Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2021.

MediaTek Camera Application[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#MediaTek Camera Application

C10H14N2 (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 Restored article. Without prejudice to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has history, but not mentioned at target and all other mentions on-wiki appear to be talking about any of the chemical compounds with this sum formula. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore version before redirect was applied, and tag as requires update. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Five years later, this film appears to still be awaiting production. I don't see any indications that it's notable at this stage. Either the redirect can be kept (but with a mention added to the target), or restored and moved to Draft. – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and consider AfD. Maybe AfD will result in draftify, and that would be fine, but I'd prefer to have more eyes on this before it's sent into draft, lest it become just a 6-month path to auto G13 deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a mention added to the target per Uanfala. No sense keeping this around to debate about any longer or sending it somewhere else to be debated when we can resolve it here and now. Huggums537 (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and update. The redirect happened in 2016 and I see coverage in media in 2019 and 2020, that is until Covid hit production. The film was mentioned at the target until removed in July 2021. I don't disagree that this may end up in AfD or as a draft. Jay (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2021 (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.

Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death[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) 22:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: It used to redirect to the Eco-imperialism article, which no longer exists. Jarble (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Champion: This redirect page needs to be updated: it should point instead to this section, which describes the book with this title. Jarble (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that section makes a passing reference to the author but does not describe the book. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-(Wikipedia)-notable book by an author without an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While original target used to contain a one-sentence summary of the book, it no longer exists, and the alternative target suggested by Jarble doesn't describe the title (and would result in a self-redirect loop if retained). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (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.

Malzahar[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 04:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in a passing mention at Faker (gamer). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in target, not even when the redirect was created. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2021 (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.

Radio supernova[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. Aervanath (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Other mentions on-wiki consist only of descriptions of apparent instances of this class, as well as unrelated radio stations. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ketiltrout. Huggums537 (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for uninhibited search. There are many articles that mention the term, and they will better aid the reader than the current target which, while it talks about radioactive decay, does not mention this term. Jay (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. {{R with possibilities}} is best used when we at least have the seed of a topic, which does not seem to be the case here. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is not a good one, as Lithopsian alluded to when creating the redirect: ...although it doesn't yet describe this term. Redirects are useful when they guide searchers to information on a topic. If a topic is not described at that location, we are misdirecting people into thinking we have content where we do not. Jay and BDD also make salient points, and perhaps redlinking it would also help encourage an article at this title. -- Tavix (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2021 (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.

Haroon Shahid[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 moot. An article has been written at this title. ✗plicit 04:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, not appropriate to list there unless an article can be created at this title, in which case we would not have a redirect. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 26 November 2021 (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.

Redirects from Eastern Arrernte[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 all as block evasion. Graham87 03:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not normally create redirects in languages other than English unless the language is especially relevant to the topic. Certes (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2021 (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.

Dewe (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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only Dewe at the target before I cleaned it up was Colleen Dewe, which didn't belong there as it was a human name rather than an ambiguous term, and was a different word. It's now listed in a see also at Dew (surname), though it doesn't seem appropriate to retarget this there. Suggest deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. Create a new disambiguation page for "dewe" instead of pointing it to "dew" -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Disambiguation also seems fine to me, now that Uanfala has identified possible alternatives. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. Huggums537 (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created a disambig draft at the redirect. Jay (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2021 (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.

Superficial sympathy[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! 23:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the term is in the article lead as a synonym for crocodile tears and it appears to be used elsewhere, off-wiki to the same effect. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that the lead of the article specifically mentions this term as an alternate name for it, this redirect seems perfectly reasonable. --Zander251 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above. Huggums537 (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2021 (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.

British influence in India[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 British India (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a better target. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 26 November 2021 (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.

Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths

Lack of guilt in psychopaths[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! 23:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Lack of guilt is one of the most commonly recognized traits in psychopaths, so I see this as a more likely search term than Marcocapelle claims it to be. --Zander251 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's obvious the term is in the article without even looking at the article. Seems like another frivolous nomination... Huggums537 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2021 (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.

