRAINWRECK reasons. Hog Farm (talk) 21:21, 22 June 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.

That's gay.[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 Gay#Generalized pejorative use. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the best target for this? Hog Farm (talk) 21:15, 22 June 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.

Napol[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 Naples. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems about as likely to be a misspelling of Naples as Nepal, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 22 June 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.

IDo[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 Ido (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This currently targets a non-notable entry "iDo" in a list article, but is possibly ambiguous with Ido and IDO. I prefer delete, pending an article on the music act "iDo". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ido (disambiguation) and add a link to the list there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. "Non-notable" here is a matter of opinion, considering iDo scored a number-one club song—a number-one song generally makes an act notable. However, I support retargeting per Thryduulf above. I don't see why these things need to be put to a discussion every time. Ss112 04:12, 23 June 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.

Left-hander and Southpaw[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 Left-hander, disambiguate Southpaw. The consensus is that there isn't a primary topic for "Southpaw", so it should be a disambiguation page. Rosguill pointed out that a clean solution is to swap it with the existing disambiguation page at Southpaw (disambiguation). Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have moved Southpaw (disambiguation) overtop of Southpaw—a consequence of this is that the original history of the Southpaw redirect has now been deleted, replaced by the history of the disambiguation page. Mz7 (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left-hander and Southpaw currently redirect to Handedness, but these redirects should point towards the page list of people who are left-handed because it is more closely related. When users search for left-hander or southpaw they are more than likely looking for people who are left-handed, not a page describing what handedness is. JustinMal1 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment combined & fixed nominations. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no evidence that users would be looking for people rather than definition of the term. However, Southpaw may be better retargeted to Southpaw stance. Polyamorph (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Left-hander and retarget Southpaw to Southpaw stance per Polyamorph. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Southpaw to Southpaw stance, which discusses a topic related to but distinct from left-handedness. I don't think that readers searching these terms are most likely to be looking for a list of people, so I oppose the other move. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep left-hander as it's far more likely that someone using this search term is looking for an article about the concept rather than a list (which can be found via the hatnoted dab page). No opinion about Southpaw at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Left-hander at its current target (like with Right-hander) per Captain Galaxy and Thryduulf, as readers are likely to be looking for the concept as the latter points out, neutral on round-robin swap Southpaw with Southpaw (disambiguation) per below. Regards, SONIC678 16:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC), updated 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wherever southpaw redirects, there should be a {{redirect}} hatnote to The Southpaw. Narky Blert (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate southpaw. This could refer to handedness, the southpaw stance, or Glossary of baseball (S)#southpaw, as well as The Southpaw. Enough possible meanings that it's probably best not to pick a single meaning to target to, and too many to effectively hatnote without a dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: A disambiguation page already exists for this at Southpaw (disambiguation). So, do you think this page should be moved to the base title? Regards, SONIC678 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't think there's a primary topic imo. Hog Farm (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus to keep Left-hander but we haven't converged on a consensus for what to do with Southpaw
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Left-hander, RetargetSouthpaw: Left-hander seems like people would want to search for handedness not the list of people who are left-handed. {{3125A|talk}} 19:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than one target has been suggested for Southpaw, please could you clarify where you think it should be retargetted to. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the proposed target by the proposer. {{3125A|talk}} 22:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an epidemic of over 150 WP:OVERLINKs to the everyday word "southpaw" which is understood by most readers in the context of sports biographies. We can't just redirect to Southpaw (film) or even Southpaw stance, which is specific to boxers, without first removing these overlinks to southpaw baseball and tennis players, etc. There is no consensus primary topic, so the obvious solution is to disambiguate. In contrast, there are just 16 overlinks to Left-hander and if we keep redirecting to handedness for the dictionary definition, I suppose that's harmless. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Southpaw by swapping it with Southpaw (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points have been made above about Southpaw, as such I'm changing my !vote above, although my argument regarding Left-hander still stands. Regards, SONIC678 16:20, 1 July 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.

