Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 30, 2022.

The Queen Consort[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 Queen consort. The arguments in favour of deletion were weak based on their replies. Between the keep and retarget votes the numeric count is close, however the majority of the "delete per" comments supported retargeting as a second choice, therefore the arguments to retarget gained more support. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENTISM, WP:DEFINITE. DrKay (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as with The Prince Consort to Albert, this title is unique to Camilla. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Queen consort. This is unlikely to be used as a search term by someone looking for Camilla, and there are plenty of other queens consort around the world and historically. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not at all unlikely, she is referred to in the Court Circular by this exact title. There is no other queen consort known officially as "The Queen Consort". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but unofficially it could refer to any queen consort as it's a basic grammatically correct construct. This paper, for example, has "The Queen Consort" in its title, but relates to medieval Portugal, not Camilla. – Scyrme (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neveselbert. A search in English for the singular “The Queen Consort” could only mean Camilla. Either that, or delete, and leave it to the internal search engine. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete outright is a good option. The Wikipedia internal search engine works, and redirects prevent the reader from accessing it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete outright. The barely ever followed redirect necessitates a hatnote at the top of a very popular article, and the hatnote detracts from that article. By deleting, no hatnote is needed, and anyone searching will get https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&search=The+Queen+Consort&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 which is a far superior result for their peculiar and rare action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retain the hatnote. In searching, it does seem like Camilla is the primary topic, although it could hypothetically refer to other people in some contexts.
Regarding, WP:DEFINITE, I think this is an exception since it's actually part of the title. WP:THE lists a number of exceptions to the general guidance on avoiding definite articles. – Scyrme (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a reader types in "the queen consort," there is no doubt they are looking for an article about Camilla. Considering the purpose of re-directs is to help readers find the article they are looking for, this is the best re-direct. RECENTISM was never meant to apply to re-directs. TFD (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily keep As much as I dislike this redirect, I have to agree that most ordinary people searching "The Queen Consort" on Wikipedia would do that with the intention of getting to Camilla's article. In a few years, we might have to rethink this, but for now, she definitely seems to be the primary subject. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much of the discourse here, and below at 'Prince Consort', misunderstands the function of the word 'consort'. Queen Camilla is simply that; Queen Camilla. She is Queen by virtue of being the current consort of the UK monarch. As a historical example, Queen Elizabeth, the mother of Queen Elizabeth 2nd of England, was simply Queen Elizabeth when her husband was monarch. Male consorts of monarchs are not designated King; the historical reason for this was that the title King was considered senior to Queen and so the monarchial status of the Queen regnant would be confused. As a historical example, Prince Phillip was a prince (in Greece and Denmark) in his own right but was given the title of Prince by his wife in 1957. He was therefore simply Prince Phillip. He was, technically, not a UK prince because he was the Queen's consort but was rather a UK prince in his own right. The London Times has dropped the 'consort' as it is superfluous and not part of Camilla's formal title. The continued use of 'consort' specifically in respect of Camilla is essentially a function of old royal PR. Notably, when Princess Diana died Camilla was very unpopular, to the extent that the future of the monarchy was often considered to be in doubt. The palace let it be known that Camilla would never become Queen but would be called something else. Over time, the UK public came to accept that Camilla would indeed be Queen (it really was never a choice for the palace - The King's consort is Queen). In due course, she has indeed become Queen. The 'consort' was used during QE2's funeral by the BBC in order to distinguish Camilla from the dead Queen. Any continued use of 'consort' today is simply a misunderstanding of the term. Finally, not least in view of all this, it is absurd for the notion of a Queen Consort in many places across the world to apply to a single person. It's hard to think of a more imperalist idea. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the precedent, yes, but in practice Camilla is being treated differently to other past consorts, both by official sources (the Royal Family website, the Court Circular, etc.) and by the majority of reliable news outlets. Not that I see why that is of much relevance to a redirect for discussion... Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's not a real status and it's absurd, as I say, to suggest that the notion of Queen Consort should direct to a specific person. It's all a function of daft PR. Emmentalist (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While officially is was "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" and "Prince Philip, Prince Consort" and "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," for that matter, it is "Camilla, Queen Consort." As you mentioned, Camilla has been treated differently so far in terms of her title, although that may change. TFD (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Queen incidentally is equal to not inferior to king. The reason that the wife of the king takes the title Queen while the husband of the queen does not take the title King is that women assume the female equivalents of their husband's title, while men do not assume their wives' titles. For example, Mr. Smith's wife is Mrs. Smith. TFD (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Queen consort this can refer to other people not just Camilla Qwv (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect did not exist until after Camilla took the title, one should note. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright or Redirect to Queen consort page. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not understand the delete votes. If Wikipedia has plausible targets it is preferable to either redirect to a primary topic, a list article, set index, or disambiguation page rather than force readers to trawl through search engine results. Hatnotes can be added to aid navigation. Redirects also do not prevent readers accessing the search engine by using the search page directly if the redirects, disambiguation pages, and hatnotes fail them.
