Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2022.

Video game publication[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#Video game publication

Order of the Polar Bear[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 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target page has a lot of "Order of the..." phrases listed in it, but this isn't one of them. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No such thing as "Order of the Polar Bear" anywhere on EnWiki. CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 19 April 2022 (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.

Fast attack Submarine[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 Attack submarine. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "fast attack" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what that phrase refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Attack submarine which has the "Fast attack" moniker --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Attack submarine per Lenticel. "Fast attack" is a nickname for modern attack submarines. The current target it clearly inappropriate, because not all submarines are attack submarines. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2022 (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.

Indianapolis explosion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Indianapolis explosion

2022 Brooklyn attack[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. Thought it said January 2022, so umm ... yeah, sure. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vague title, and not the only "attack" that has happened in Brooklyn this year. For example: [1]. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because this is the only notable attack in Brooklyn this year. Jim Michael (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current title of the article is WP:PRECISE. The redirect is not to a point where a reader could be looking for something else. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment seems to be saying that the redirect should be deleted, but your second that it should be kept. Which are you arguing for? The non-fatal attack on a Jewish man is nowhere near notable enough for an article. Many people who want to read about the NYC Subway attack will search for 2022 Brooklyn attack or 2022 Brooklyn shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is unquestionably the primary topic for this term. Hopefully there won't be another notable attack in Brooklyn this year, but if that were to occur we can consider disambiguating. By the way, the date in the linked news article says Jul 18, 2021. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Only notable attack this year. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:48, 13 April 2022 (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.

Political ideologies in the United States vary considerably[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 01:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created as an apparent typo from a pagemove; page was moved away from this title within a minute of being moved here. Not a plausible/useful redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yeah, that is kind of weird. We usually don't have full narrative sentences as redirects. BD2412 T 21:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds more like a paragraph lede than an article name. Confusing at best. --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2022 (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.

Ukraine-Russia border crisis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Ukraine-Russia border crisis

I believe in U[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Nominator is a blocked sock. -- Tavix (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mention in the target. Balkovec (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2022 (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.

Lady Amaranth[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 Wild Oats (play). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a myth and legend section deleted as fancruft in 2017. Article has no current mention of a "Lady Amaranth" or equivalent. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2022 (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.

2022–23 ICC Men's T20 World Cup redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 02:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have recently been created, but only the info for the European qualifier is known right now, so these all fail WP:CRYSTAL. They could take place in 2022-23, or just in 2022, or 2023, or even into 2024. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The ICC have confirmed that the 2024 WC will have no global qualifier and the regional finals will be direct qualifiers to the WC. But only tbe European region has any details so far (groups, dates, etc for the first stage). Other regions will happen but we don't know in which season (let alone actual dates), or even the basic format. These pages have been needlessly created as redirects when the topic fails WP:CRYSTAL. If possible, they should be deleted and created properly at a later date. Bs1jac (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2022 (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.