Minister for Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs[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 Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland). Not much of a consensus, but seems like a better solution than defaulting to keep given the state of the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of each of these articles. Nothing currently links to them, and they incorrectly redirect to Department of Rural and Community Development. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all that are correct titles to Department of Rural and Community Development. If they are correct titles then they are useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually a little complicated. The correct institutional successor of the department with these names is the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The transfers of responsibilities and renaming along the way show these transitions. I am planning a separate article which will hopefully be helpful on all former names of Irish government departments, with both the institutional successors and the current departments with these responsibilities. However, in the mean time, as these pages do not have any links to them, rather than redirecting to DCYA, I would argue it safe to delete them, and certainly those with non-standard formats. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: From OP again. Thanks for relisting. These are each non-standard titles that incorrectly redirect to the Department of Rural and Community Development (a department created in 2017) when the correct successor is the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. As can be seen in the page I've since created, Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland), these are a long and messy process. But as non-standard or alternative titles, they're unlikely to be linked as such even in historical references. They each have no links to them, so can now be safely deleted. I can't see any benefit even in retargetting them. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck duplicate !vote: you're welcome to make further comment on a discussion, just don't !vote multiple times. — J947 [cont] 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Department of Children and Youth Affairs, as it seems to have been established last week that that is the correct target some suitable target. Something should exist at these titles because they are plausible search terms; we do not delete redirects merely because the current target is suboptimal. If there's any useful information to be had, anywhere on the wiki, we should try to direct users to it. --NYKevin 04:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that plausible that a variant of the official title that hasn't been used since 2011 would be a search terms here now, and while DCYA is a technical successor, the functions of the department have been transferred to two quite separate departments: Department of Rural and Community Development and Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. If anything, it could be helpful to redirect them to the new page I wrote, Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland). It's because they are variants of a disused title that I don't see any particular merit in redirecting them to the technical successor, and they currently have no target links. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has some department of the Irish government meticulously destroyed and reissued every single piece of paper which might conceivably refer to those old titles? If not, then it's plausible someone will find one of those old names and search for it. I am neutral about what the target should be, but deletion is clearly the wrong outcome. --NYKevin 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In which case, Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland) is the best, as it doesn't presuppose why they might be looking for it, whether functional or legal successor. That said, I don't think we would now if it didn't already have these pages as redirects create them afresh, with ampersands in place of and for each historic title, where any search function would give Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs or its current equivalent. There are many more than these possible variants that existed up to 2011, and search functions will find these close texual variants in current pages or redirects. So while quite happy to redirect them to a page I recently created, I think preserving them is an overabundance of caution! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 22 June 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.

Dinosauce313[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. Mz7 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While a Reddit user by this name was involved in a 2020 controversy involving the College Board, they're not currently mentioned at the target and seem like a fairly minor detail that is not obviously DUE. I would suggest deletion unless a duly sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that without a mention this is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned in the target (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). I'm going to remain neutral on whether there should be a mention. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reddit user != fame. {{3125A|talk}} 22:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, Wikipedia redirect ≠ fame as well. — J947 [cont] 22:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this going to develop into a Pascal vs. C-type slugfest? Narky Blert (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmentioned. Note to any available administrator: While reading about this article, I stumbled upon Talk:College_Board#Answers_from_an_employee_of_the_College_Board, which alleges COI violations in the article as of 2009 (so it might be ancient history for all I know). There's no {{connected contributor}} banner, and no replies, so I found the whole thing a bit odd. Not sure if it's worth opening a WP:COIN discussion over this rather flimsy allegation. I also noticed a "neutrality is disputed" banner on the main article, but no apparently-relevant discussion on the talk page, which struck me as even odder. I was under the impression that drive-by tagging of "X is disputed" was usually discouraged. --NYKevin 18:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @NYKevin: I'd say it's probably not worth it to start a COIN thread relating to allegations from 2009. If there is no discussion on the talk page relating to the NPOV banner, you can probably boldly remove the banner if you find no fault with the current passage (I speculate the relevant issue is that SAT testing in general has become more controversial these days as higher scores are correlated with factors like family income and race—see SAT#Elucidation). I am imminently going to close this RfD as delete, so if you have any further questions about this, feel free to ask on my talk page. Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 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.

Tannis root[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor plot element not mentioned at the target. "Tannis root" is however mentioned in a bunch of other articles, although nowhere is it described in detail. I would suggest deletion and letting internal search results take care of this one. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 22 June 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.