Regarding Emmentalist's comments, they seem a bit WP:GREATWRONGS. Both her own article and List of titles and honours of Camilla, Queen Consort note that she is styled "The Queen Consort", and she has been referred to as such in official statements and in the news. Regardless of whether she should be known simply as "Queen Camilla", she is known as "The Queen Consort".
Camilla, Queen Consort already has an appropriate hatnote for other uses of the phrase; people looking for other queen consorts can still easily find the general article. If others do not agree with me that Camilla is the primary topic for this phrase in English with this exact capitalisation and including the definite article, then targetting Queen consort would be better than deletion. – Scyrme (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects prevent the the internal search engine from being invoked. While the reader has ways to access the internal search engine functionality, there is quite a barrier to that. If there is any chance that the reader didn’t want exactly the Camilla, Queen Consort article, the search engine results are better, and more robust a solution long term. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the reader didn't want exactly Camilla, Queen Consort they can easily just click the link in the hatnote; that's what it's there for. This is how things normally work when there's a primary topic. If I search "Catholic Church" it goes to the article for the Roman Catholic Church, but there's a hatnote for other uses of the term, such as the Orthodox Catholic Church (more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church). – Scyrme (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you search, don't you expect the search engine to be invoked? If there's a redirect matching your search term, the redirect prevents the search engine from being invoked.
If there's a primary topic, why is the hatnote needed?
Hatnotes are unwanted clutter in the prime real estate of the article, if the article is the article you wanted. Hatnotes are not superior to letting search entries invoke the search engine. Hatnotes require assumptions, and maintenance as new topics arise.
Deleting the redirect means that the article hatnote can be dropped, and so this is a good reason to delete there direct. Until this RfD, the redirect had negligible pageviews, the few there were were were probably bots. The article receives ten thousand more views, and every reader has to read a useless hatnote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you search, don't you expect the search engine to be invoked? No, not always; I often expect my search query to take me straight to an article or to a disambiguation page. For a basic, uncomplicated query like "The Queen Consort" I would expect to go straight to an article, list, or disambiguation page. If I found it was a red link I would create a redirect, because I would be surprised that it doesn't already exist.
Hatnotes are usually needed when there's a primary topic. Being a "primary topic" implies the existence of other topics which could be relevant.
Hatnotes are recommended by WP:DISAMBIG in many circumstances which I believe apply here. Readers for whom the hatnote is not relevant will just glance past it; it's not difficult. – Scyrme (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10,000 scroll past it, for every one who used the redirect. A little bit difficult times 10,000 so that those who use the redirect go straight to some Wikipedians’ guess of what they really wanted. Or lose the hatnote, and let those few per week using the search box see the results of the search.