Milošević[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. The RM this discussion is predicated upon has been reopened. If you want to weigh in on the matter, let's keep discussion in one place at Talk:Milošević (surname)#Requested move 25 March 2022. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Slobodan Milošević per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and result of move request. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, wow, now that's an unabashedly biased way to reinterpret that move request's closure in your own favor. Seriously now. If acting like this is supposed to be the way to achieve WP:Consensus, I'm a toaster. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, per the content (if not the closure) of the linked discussion. Slobodan Milošević is the primary topic in English. – Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're also up for doing this?! Re-litigating the exact same discussion we just had, but in a new forum, without contacting people discussed it previously? Does the WP:FORUMSHOP policy mean nothing to anyone? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main point of that RM was deciding if there is a primary topic for "Milošević", and I wish that got decided there. It didn't, and the closure explicitly recommended (in its last sentence) further discussion on what to do with the redirects. So here we are. – Uanfala (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget due to the fact that the RM did not achieve consensus to have the name page at the base title. An undisambiguated title should not redirect to the same title with a disambiguation because it would be malplaced. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: If that's the case, I inadvertently screwed up the RM close - I didn't view the (surname) page as a disambiguation page, but rather as a page listing people with the surname, similar to List of people with surname Smith. Put differently, I viewed the RM close as a choice between whether the PRIMARYTOPIC was the surname or Slobodan Milošević. There was no consensus to move the page, but there was also no consensus that the person was the primary topic, so I figured the status quo was fine in terms of the page titles. What I missed is that if you create a disambiguation page, it would look exactly the name as the surname page would at this moment (unlike say Smith (surname) which gives additional information on the surname), since unlike Smith, there's nothing else to disambiguate. I'd actually edit the close to reflect that now it's been pointed out if this discussion hadn't been opened, but any conclusion the RM supports the contention Slobodan Milošević is the PRIMARYTOPIC is incorrect, and if there is no PRIMARYTOPIC then there should be a disambiguation page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying that the surname list is a disambiguation page, I'm saying that it is disambiguated by using the "(surname)" disambiguation. FOO should not redirect to FOO (BAR), whatever that "bar" should be. So yes, the primary topic question is one for RM because it involves a page to be moved. Because the question of whether the page should be moved did not result in the page being moved, the redirect needs to go to the default primary topic as proposed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll vacate the close, then, as it's leading to confusion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Slobodan Milošević. If there is a primary topic of the term (which is what these need to point to), this is it. BD2412 T 21:28, 13 April 2022 (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.

Bucharest summit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I already nominated this one year ago but it just doesn't make sense that this redirect exists. Bucharest is the capital of a country, not some irrelevant city. It's obvious that more meetings have occurred there, so this redirect is unjustified. At Bucharest Nine you can see how many summits of that organization alone have ocurred in the city. Super Ψ Dro 11:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:45, 12 April 2022 (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.

Baksı[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. MBisanz talk 19:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baksı is the Turkish word (see tr:Baksı) for bakshy. As that's an obviously more precise target than the current one, I was going to boldly retarget there, but I noticed that the bakshy article doesn't mention Turkey at all, and, while there's certainly a cultural connection between these two Turkic countries, I'm not sure that's enough of an affinity to justify an RLOTE. Baksı Museum, however, does spell it that way, so I lean toward retargeting there with hatnote back to Bakshy and the DAB at Bakshi; doing it in the opposite direction would be reasonable too.

I'm bundling Baksi, created by Eubot as an avoided double redirect, because its fate can't be disentangled from Baksı's. Since its creation, the article Baksi (surname) has been created. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I think the best approach would be to move Baksi (surname) over the redirect and disambiguate as needed via hatnote. As a second choice, I would support matching wherever Baksı winds up pointing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trying to understand the nomination better. The two Turkic countries referred to maybe Turkey and Turkmenistan, although the Turkmen people referred to in bakshy are not country-specific but a culture spread across countries, Turkmenistan being prominent, and their language is Turkmen language or Turkmen Turkish. Jay (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both, move Baksi surname to Baksi - From reading the trWiki article, it seems like insofar as baksı refers to Turkmen bakshy, it's a Turkish exonym, and insofar as it is a plausible generic name for Turkic shamans, it deserves its own article and shouldn't be reduced to Turkmen culture specifically. I don't find Baksı to be a plausible search term Baksı Museum. Meanwhile, none of the names at Bakshi use ı so I don't think that's a likely intended target either. signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 26 April 2022 (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.