Indifference to others' suffering[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#Indifference to others' suffering

Traumagenic system[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. FWIW, I also found Tamzin's bit of insight helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While "traumagenic" is mentioned at the target, "traumagenic system" is not, and is a term that turns up zero search results on Google Scholar. I think that deletion is in order unless evidence of this term's use in the context of DID can be provided. N.b. that there's also Traumagenic neurodevelopmental model of psychosis, an article about traumagenic hypotheses for the development of psychosis, which is likely related but not quite synonymous with what I think this redirect was getting at. At any rate, my assessment is that this is a too-broad, potentially novel term without an appropriate existing target, so deletion to allow for search results seems like the proper course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Wizzito says, this is indeed a term used in the plural community. For a very unscientific bit of evidence, I searched the logs of a plurality-oriented Discord server I'm a member of: Out of ~181,000 messages, 67 have contained the words "traumagenic" and "system" (Discord doesn't allow forced-word-order searching) and another 142 have contained just the word "traumagenic", which comes out to a pretty high frequency for a four-syllable word. Anecdotally, I would say that the traumagenic/endogenic distinction is a major aspect of plural identity and plural culture and, to an extent, of scholarly understanding of plurality/multiplicity. That distinction is key here, though. In the past few years the plural community has moved to assert itself in terms largely independent of scholarly research into DID and related conditions. This is all well and good, but brings about the side-effect that there isn't much discussion of the plural community in the sorts of sources Wikipedia articles are based on. That in itself is fine for our purposes at RfD—redirects are not bound by WP:RS, and many redirects exist for terms of comparable nicheness—but the question is if we have anywhere worthwhile to point the sort of reader who searches "traumegenic system". The current target does discuss the "traumagenic model", and a person who has DID under that model would indeed be a traumagenic system, but I'm not sure it's what our readers are looking for. They're looking for an encyclopedic discussion of the concept of some systems (read: people with DID, OSDD, and perhaps UDD, and perhaps, depending on whom you ask, some people who do not meet any of those diagnostic criteria) being that way as a result of trauma, and implicitly of others being that way through some other mechanism.
    So, give readers an incomplete answer adjacent to what they're looking for, or give them no answer at all? There's an irony that I've written all this and now find myself arguing with myself. There are definitely some people who would be offended by the current target. There are others who might be misled into thinking that the two things are the same when they aren't. And it strikes me as unlikely that the English Wikipedia will, anytime soon, have substantial coverage of the fairly niche intra-community term being referenced here. I think I come down as a weak delete, because on a medical or medical-adjacent topic it's important that we not send readers to the wrong place. But I think I've also made a decent case for keeping as well (again, the irony's not lost on me), and hope that others find this bit of insight into the plural community helpful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per Tamzin's (eventual) conclusion.--Aervanath (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2021 (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.

F. W.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#F. W.

Quirinale.it[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the name of a website redirect to the page President of Italy? "Quirinale.it" is not a search one could possibly do on Wikipedia when actually meaning "President of Italy". Yakme (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2021 (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.

Carolyn Mitchell[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 Mickey Rooney#Marriages. Per Tamzin. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is a surprise link. This name is mentioned exactly once in the destination article and has to be searched for to find it. A person with this name was an alias of someone married to Rooney and that is it. Better for this to be deleted than point to some destination with basically no useful information about the person named. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to § Marriages and create Barbara Ann Thomason with same target. There's three sentences on Thomason at the target article, as well as four sentences on her death at Milos Milos. It would be preferable for a woman's murder to not only be discussed at the articles on her husband and her murderer, but that's what we've got for the moment. I'd be interested to see whether Murder of Barbara Ann Thomason could be turned blue, but for now I think this redirect is worthwhile. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Tamzin. Huggums537 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2021 (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.