I often expect my search query to take me straight to …. This is a corruption of the word “search”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing past a single short line of text requires no scrolling. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
If you entered "The Queen" into Wikipedia's search bar would you expect it to take you to search results or straight to a relevant page? Likewise, would you expect "Fork" to go to search results or to a relevant page? If you answered the former, you're from some parallel universe where Wikipedia exists but functions completely differently. Your expectations of how things are supposed to work make no sense.
The Queen currently goes straight to a disambiguation page; has done for over a decade. Fork goes to a primary topic and links to disambiguation pages in a hatnote. That is how things normally work on Wikipedia for titles like this. Why is just doing things the normal way controversial? Why treat this title differently to similar redirects from titles with the definite article like The Duke or The Consort? Why does WP:DISAMBIG not apply? – Scyrme (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that you do not understand the delete votes. Is that still true? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was until I read your argument re: The Prince Consort below. I think can at least understand your delete vote, even if I disagree. – Scyrme (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least for now Queen Camilla will be known as Queen Consort. I think it's pretty save to believe that most people will be looking for her rather than the title of any Queen consort. Estar8806 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

The Prince Consort[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 Prince consort. Retarget takes a late lead with strong rebuttals to the keep argument, and enjoying second-choice support from some delete-minded editors. signed, Rosguill talk 06:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation pageprince consort. No evidence of primary use: [1]. DrKay (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC) amended 17:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per prince consort § United Kingdom: As a title rather than description, "Prince Consort" is unique to Prince Albert. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also, there is no Prince consort (disambiguation) page to speak of. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Prince consort as above for Queen consort. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retain the hatnote. In searching, it does appear that Albert is the priamry topic for this phrase; I don't agree with the nominatior on this. My search results on Google Scholar were overwhelmingly references to Albert. Search results on Google were references to Albert, as well as a number of establishments (such as pubs) that appear to be named after him (unless I'm mistaken).
However, since it would still be grammatically correct to refer to any prince consort with the definite article, it may refer to other people in some contexts. Additionally, because a number of establishments have been named in reference to Albert by his title, it could in some contexts refer to them. Accordingly, the hatnote should also be kept. A disambiguation page may be created if any establishment named "The Prince Consort" has an article; in which case, it should be added to the hatnote. (As far as I know, none of them do.) – Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Philip was also the Prince Consort. Do we know which of the two princes consort readers are looking for when they type in "the prince consort?" TFD (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, that was not Philip's official title although he was the consort of Elizabeth; his official title was that of a prince, same as her sons. Per my search results, I think Albert is the primary topic for "The Prince Consort"; Philip is a prince consort. A link to Philip could be added to the hatnote, if you feel this is an especially plausible confusion. Something like "for the consort of Elizabeth II, see...". – Scyrme (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright or Redirect to Prince consort page. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The use of redirects to prevent search queries invoking the search engine is silly, and necessitates clutter of hatnotes on articles. Why would someone want to search for this term except to see a listing of matches throughout the encyclopedia? This works fine, and doesn’t require constant maintenance of a barely-to-never wanted DAB page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A single brief hatnote is not "clutter".
    Anyone looking for information about the Prince Consort might search "The Prince Consort". Perhaps they don't remember his name? I could see a student needing to look it up. Or they might be looking for articles titled "The Prince Consort" in general, looking for a disambiguation page or list, perhaps to see if a hotel or pub named after him has an article. This could be done using advanced search, but not everyone is familiar with that function. Having it redirect simply to him would make it clear that there are no such articles yet. Dropping them into search would waste their time trawling through irrelevant mentions of similar phrases while looking for an article that doesn't exist.
    Redirecting to Prince consort as an {{r from The}} would be better than deletion if you don't agree that Albert is the primary topic. Deletion would be an unusual way to handle this. – Scyrme (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A single brief hatnote, or anything that is not contributing to the quality of the article, Above the fold, is clutter for every reader for whom the hatnote is clutter.
    The widespread unfamiliarity with the properly functioning internal search engine is caused by excessive redirects, where Wikipedians think they know better than the search engine what the reader wants. This is a gross and widespread error, and this redirect is a prime example. What is “usual” is a poor argument for what is best. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very narrow view of what contributes to the quality of an article predicated on comparisons to a completely different medium.