Wiped off the map[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. Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common phrase that I wouldn't implicitly associate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If we had a wiktionary page for it I would suggest redirecting to there, but in its absence I think that search results, and thus deletion, are preferable to this potentially surprising redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a metaphor and it doesn't refer to anything specific. Graham Beards (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wipe this thing off the map per nom, just like anything else that's had similar treatment (what, exactly?). We don't want to get readers lost by having it redirect to this particular controversy, and it only got four pageviews since July 2015, all of which were in this month. Regards, SONIC678 23:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Wiped off the map" and "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" are completely different things. {{3125A|talk}} 00:15, 23 June 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.

Magwayen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#Magwayen

Challenge Show[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. There is nothing in the target article that suggests why this redirect is appropriate. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no mention at the target, and I can see no alternative target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:27, 22 June 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.

Ido (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 keep per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 [cont] 22:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredibly unlikely that a user would type in this, but not Ido. This redirect doesn't really accomplish anything. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: its an {{R from move}} and has many incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Strong keep. Very clear example of a harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect. Entering this search guarantees that people will end up at the intended target without needing to know whether the language is the primary topic or not (note Ido (disambiguation) exists). Linking to this redirect guarantees that the link will continue to reach the intended destination even if the primary topic changes in the future. It's also a {{R from move}} and {{R with old history}} dating to 2004 each of which would also be reasons keep on their own. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there are other Idos and the searcher may add the "(language)" part to clarify. {{3125A|talk}} 22:40, 22 June 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.

Hecate (Dune)[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! 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hecate isn't mentioned at the target. Is there a better Dune article? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character appears in Dune: The Machine Crusade but is not mentioned in that article either. The simplest solution is to add a phrase mentioning the Titans' names to Organizations of the Dune universe#Titans. The alternative is to change the redirect to List of technology in the Dune universe#Cymek, where they are already listed. However this also would require that all the related redirects are updated as well: Agamemnon (Dune), Ajax (Dune), Barbarossa (Dune), Dante (Dune), Juno (Dune), Tlaloc (Dune) and Xerxes (Dune).— TAnthonyTalk 13:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any more participation here, so I've boldly added the names to Organizations of the Dune universe#Titans. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 14:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following TAnthony's changes. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Keep following my changes ;) — TAnthonyTalk 22:32, 30 June 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.

Focus FM (Ghana)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#Focus FM (Ghana)

User:Ambush Commander~enwiki/Mover[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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects from user subpages into other namespaces are almost always harmless and I see no evidence that this is any different. Thryduulf (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has some old history from 2004, but after looking through a number of page logs, I couldn't figure out what it has to do with the mainspace article. But [1] looks pretty weird to me. It's possible that this got cut-and-paste moved into mainspace at some point, but I'm having a hard time verifying or falsifying that. We should not delete it unless we are very certain that it is not required for attribution purposes. --NYKevin 20:28, 25 June 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.

Romanica[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 Pan-Romance language#Interlingua Romanica. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 07:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on the article. Retarget to Pan-Romance language. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:22, 22 June 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.

Interlingvo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:21, 22 June 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.

ایدو[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ido (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:20, 22 June 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.

IDO (disambiguation)[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 retarget to Ido (disambiguation). Very clear consensus. Adding Narky's rcats to the redirect. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ido (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:18, 22 June 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.

Ido (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ido language. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:17, 22 June 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.

Ido alphabet[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ido language#Alphabet Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:15, 22 June 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.

Ido de Esperanto[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 Esperantido. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Esperantido, as there are several notable idoj of Esperanto. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:13, 22 June 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.

ایدو[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED!? Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:12, 22 June 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.

Espéranto[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30#Espéranto

Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 3#Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya

Homonymic[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 Homonym. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 02:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to point to the disambiguation page and not just to homonym? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • To answer the nominator, yes – by virtue of being an {{R from move}}. No opinion on the targeting of this redirect however, just pointing it out. — J947 [cont] 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps a more pertinent question is why Homonym (disambiguation) exists at all. See WP:ONEOTHER. Narky Blert (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Homonym. I've PRODded the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Homonym It's pretty obvious that the user will know what they want to read. A hatnote is placed at the top of the page so no need for a disambiguation. {{3125A|talk}} 00:23, 23 June 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_June_22&oldid=966276714"