Frederik Kaarle I of Finland[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 20:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The fi.wp article says (transl.) "The electoral document called Friedrich Karl by the name Fredrik Kaarle.[111]" with the citation pointing to page 13 of Riitta Sihvonen's 1997 book Valtaistuin vapaana: Kysymys korkeimman vallan käytöstä Suomessa 1918–1919 which I don't have access to. Google books also has a bunch of hits for "Fredrik Kaarle". Based on the quotations in the fi.wp article, the name also seems to have been used by the Parliament of Finland at the time. So this seems to turn into a question of whether the "I of Finland" suffix is appropriate/relevant. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did some minor research on this topic a year or so ago, and I'm convinced that Kingdom of Finland (1918) should be moved or merged to something like "Attempt to establish a Finnish monarchy" or "Aftermath of the Finnish Civil War". The monarchy was a proposal, but it did not happen, and Finland was never a monarchy (despite the line currently in the lead section about "legally being a monarchy", which I don't believe to really be true). Fredrick Charles never accepted his Kingship of Finland nor even traveled to Finland at the time so his later renunciation of the title was more a "for the record" deal. Even if you accept Finland was a monarchy, they were a monarchy without a king. Lots of people are proposed as monarchs, but they need to actually rule to be monarchs. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, this isn't about whether Finland actually was briefly a monarchy, but whether the name Fredrik Kaarle I of Finland is valid, and therefore justifies the redir. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As Ljleppan says, the official election documents did refer to Friedrich Karl as Fredrik Kaarle. The fiwiki article on him confirms this, citing another book, namely Anders Huldén's 1988 Kuningasseikkailu Suomessa 1918 (ISBN 951-26-2980-1). A quick search also nets a number of RS mentions from eg. YLE, Suomen Kuvalehti and Vasabladet, as well as Deutsche Biographie, all using the name Fredrik Kaarle. (Mind you, none of them append it with 'I of Finland', so if the point of this RfD was that specific part of the name, then I've no comment to offer.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Striking my earlier !vote, turns out I cannot read, apparently. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect isn't Fredrik Kaarle. It is Frederik Kaarle. So the name is wrong as well as the suffix. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrKay — you know what? I didn't even notice the difference. I will be having words with myself. Thanks for pointing this out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On my part, I'm still somewhat on the fence, as "Frederik" (esp. in the context of Finnish names) is a rather likely misspelling of "Fredrik" - so much so that I didn't even notice until it was pointed out. In fact, if presented with the names in isolation I would have thought "Fredrik" to be the misspelt version. Ljleppan (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a name without a mention. Although the nomination is unclear as to whether the concern is with Frederik vs Fredrik, or Kaarle vs Charles, or with I of Finland, or all of these. The redirect Fredrik Kaarle already exists, so I guess it's the combination of wrong prefix and suffix that is the concern. Jay (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2022 (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.

Open Gym[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 20:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "open gym" is not specifically mentioned in the article. There are some mentions of "open area" and such terms, but not terms as specific as this redirect's title. For this reason, it is unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There was one line of text at this page for 12 minutes in 2006 before being WP:BLARed to its current target, which would clearly not survive a AfD discussion (WP:SNOWBALL). The term "open gym" is a valid search term, likely referring to the general concept of gym facilities and equipment having scheduled periods open for unorganized use (practice, pickup games, etc.) as opposed to being scheduled for a specific activity, like a game or class. However, the uppercase would imply a proper noun and the lowercase Open gym that would imply the general concept is red, and there doesn't seem to be a clearly best redirect target, so delete and defer to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mdewman6 --Lenticel (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the capitalization, can this retarget Simu Liu who wrote, directed, produced, and starred in the short film of the same name? Jay (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think retargeting as Jay is wondering would only make sense if we could identify a good target for the lowercase form and create that redirect to avoid astonishment for those seeking the general concept. But I am not sure there is a single best target for the lowercase form. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. I'm sure there would be similar cases where we have an unambiguous uppercase name where the corresponding lowercase is ambiguous and not having its own page. Jay (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are such cases too, when the capitalized form is clearly notable and worthy of a page. In this case, though, none of the other works by Liu currently have redirects, so I'm not sure this work should have one. If there were something more on the order of a paragraph or subsection about the work, then that would better rise to the level of being redirect worthy. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor work of Simu Liu. All his other works are bluelinks. Jay (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2022 (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.

Foot length[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! 21:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A related redirect Foot (length) seems to helpfully target the nominated redirect's target page; however, without "length" as a disambiguator (such as it is in the nominated redirect), a reader could be looking up this term expecting to find the article Shoe size. I'm not sure if the best option here would be to retarget to shoe size, or just hatnote the current target and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The length of a foot" does indeed have a double meaning in English. It can refer to the length of any human foot, or to the length of the metrological unit known as a foot. I think that the length of the standard foot (the unit) should be the most useful to redirect to. "Shoe size" can also refer to foot width in addition to foot length, so is more ambiguous. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have revised the hatnote at target to offer a link to Shoe size rather than unhelpfully linking to the primary topic Foot. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for an opinion about the suggested target shoe size also being ambiguous.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2022 (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.