    Not sure why you're so certain that you, a Wikipedian, know what "the reader" wants more so than anyone else. The reality is that "reader" and "editor" aren't mutually exclusive, and most editors are themselves also readers and have relevant experience. Personally, as a reader and browser of Wikipedia, I find aids to navigation like redirects and hatnotes very helpful.
    I don't agree that unfamiliarity with advanced search functions is caused by excessive redirects; plenty of people aren't familiar with the advanced functions of Google, which has no redirects (unless you're feeling lucky). Regardless, in this case what's usual is the product of intentional decisions; these norms are an expression of the broader consensus on how Wikipedia should work (or, if you prefer, on what's "best") and are consistent with Wikipedia's explicit guidelines. – Scyrme (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not me. A search engine, and it’s AI algorithms, and it’s development, makes it better for determining what a random reader wants than any human. Wikipedians using redirects to override the search engine in deciding what all readers probably want and are to be shown, is, I don’t think, a good way forward, even if there is so much of it going on already. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Prince consort Yes, as far as the UK is concerned the only prominent prince consort that was actually known as "The Prince Consort" was Prince Albert. However, as the article points out, there have been other individuals with the exact same title in other countries, most recently Denmark. Redirecting it to Prince consort would not be confusing to the readers either, because the page on the general title covers Prince Albert extensively. Keivan.fTalk 06:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point to the same target of the Prince Consort redirect, which is Prince consort, or delete since we don't have articles on establishments or pubs that warrant the use of the prefixed "The". I believe all or most arguments of this RfD would have been applicable if this was a discussion for the Prince Consort redirect. I don't believe Albert's title had the prefixed "The". The 'T' does get capitalized as the first letter of the first word of works related to Albert. Jay 💬 07:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Prince consort per voices above and per WP:GLOBALISE. — kashmīrī TALK 08:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Pragmatic atheism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24#Pragmatic atheism

Redirects to Laura White[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 06:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie, Lara (name) and Lauren are different names from Laura (given name). None of the items on the target page feature any of these names. These redirects are unhelpful. PamD 08:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request: (Could someone familiar with the process kindly combine these 3 entries - I didn't find Laurie and Lara until I'd already RfD's Lauren, but they are all similar. Thanks. PamD 09:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  • @PamD:  Done. I also took the liberty of tweaking your rationale a bit, as to match the bundling of the three redirects. CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created these redirects because similar names are commonly redirected to disambiguation pages even if such dab pages do not list people with those exact name forms. If there was a dab page listing men named Frederick Xyz, it would be intuitive to create Frederic Xyz, Fredric Xyz, Fredrick Xyz, Fred Xyz and Freddie Xyz as redirects since users researching people named "Frederick Xyz" might know them under any of those variants. Similarly "Phil Xyz" and "Philip Xyz" would be redirected to the Phillip Xyz dab, "Charlie Xyz" to Charles Xyz, "Elisabeth Xyz" to Elizabeth Xyz, "Katharine Xyz" to Katherine Xyz, etc. There are two essays on this subject — WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:Redirects are costly, but redirects featuring similar names are not singled out for disapproval and a number of such name redirects are discovered to have mistaken incoming links which can be then directed to their proper targets. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These redirects are costly. Unlike the examples mentioned by Roman Spinner, "Laurie," "Lara," and "Lauren" are not easily confused with "Laura" IMO. They aren't alternative spellings (like Elisabeth and Elizabeth) or nicknames (like Fred and Frederick). I agree with the nominator that these are unhelpful and, in fact, probably confusing to the reader. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As an example of the close relationship among these name forms, it may be noted that the Laura Smith disambiguation page lists [under "See also"] Lauren Smith (disambiguation) and Laurie Smith. The entry for Lauren lists [as "variant form(s)"] Laura and Lara. Each of these three name entries lists the other two names as variant forms. Another variant is "Lori (given name)" and, since Wikipedia does contain an entry for Lori White, I have added it to the Laura White disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved Lori to the "See also" of the dab page, but also added a hatnote to her page to direct readers to the "Laura" dab page in case they are looking for one of those others. PamD 08:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These should not be squashed together, as different spelling typically does indicate different names (not merely diminutive forms or hypocorisms), cf. WP:SMALLDETAILS. If there is no potential of actually listing eponymous people, delete; if there are some, split them off, as it's not guaranteed that people searching for e.g. "Lara White" will actually want to navigate to any Laura White. An argument to the contrary could be made if someone can find hints of different reader behavior in e.g. WikiNav data. