Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2022.

Mary Charlton (Q18762037)[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 23:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 21#Wikidata redirects * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's an implausible redirect. If one had her wikidata entity number as Q18762037, then it's very likely one got that from Wikidata which links to her page on the english Wikipedia. TartarTorte 14:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous related discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 24 August 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.

Wikipedia:EE[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! 21:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:EE currently redirects to WP:WikiProject EastEnders, an inactive WikiProject about a British Soap Opera. This is by and large not the dominant use of the term "EE" on Wikipedia; in particular I find that the acronym is used far more often to refer to Eastern Europe rather than to the British television show. As such, I propose that we retarget the redirect to either WP:WikiProject Eastern Europe or WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget our WikiProject isn't inactive but the redirect isn't crucial for our project as long as a hatnote is placed on the new target. – Meena • 19:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate there are a lot of links to this, including from noticeboard archives and user talk. The Eastern Europe project is also inactive, and there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia (EE is the country code). Wikipedia:Editor engagement is a redirect to page on meta.wikimedia.org. Peter James (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since February. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur that nothing has changed since February. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the target project is inactive therefore the redirect is useless. So it should be disambiguated -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the recent discussion. No problem that will be solved by deletion has been advanced, meanwhile existing links will be broken if deleted. As I said in the previous discussion, it doesn't matter if it's ambiguous if it isn't being used to refer to other things as this is not in mainspace, and I don't see any evidence of it being used for the wrong target. A7V2 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A badly used shortcut to a dead project blocking other uses to properly active targets seems like a very bad way to use a redirect -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Evidence please that this is "badly used". The previous discussion came to the conclusion that at least the significant majority of incomming links are currently correctly targetted and nobody presented any evidence that any change would bring benefits that would outweigh the costs of breaking them, and they still haven't done so. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 23 August 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.

Flatiron Partners[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Flatiron Partners

Donald Trump and Twitter[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 Social media use by Donald Trump. Unanimous consensus to unrefine/retarget to top of article (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should these redirects point to the top of the Social media use by Donald Trump article or the Twitter section? My view is that the top of the article is preferable, given that the majority of the article, and the majority of the lead section, are about Trump's use of Twitter, and the reader is more likely to arrive at a thorough understanding of Trump's use of Twitter from reading the lead section followed by the Twitter section than vice versa. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target to top of the article and bold @realDonaldTrump in the lead so that the reader can easily see that they have been taken to an appropriate page. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nom and Alduin2000. Blythwood (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top of the article per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 25 August 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.

République dominicaine[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the French did annex the Dominican Republic for 14 years, it was not called République dominicaine. During that era, it was part of French "Saint-Domingue", and as there is very little french spoken in the modern Dominical Republic, this seems like WP:RLOTE to me. TartarTorte 16:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. What the nominator states could very well be the case (I don't know anything about the history of the Dominican Republic), but if at one point the country had a strong affiliation with the French language, that means the French language has a connection to the target and these redirects are probably the closest English-to-French translation of its English name. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a connection, and both French and English are mandatory school languages there, with Haïtian créole also being widely spread, being right next to Haïti. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was unable to verify the claim that French and English are mandatory courses of instruction in the Dominican Republic, having searched both our relevant Wikipedia articles and Google Scholar. As the validity of the non-weak keep !vote hinges on this claim, relisting for further clarity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Figure I'll ping Headbomb since your relist comment is in direct response to their vote in an attempt to have them clarify. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Dominican Republic#Languages: Schools are based on a Spanish educational model; English and French are mandatory foreign languages in both private and public schools,[187]... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, looking at that claim (I had gone straight to Education in the Dominican Republic and Languages of the Dominican Republic, which make no such claim), the sources don't seem to back it up. I can't find any mention of French, English, or foreign languages in the source that the claim is directly cited to ([1]), and the following citation attached to although the quality of foreign languages teaching is poor.([2]) mentions English instruction, but not French (and FWIW does not suggest that English is actually a mandatory subject at the moment). My sense is that the information at Dominican Republic is incorrect and should be removed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If so, the historical connection and the close relations with Haiti should still be enough for a keep. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that [3] mentions French/English as mandatory, but this is possibly a citogenesis kinda thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I feel like RLOTE is one of the "weak" reasons to delete a redirect since no real harm comes from keeping but more we want to discourage creation. But given it's not clear whether this is an RLOTE issue, I think better to just keep as the amount of effort invested in deciding if RLOTE applies is far exceeding the benefit of deletion. A7V2 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 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.