GREEK OLD CALENDARISTS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as an unlikely capitalization. The arguments for keeping the redirect were a) that having the evidence of a page move from 2003 is somewhat interesting from a historical perspective (true, in my view, but not supported by consensus), b) that we are required to keep the history for attribution purposes (not correct), or c) that uppercase Greek letters are more convenient for BDD, which is one of the most beautifully frivolous arguments it has ever been my pleasure to read. Aervanath (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a different capitalisation, it is simply the name of Greek Old Calendarists in all capital letters. Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a very old {{R from move}}, having been performed in November 2003. Indeed it is so old that it was not recorded in the history of the target page so this page needs to be retained for attribution purposes. It's also completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Attribution of what exactly? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     16:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per THRYDUULF. ITS HISTORY is WORTH PRESERVING, and SOME PEOPLE MIGHT MISTAKENLY SEARCH FOR the TARGET PAGE with the ⇪ Caps Lock LEFT ON. REGARDS, SONIC678 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RCAPS. Greek Old Calendarists have no affinity with the capitalized variant, and it thus fails the "likely alternative capitalization" purpose of redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the second time in about as many days you are completely ignoring licensing issues, and there is no vandalism aspect to complicate matters here. The page was created at this title in good faith and the move away from it is not recorded anywhere else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not ignoring licensing issues, I am disagreeing with your interpretation of them. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Then show me where, in the legal text of the GFDL or cc-by-sa license, it says we can choose which edits require attribution and which do not. The right to be attributed for your edits is in practice* the only absolute right one has on Wikipedia (*the other "right" commonly cited is the right to vanish, but that's not available in every circumstance and in practice is not actually very vanishy). Thryduulf (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not have the burden of proof, but the logic for my position is quite simple: there is no blanket restriction against deleting pages moved before June 2005. If you would like there to be one, I recommend starting an RfC. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Travix. Not a plausible miscapitalisation, not a useful search term. I also don't agree with the argument that this needs to be kept for attribution purposes, there's no substantial content in the page history, the page history in it's entirety consists of the redirect being generated automatically as the result of a page move, some redirect categorisation and this RFD. Changing the capitalisation of a title probably wouldn't even reach the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright anyway. 192.76.8.95 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely search term. Avilich (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's something to be said for respecting our wiki's early history. If an ancient redirect isn't hurting anything, I don't think it should be deleted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it is highly unlikely that anyone would use the all-caps variant as a search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. We keep old redirects from move to avoid breaking old links (internal and external), not for attribution, as all the previous versions of the article text is contained in the history of the article. The history of the redirect only informs us that User:Cyp moved the page from the incorrectly capitalised title the correct version two minutes after its creation. Since it's not shown in the history of Greek Old Calendarists, it's not usefully serving any attribution purpose anyway. Having only existed for two minutes eighteen years ago makes it extremely unlikely that any incoming inks would exist. That said, I wouldn't want to encourage going hunting after old redirects from 2003 that are otherwise harmless, hence the weak qualification. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I dislike being called an "ist" of any kind, but I generally prefer to keep things most of the time. However, if we keep this against the guidance that Tavix has pointed out to us, then it suggests that we are setting a dangerous precedent that we should make every redirect have an ALLCAPS VARIANT. The reason we have the guidance in the first place is so this won't be done. For this reason, it isn't a harmless redirect, and so getting rid of the all caps must be done as the lessor of two evils. Huggums537 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as {{R with old history}} per Tamzin. Not necessary for attribution in my humble opinion, but it is an interesting historical relic that there is no harm in retaining. I must also disagree partially with some rationales for retention above per WP:RCAPS. Weak because, as Paul_012 points out, it only existed at the former title for approximately two minutes. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:RCAPS. --Northumber (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who knows uppercase Greek letters pretty well and lowercase Greek letters hardly at all, I'm sympathetic that there could be a Greek equivalent of me out there. But I don't love the idea of suggesting all Greek topics have affinity for all-caps, and that equivalency probably wouldn't hold. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2021 (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.

Rachmanianoff[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) feminist (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 8#Rachmanianof. Wretchskull (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all above, not particularly common to warrant a redirect. Avilich (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. I could see thinking it's spelled this way, and indeed at least one newspaper has thought that. @Susmuffin, I'm just gonna out and say it, because it's been on my mind for a month or two now: Could you please stop conclusorily stating that search terms are improbable? Without any accompanying analysis of why a term is probable or improbable (as J947 has provided), such a !vote really adds nothing more to the discussion than your signature. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in general, there are a lot of RfD participants who !vote quickly without doing 30 seconds' research. It really isn't much just to check whether one's gut feel matches up with reality. Go to all-time pageviews, WhatLinksHere, and a quick google search for the string and that's sufficient. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There's a remarkably low quantity of results with that misspelling, and it seems the redirect had virtually no traffic before this nomination brought it to prominence. Avilich (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yup. It's still enough for the redirect to be useful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my spending several seconds just now trying to figure out which of the two was a mispelling. It resembles the kinds of mistakes I might make when guessing at a transliteration from Russian. Rusalkii (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J947, Tamzin and Rusalkii. It's clear this is a plausible misspelling with a single clear target, so the redirect is both useful and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 and all other keeps. Huggums537 (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 15#Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria