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: these are indeed unhelpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For users who may wish to research whether women named "Laura" have been also known as "Laurie", "Lorie" or "Lori", here, here or here are some off-Wikipedia comments on the subject. Of course, there is much more, as evidenced by google results. Among Wikipedia subjects, actress Laurie Metcalf and writer Laurie Penny both have "Laura" as their birth name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Laurie and Lauren to aid the reader better by defaulting to search results. I found more than 8 different people on enwiki for each of these names (It could be lesser as some of them may be duplicates). No reason to target them to a dab page where none of the entries (except one) has a mention (used in quoted text) of an alternate name. Keep Lara as there is no mention on enwiki and sounds similar to Laura. Jay 💬 17:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lara too, per Kashmiri. Jay 💬 09:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Promulgation of incorrect spelling is a bad practice. More sites would do it, and Google will be even less reliable even as regards a person's correct name. — kashmīrī TALK 08:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

VAHP[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! 18:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any mention in the article or in the internet. Not a notable term(if it even exists). RoostTC(ping me!) 06:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate between Absorption heat pump (an alternative name for Vapor absorption heat pump, which is what the page used to be about – Absorption refrigerator also sounds like a good target, but I'm not an expert in this) and Vietnam Center and Archive#The Vietnamese American Heritage Project (which is abbreviated there to VAHP). Duckmather (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. A web search reveals that VAHP commonly stands for "Vapor absorption heat pump", and that appears to be either a subtype of, or just another name for, absorption heat pumps (we should ideally hear from an expert here, 10 minutes of browsing didn't manage to clarify that for me). This article may even be the primary topic, but setting up a hatnote (with an important article linking prominently to an obscure topic) would be awkward, so disambiguation is best. the current version of WP:DABACRONYM is rubbish: we should never base the encyclopedia's topic structure on what happens to have been included in the most recent version of an article, and especially not when the key question (is the abbreviation in common use for the give topic?) is trivially easy to verify. – Uanfala (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Inverted snob[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) CycloneYoris talk! 18:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section about inverted snobbery has been deleted, and the content it contained no longer seems to be included in the article. Thus, this redirect is now useless.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Inverted snob as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both, assuming the nomination is for them to be deleted. While the merged content at the target has been lost in a morass of intervening edits, the existence of both terms can't be disputed. If the target article can't be bothered to mention these terms explicitly, then perhaps the merged content should be restored. Lithopsian (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Everett P. Christopher Arboretum[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Seems to refer to trees planted throughout campus and not the botanical gardens. Delete to encourage article creation if notable, unless a mention can be added at target or elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Judy Sender[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target sections are not available, and no mention at the target. Having these redirect to the target are not helpful. Delete. Jay 💬 18:00, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Red Kings[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 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target sections are not available, and no mention at the target. Having these redirect to the target are not helpful. Delete. Jay 💬 17:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These are confusing without a mention (and 1 and 2 are ambiguous: K♥, K♦). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Rational Association[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the ... association ... between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of 2023 box office number-one films in South Korea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#List of 2023 box office number-one films in South Korea