Gravity Wars[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 23:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company released no game by this name, and the title does not occur in the target article. IceWelder [✉] 16:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was redirected to Gravity Force until that article was redirected; Gravity Force now has a separate article again, and Gravity Force#Legacy mentions "similarly titled clones" which probably include Gravity Wars. Peter James (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The clones mentioned there do not include Gravity Wars. The game was also allegedly released in 1986, three years before Gravity Force. Gravity Wars relates to neither Kingsoft nor Gravity Force, so there is no plausible redirect target at this time. IceWelder [✉] 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 22 August 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.

Hario V60[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Hario V60

No Server November[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 23:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a DUE mention can be added at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 15:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft delete until it is added. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:55, 22 August 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.

De Gruyter Open (formerly Versita)[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. I deleted all non-article edit history and MWR'd the article history to De Gruyter Open (chosen because it's the base title). I then restored the redirect history already at De Gruyter Open so those edits were not lost. -- Tavix (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. You'd search for either De Gruyter Open or Versita, not both together. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Too much effort to type in both current and former name. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was an article. Move without redirect to Versita which is currently a redirect to the same target. Jay 💬 06:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move without redirect seems like a reasonable solution here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin needed because Versita has 2 edits. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the two edits at Versita are trivial enough that they could be overwritten, it would make more sense to move (still without leaving a redirect) to another valid search term, such as De Gruyter (publisher). --BDD (talk) 19:06, 2 September 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.

Giant white shark[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any real useage of this term for "Megalodon" at all, and it seems like an implausible search term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't remember the context, but I redirected it from a name I saw used in some source or on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:39, 22 August 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.

Religious exemption (U.S.)[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 Religious exemption#United States. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By far the most common locus of discussion for religious exemptions is in the field of vaccine law, which Burwell does not concern. Religious exemption - even in the United States (perhaps more so than anywhere) - is a far broader title than can be restricted to any one U.S. Supreme Court case. BD2412 T 03:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Jay. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Jay. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to the proposed retargeting, but content needs to be added in that article about religious exemptions to vaccination mandates. BD2412 T 19:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I was about to close this as "retarget", but I've noticed that the content you mention hasn't been added to the proposed target. Do you still agree on retargeting this redirect there? CycloneYoris talk! 23:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a better target than the case. I'll add the relevant content sometime in the next week or so. BD2412 T 00:34, 29 August 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.

Google Scholar and academic libraries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Google Scholar and academic libraries

Niggaracci[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 3#Niggaracci

Environmental Law (Law Review)[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! 23:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the act of disambiguation. There's already Environmental Law (law review). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a {{R from other capitalisation}}. Anyone using this redirect will be taken to the content they are looking for - the exact purpose of a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RDABs aren't created with variations in capitalizations. We have Environmental Law (law review), and that is enough. We don't need (law review), (Law review), (law Review), (LAW REVIEW), and (Law Review) on top of those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need them, but once they are created there is no benefit at all to deleting them. It makes no sense for the part before the brackets to be completely flexible with capitalisation but insist that the part in the brackets be absolutely correct and if you guess wrong in a case-sensitive environment then we will go out of our way to make your life harder. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should not have been created but we are now in WP:CHEAP territory. It's really not worth exuding the extra effort over. casualdejekyll 17:20, 24 August 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.