Mount St. Halenas[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. Aervanath (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

double typo that could refer to either Mount St. Helens or Mount Saint Helena, and perhaps other targets, suggest deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and retarget. This was created when the Hurricane Jeanne article was moved to that title from here in 2004. As best I can tell, it was page move vandalism but because page moves were only recorded in the history of the source page back then it's tricky to be certain. Even though it is vandalism, this being the only record of that page move does mean we need to keep it around for attribution purposes though. I agree it's not a useful redirect to the current target, or to the hurricane, in it's present form and nothing notable includes "Halenas" as far as I can see (only usernames, a non-notable possibly sole-trader clothes retailer, and very occasional French pages (wikt:halenas informs that it's the second-person singular past historic of halener, meaning "to exhale" or "to scent")). So I suggest moving it, without a redirect, to a name that's a useful redirect for the hurricane and retargeting it there - the modern logging of moves and showing up in whatlinkshere for the hurricane will make it as easy as possible for someone to find if they need to. Maybe moving an then separately deleting the resulting redirect (rather than suppressing the redirect) will allow for log entries to be even clearer? Anyway, that necessitates finding a useful redirect to the hurricane that doesn't already exist - Hurricane Jeanne 2004 or Hurricane jeanne are the most obvious to me, with possibly a marginal preference for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a ambiguous typo. I strongly oppose Thryduulf's proposal. The idea that attribution would be necessary for page move vandalism is—frankly—ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It might sound ridiculous to you, but nowhere I've ever seen in either the GFDL (which applied at the time) or cc-by-sa attribution requirements is vandalism distinguished from any other edit, despite what an essay might imply. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere I've seen that all page move vandalism before 27 June 2005 must be kept, which is what you're implying. Vandalism need not be attributed—quite the opposite in fact because vandalism is prohibited. -- Tavix (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that vandalism is prohibited, but I've seen nothing in either the GFDL or cc-by-sa licenses' attribution requirements that distinguishes between prohibited edits and allowed edits. We don't get to choose which bits of the law we follow, so unless you can show me where, in the legal text, it says vandalism is exempt from attribution requirements we don't have a choice to keep this. Thryduulf (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the contributions have been removed (not meaning from the database, just from the article), then the requirement to attribute the article's text does not include people whose contribution have been removed from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm missing something, I kind of doubt that page move (or any other) meets the threshold of originality. Rummskartoffel 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only time moving a page to another title would arguably not be a significant edit would be when doing simple substitution of similar characters (e.g. hyphen to endash). Moving "Hurricane Jeanne" to "Mount St. Helenas" is far more significant than a typo fix in an article and we always ensure to maintain the attribution of those edits. Thryduulf (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think we necessarily need to preserve that bit of confusing old history and simple deletion would be fine, I don't think there is any harm in Thryduulf's proposal either. In that case I think the redirect can just be suppressed when doing the move along with a detailed edit summary rather than doing a move/delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessarily preserving vandalism is harmful. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't be preserving vandalism, we would just be preserving the record that it occurred with page history, which is a normal occurrence. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Thryduulf:, would a link to the user who did the move and a brief description of what they did in the edit summary of a dummy edit be enough for attribution? That's basically what the current system does anyway in regards to moves. If so then I absolutely believe a delete is warranted. eviolite (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: By which of the ways do we achieve attribution for a probable page move vandalism that happened here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, don't bother with attribution. There's nothing in the history of these redirects that need to be retained for attribution per the GFDL/CC licences, as the article text, which is what we care about, isn't recorded in any of the permalinked versions of the redirects, and any modifications made are in the history of the main article. (See also Headbomb's above comments.) While the edit summaries left behind are useful as breadcrumbs for tracking down what happened in that instance of vandalism (you can see from the vandal's contribs that they first moved the page to Tropical Storm Jeanne, then to Hurricane Ivans, then to Mount St. Halenas, before it was finally reverted, all in a window of six minutes), we don't usually consider the need to facilitate such detective work in retaining redirects, and routinely delete more recent redirects created as a result of vandalism anyway. The only difference for these older cases is that there's no log entry left behind, so non-admins would not be able to do said detective work if the redirects were deleted. I don't think that's a realistic use case. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and attribute per suggestion by Eviolite. Huggums537 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2021 (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.

William Taylor(Nights: Journey of Dreams)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#William Taylor(Nights: Journey of Dreams)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_26&oldid=1065399511"