Anti-Masonry/archive[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 history merge as suggested, but I'm going to let Tamzin do that themselves since I'm not sure I entirely understand the proposal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was split from Freemasonry in March of 2003 and merged back in July of 2005, only for a new Anti-Masonry to be written in October 2005, at least some of which seems to have been taken from Freemasonry. Suggest histmerge to Anti-Masonry without redirect, discarding the 5 edits that postdate July '05. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No particular opinion on the redirect, but note there is some talkpage discussion that might be useful to save. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would support moving talkpage with redirect to Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 0 or Talk:Anti-Masonry/Early Archive (the pseudo-title it's piped to from the main talkpage). The resulting redirect would be G8-exempt like any other useful talk subpage. (There's also nothing wrong with just leaving the talkpage as is, as it's also G8-exempt, but I see that as suboptimal since it's unclear nomenclature and we might as well clean that up while we're here.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:56, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II[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. ✗plicit 02:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirected here per AFD, but since the timeline section of the article was deleted, this is no longer mentioned in the target, and hence should be deleted. 12.206.84.79 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A substantial portion of the article is basically a timeline. BD2412 T 14:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. -Lenticel (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Reference necessary[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Template:Reference necessary

Italkic rite[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 Italki rite, Italqi rite, Italkic rite, and Italqic rite to Italian Nusach, delete the rest. ✗plicit 02:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Retarget Italki rite, Italqi rite, Italkic rite, and Italqic rite to Italian Nusach per Scyrme; Weak delete on others: The article mentions the use of the term Hebrew Italki to describe Italian Jews and with rites of Judaism the addition of c at the end of the adjective to anglicize is relatively standard (cf. Ashkenazi to Ashkenazic and Sephardi to Sephardic). I would argue for a keep retarget of those spelled with a q as well as the term Italki comes from the Hebrew word איטלקי and the letter quf (ק) is translated both to k and to q. The chi spellings seem to be an Italicized spelling of the term, as quf can be transliterated to ch before a vowel in Italian due to the ch digraph being used to represent a k sound before a vowel (like in mocha). While there is an obvious affinity between Italian Jews and the Italian language, I find the argument for an affinity to make harder when the second word, rite, is unambiguously in English, leading to the ch redirects being a bit of an odd mix of Italian/English. TartarTorte 16:31, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Hank Pecker[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) CycloneYoris talk! 22:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mentioned in target. Edit summary by creator says: "alter ego that got multiple news mentions [2]. MB 05:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(as the redirect creator) Its a conservative persona used by that political commentator. People online have on multiple occasions failed to spot the parody and taken him as genuine, so I think having the redirect is useful to clear up possible confusion. I wouldn't consider it notable enough to mention in the article though. jonas (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly there's also another Kotaku source that discusses the persona. One RS is usually iffy, but two? Maybe it warrants a weak keep if included in the article with these two sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep without mention at the target, or keep after mentioning in the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Digital sculpture[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 3D printing. ✗plicit 02:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one. The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, and I would think someone searching this term would be looking for a objects created as a result of 3D printing. Steel1943 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:43, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

A Jobber[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 02:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this alleged pseudonym at the target. Veverve (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seems to be a pseudonym that he used in Applebee's Journal when in an article he attacked the south sea avarice produced by the trading of south sea stock. The journal was non-political so he assumed this pseudonym to disguise the attack that was a political in nature. I don't know if this would be added to the article. Unless there was a consistent aspect in his life history that this was part of. scope_creepTalk 09:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom due to the lack of a mention. (See my rationale below). CycloneYoris talk! 22:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Heliostropolis, Etc.[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Heliostropolis was one of Daniel Defoe's pseudonym's when he became a writer in 1695, amongst several. It is not mentioned in the article but it could be. Worth updating the article and keeping the redirect. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has not been updated with a mention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (who I assume is proposing deletion). This pseudonym is not mentioned at the target, and I see no reason for keeping. If a mention is eventually added, then these can be recreated; but in the meantime it seems pointless to keep. CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am indeed proposing deletion. Veverve (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Daniel Defoe#Attribution_and_de-attribution, where it's made clear that listing all of his pen names is not feasible. But here's a reference establishing that Heliostropolis was one.