Functional Ecology – journal[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect way to dab things. We have Functional Ecology (journal) already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both redirects were the original locations of the article before a page move was performed. There could be several backlinks to it from the old revisions of linking articles. Deleting the redirect will break those links without much apparent benefit. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    I checked (https://ahrefs.com/backlink-checker) and no such backlink exists anywhere on the internet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. WP:RDAB doesn't apply to this redirect since the redirect does not contain a disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "– journal" is the disambiguator, and it is clearly malformed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguators as defined in Wikipedia's use is something at the end of a title with "(disambiguator)"; title dash word is not defined as such, so please don't erroneously claim it as so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why it's malformed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's stop the WP:BLUDGEONING now, and let the closer decide. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparent divide between "undeserved error" deleters and WP:CHEAP keepers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've also bundled two Higher Education redirects from another nomination into here, since these two additional redirects have almost identical formatting. Any other similarly formatted journal redirects (i.e. in the form "Journal dash journal") can also be bundled if discovered. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mellohi!: Looks like CX Zoom's comments were altered as a result of the merge since their comments were not the same on both discussions. For that reason, I'm pinging them here to ensure what is written with their signature reflects their full opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for the ping. I've added my reply and Headbomb's response as blockquote above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that that backlink checker is not 100% accurate. I've just tested it with https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/386051730117/ an event that I know has been shared on, at least, Facebook, Twitter and the website of the group organising it but the backlink checker says it has 0 backlinks. It obviously also cannot see links that are offline, and I read something (but can't now find it again) that implied sites that use nofollow for links are excluded. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Functional Ecology - journal should have been included in this nomination. Keep the - dash ones, especially Higher Education - Journal since the current article was at that title for a couple of months (obscured in the history due to a bot moving it to Higher Education – Journal), with the other one only for a couple of hours. No real reason to delete these. They shouldn't have been created but discussions for very old unambiguous redirects like these are really a waste of time. No matter how unlikely someone searching these is, they will be taken to exactly what they were looking for. A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch, added. Also Higher Education - Journal has no links to it. Both from on Wikipedia and from anywhere on the web (I checked). It is literally useless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - they unambiguously take someone to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 22 August 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.

Batman 5 through 8[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 07:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar rationale as the Superman redirects listed below.

1. These movies are never called that.

2. These films are part of two completely separate universes, grouped together as though they were continuations of the original 1989-97 Batman film series.

3. Batman Begins isn't even the 5th Batman film as you also have Batman (1966 film), making these redirects completely incorrect.

MightyArms (talk) 00:33, 22 August 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.

Denim (color)[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 Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nominating these redirects procedurally since Denim (color) had an RFD in 2018 and a AFD in 2011 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denim (color)) that resulted in "delete". The target and/or embedded anchor these redirects target no longer exists; the subject is mentioned in the target article, but it does not seem to be the only plausible target. This color is also mentioned in a list at List of Crayola crayon colors#Standard colors (as mentioned in the previous RFD). In addition, Denim (color) is a {{R with history}} that hints it is a shade of a color and could be listed in one of those pages more accurately. Not sure an ultimate plan here, but it doesn't seem as though the current situation is really helpful for readers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Peter James. At least the color appears at target, and I guess that's all that matters for now. Could be disambiguated if added somewhere else. CycloneYoris talk! 23:12, 28 August 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.

Debut issue[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Debut issue

Thank[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 Thanks. czar 16:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This longstanding (2005) redirect was recently retargeted by User:Tree Critter to wikt:thank and then again (after I reverted that retargeting during new page patrol) to B-cell activating factor, claiming that Gratitude doesn't actually mention the term. That may be, but it is nevertheless the common meaning and the page should still target there. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't, as it fails WP:R#DELETE. If Gratitude can't add anymore to the understanding of the word then it shouldn't be leading there. Tree Critter (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thank you: While a PTM it seems like, Thank you encompasses this the best. While I have no issue with THANK going to B-cell activating factor, it is a bit of a SURPRISE for Thank to do the same. TartarTorte 14:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thanks, a disambiguation page, so readers can figure out whatever the heck they could possibly be trying to find that isn't a dictionary definition since I'd have no clue, and I think the previous comment validates this point. (However, since "Thanks" is not an exact title match, I'm also weak delete per my default stance I've had in the past with such situations, but this one just seems ... different. Also, very weak retarget to Wiktionary:thank since I'm fairly confident if they are searching this term on Wikipedia then the definition is not what they are looking for on an encyclopedia, though it is still plausible.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thanks, disambiguation seems best here, as the route to bring readers to what they are most likely looking for. BD2412 T 16:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if this should be retargeted to Thanks or to Thank you... or should it be kept to target Gratitude?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I am fine with either Thanks or Thank you as targets, although I am somewhat surprised the forrmer has been a disambiguation page uncontroversially since 2008 and the latter exists as a separate article. (I would have expected both of those to be redirects to Gratitude). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you (along with Please) is more than just an expression of gratitude; these are social signals of conformity to expectations of politeness, which can be subverted for instances conveying the opposite of gratitude. BD2412 T 19:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thanks: "Thank" is closer to "Thanks" than "Thank you" and it is a disambiguation page, so no one would be lost in the ocean of thanks on Wikipedia. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "no one would be lost in the ocean of thanks" is about when I hit semantic satiation on this discussion casualdejekyll 17:23, 24 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_22&oldid=1108313182"