Crooked Cop Air[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. ✗plicit 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. In addition, third party search engines seem to return results for both the target subject and skateboarding; it seems to be a trick of some sort, but the name doesn't seem to be exclusive to either sport. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2022 (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.

Hole (golf)[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 Glossary of golf#Hole. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect targeting its current target could potentially be a WP:SURPRISE. The use of "hole" in golf itself is apparently ambiguous: Does or refer to the hole which the ball is hit into, or the segment of the course that has the aforementioned hole? I'm thinking a solution here would be to retarget to Golf#Play of the game where both concepts seem to be mentioned together. Steel1943 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get an opinion on the nomination's retarget suggestion of Golf#Play of the game.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2022 (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.

Exercise room[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 12:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these two terms are synonymous. Most third party results for "exercise room" seem to return primarily results for a room customized for exercise equipment in someone's home, whereas the target subject seems to be exclusive to non-residential commercial settings. So, I'm suggesting deletion (in lieu of any retargeting options) since it's quite possible that both the redirect and the target not being the same subject and the target not being what readers are attempting to locate when searching this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree the redirect and target are not necessarily synonymous, but it may be that's where we have the most relevant content. I think exercise room may be closer to being a synonym for Weight room, which is a redirect to Weight training. But "exercise room" is probably broader, including treadmills and other cardio equipment that a traditional weight room may lack. All that is to say I am not sure if either are properly targeted, or if either are sufficiently vague that they should be deleted to defer to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mdewman6. Way too vague to be of any good use, should be deleted to let the search engine do its job. CycloneYoris talk! 01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2022 (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.

(Ayan)Virisampatti[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 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COSTLY redirect due to the lack of space and unconventional/unlikely use of parentheses. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Digital Metaplasticity exists and targets the same target as (Digital)Metaplasticity. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as {{R from move}}s (and tag as such). The first article was at the redirect page for ~10 months before an RM moved it. The second was at the redirect title for ~1 month. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of these redirects have incoming links from the article space; most likely, the views are coming from links in non-article namespaces, which tend to not be a strong reason to keep a redirect if the redirect is in the article namespace. Readers who may end up seeing a potential move summary for these redirects after clicking their red links (provided these redirects are deleted) will know where any content went that was formerly at these titles. Also, these redirects don't conform to a style of old redirects that we tend to keep, such as {{R from CamelCase}}. Though these are indeed {{R from move}}s, they were most likely moved since the titles were erroneous/unlikely. In other words, since all links are in non-article namespaces and readers can more easily arrive at the move summary if these redirects are deleted, deletion of these redirects should be virtually harmless since the appropriate paper trails exist (in addition to the redirects' unlikeliness outweighing their utility.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Useless and malformed. CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unconventional use of parentheses in page titles. Jay (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2022 (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.

Santo Sepulcro[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#Santo Sepulcro

Psalter (Roman Catholic)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#Psalter (Roman Catholic)

List of royal weddings of Serbia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has no Serbian royal weddings on the page, so requesting deletion.67.173.23.66 (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2022 (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.

㆗[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#㆗

中文[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#中文

Narragansett Park Speedway[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these are the same thing. Certainly the motor racing took place long before the facility described at Narragansett Park opened (racing ending some time around World War One, and the new facility opening in 1934. See 1905 AAA Championship Car season, 1915 AAA Championship Car season and 1917 AAA Championship Car season). From looking online, (eg in probably unreliable [3] and [4]) there was originally a trotting track (possibly used for other horse racing too, the sources seem to contradict eachother) which was then used for motor racing and it's not clear if it's the same location as the track which opened in 1934. In any case, motor racing or anything at all before 1934 is not mentioned at the current target, so I think delete unless someone can add something (well sourced) to the current target. A7V2 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2022 (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.

American financial crisis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 21#American financial crisis

Putting wedge[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 21#Putting wedge

(EP) Minus 1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#(EP) Minus 1

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_12&oldid=1090273119"