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 06:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as costly, and delete any other name not mentioned at the target. Some have already been deleted at RfD. Daniel Defoe used 198 pen names, and as the Attribution section says, scholars are finding it challenging to put this together. Without a mention, readers will find it confusing when they land up at the target, and without a sourced mention, it'll be a continuous challenge for editors to keep validating any existing and newer redirects. O. Henry#Pen name mentions the more popular of his pen names, the same can be done for Defoe. It is not hard to append a pen name in brackets against a mentioned work of Defoe not written under his real name. Jay 💬 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Halkett, Samuel; Laing, John (1882). A Dictionary of the Anonymous and Pseudonymous Literature of Great Britain: Including the Works of Foreigners Written In, Or Translated Into the English Language. W. Paterson. p. 435.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikiwikiwiki[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 02:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unlikely redirect. Highly unlikely somebody would type in wiki three times to go to wiki Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 08:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my vote in the previous RfD which I have listed here. The redirect makes no sense. No mention at the target and I could not find external search results except for account names on youtube, facebook or tiktok. The previous discussions said it was a well-known historic term, but did not provide any usages, and may have been referring to "Wiki Wiki". If not deletion, retarget to WikiWikiWeb. Jay 💬 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — kashmīrī TALK 10:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extremely unlikely, and Wiki Wiki Wiki. The previous RfDs on this topic both concluded incorrectly. Despite the claim in the 2011 RfD that "Wiki Wiki Wiki" was a "buzz word" back in the day - it wasn't. I know this because I was there. I joined the community of the original WikiWikiWeb in 2000 and ended up being one of its "stewards" (akin to moderators). Nobody there used the term "WikiWikiWiki", with spaces or without, nor on MeatballWiki, the other major venue for discussion of wiki technology at the time.  — Scott • talk 12:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete screams like little kid vandalism to me.12.206.84.79 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely at best --Lenticel (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Death of everything[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. Jay 💬 02:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous. Searching indicates this is the title of one or more songs and albums, a partial match of still more songs, and a phase used to exaggerate the decline of other things much less than the entire universe. Doesn't match anything in the encyclopedia. It seems unlikely that someone would use that term if actually looking for information on theoretical cosmology. MB 03:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page doesn't have to list every song/album that has ever had this phrase in its title; only those which are on Wikipedia. I don't think there are too many to list in a disambiguation page. Looking on Wikipedia, "The Death of Everything" is a demo by Sean McGrath (musician). There's also an album by The Three Johns. There's a song on the album Haudankylmyyden Mailla, but it's only a match in translation, so I'm not sure it needs to be listed. Any others? I don't see any reason why these plausible targets can't be disambiguated. – Scyrme (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or Delete? A disambiguation draft will also help in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:34, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Washington D.C. press corps[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) CycloneYoris talk! 22:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a good redirect for the target. Another possibility is White House press corps, but obviously there are members of the press in D.C. covering other entities in D.C., such as Congress and the Supreme Court. Not sure there is a clearly good target for this. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:31, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Another final batch of "[Article]/Archive x" 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 02:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another final batch of "Archive" redirects without meaningful history (not even being the result of a move, unlike the moored balloon one below), about half created by the now banned Philip Cross. Since these subpage archives don't actually exist, and per the consensus at these four previous discussions, I propose to delete these 25 redirects (but NOT their respective talkpages, which are actually archives), although I'm open to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC678 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-controversial cleanup. — kashmīrī TALK 09:45, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Moored balloon/Archive1[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. Jay 💬 11:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This "/Archive1" subpage redirect was left over from a move in January 2015, other than which it doesn't really have any meaningful history. Per the consensus at previous discussions, these redirects aren't appropriate because they might mislead viewers into thinking there's these subpages when they don't exist. Also, Steelpillow, who performed the move, might want to weigh in on this matter, since the move was performed on "the wrong page." Regards, SONIC678 05:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as uncontroversial cleanup. — kashmīrī TALK 10:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete sounds good. The original article was more enthusiastic than encyclopedic. It looks as if I wanted to archive it and start afresh, but then changed my mind and got it moved it to its present location before heavy editing. Because of the redirects etc, an admin (Anthony Appleyard) had to make that second move. Since the current page's history preserves the full audit trail of the article itself, this archive subpage is pointless and can be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Pig butchering[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 Pig slaughter. And hatnote to Fraud factory. Jay 💬 02:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cryptocurrency scam. Not mentioned in target. It is mentioned in Fraud factory, so it could be targeted there or be deleted until more content is added to some article. MB 02:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to pig slaughter and hatnote for fraud factory. Nearly all Google Books hits for "pig butchering" are about pork not scams, even when restricted to recent years [3], suggesting that is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by long-term significance. Admittedly almost all recent Google News hits are about the scam, but in almost all of those this phrase is just a WP:PTM of longer phrases like "pig butchering (crypto) scam", "pig butchering scheme", etc. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to pig slaughter per IP. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pig slaughter per 59... and Presidentman. Even with the recent "pig butchering" scams in the air, it's still likely people'll be searching for actually butchering pigs. It's time to go back to the farm to avoid this WP:RECENTism, but just in case, we should also add a hatnote to Fraud factory for those who might be searching for this use. Regards, SONIC678 05:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so that the Wikipedia search engine [4] is invoked. Note that top entries Pig farming, Pig slaughter and Fraud factory. The search engine gives the range of likely articles desired, and doesn’t require upkeep with the development of new articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SmokeyJoe. — kashmīrī TALK 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pig slaughter with a hatnote per Sonic678. It is doubtful that further "upkeep" for the phrase will be needed beyond that. BD2412 T 14:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pig slaughter with hatnote to Fraud factory. Not sure how search is better given most of the things that come up are just partial matches (eg Pig farming, Dressed weight or Pig Latin) which are extremely unlikely to be what someone searching this is looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pig slaughter with hatnote to Fraud factory per above --Lenticel (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:ALF[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 Project ALF. Jay 💬 02:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this be retargeted to Project ALF.

For those unfamiliar, "Project" is an alias for "Wikipedia", so Project: ALF automatically resolves to Wikipedia:ALF, so articles about subjects prefixed with "Project:" need to use alternative titles.

Usually, the title in project space reedirects to the article. This is the case with titles like Project: Mersh (Wikipedia:Mersh) and Project: Destiny (Wikipedia:Destiny). However, Project: ALF is used as a shortcut (WP:ALF) and redirects to Category:Lists that need to be alphabetized.

People are far more likely to be searching for the article than a maintenance category. Furthermore, the WP: prefix is meant for pages in the project namespace, not the category namespace. CAT:ALF would make more sense as a shortcut. Zerbu Talk 02:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Project ALF: per nom's very well explained rationale. What a weird quirk of the project being a namespace alias for wikipedia. TartarTorte 02:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the redirect which has been in existence since 2006 only has 11 incoming links of which several are from this RFD so it doesn't look like this will cause editors problems. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Royal you[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. Jay 💬 02:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in page. Seems to be an at least occasional neologism (e.g. here), so I'm not opposed to a redirect existing in principle, but "Royal we" is different enough to be confusing and I can't think of a better page. Rusalkii (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough to justify a redirect. Google pulls up 2,790,000,000, but to judge by the first bunch: a confusingly-written forum post, an UrbanDictionary entry that defines it as "using...'you,' in reference to general populace, rather than one specific person", a clothing retailer on Amazon, our royal we article, this redirect, a podcast for pageant girls, whatever those are, a forum post claiming that the royal you does not exist, a few songs, the Merriam-Webster definition for royal we...you get the point. Heavy Water (talk) 04:17, 30 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kawasockie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Kawasockie

Wikipedia:Presumed consensus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6#Wikipedia:Presumed consensus

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_30&oldid=1135572311"