Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2022.

Snoop Dawg[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 Snoop Dogg. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this makes sense to delete. A cursory web search doesn't turn up much about "Snoop Dawg" connected to The Dandy, and I think it's much more likely to be a typo for the rapper Snoop Dogg. I think a deletion would be an improvement, but a retarget to Snoop Dogg would probably also be an improvement. 92anonymous92 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Special:PermaLink/446652087 explains the connection. A Google search shows just barely enough that I think it's probably not a hoax, but far too little for a mention to ever be justified in the target article. Meanwhile, in the context of Snoop Dogg this is a reasonable mistaken search term. Retarget per nom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Plausible mishearing of the rapper's name. --Lenticel (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom as a potential misspelling.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as a plausible misspelling. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:43, 17 January 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.

Hellblade[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 Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. There was no discussion of whether any hatnotes should be placed on the target article; this can be sorted out at the article and its talk page if necessary. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird target. This redirect currently points to Senua (Hellblade) when Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice seems to be a better target. A user changed the target to Senua, saying that Hellblade is now a series and Senua is the titular "Hellblade" of the series, but (A) I think the character isn't primarily known by that name and (B) the series is primarily discussed on the page for the first game (sequel isn't out yet). When people search "Hellblade", they will be looking for the game or the series, which is discussed at Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice primarily. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect to the game, the long-standing destination of the redirect. The game is routinely referred to as "Hellblade" (see reviews used as references in the game article) and essentially nobody calls Senua "Hellblade" unadorned, she's called Senua. Maybe if there's many Hellblade games in the future (more than just 2), the redirect might go to a series article, but going to the character is very strange. (To be clear and to avoid a future second discussion, this should continue to redirect to the first game even after the second game is released.) SnowFire (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was the editor who initiated the current retarget. I still not convinced by the nominator's argument, though I do not oppose the proposal to restore the redirect either as I do not have a strong opinion or stance on the matter. It is true that most reviews of the first game, which came out in 2017, used "Hellblade" as a convenient shorthand for the first game, not surprising as it did not have a subtitle name early in its development. As of 2020 though, I have encountered various sources which discuss "Hellblade" as a series ever since a sequel was announced. One thing to consider is that there have been a number of strong precedents set by AfD's and other discussions over vg-related articles, like this one where a consensus was established in that a series with at least 3 mainline titles may not merit a standalone article, even as a navigational overview. Haleth (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: Senua is not most people expect when they search the term "Hellblade". It should be either (1) the first game, or (2) the series page, which is WP:TOOSOON and shouldn't be created yet. OceanHok (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Per other comments. The game is the clear target for this.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:27, 17 January 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.

E918[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an E number-related redirect. I've been researching to find the validity of this redirect for a while, and seemed to be stumped on finding any third party resources that confirm this the E number "E918" is defined at all. Another issue is that most redirects in the Category:Redirects from E numbers target an article, not a set index (or disambiguation page) that lists possible articles which the term could refer; in other words, most, if not all, other E number redirects target the specific subject which the E number defines. With all that being said, without a source defining this E number or its existence in general, this redirect is erroneous for the aforementioned reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steel1943: This source (page 40) lists 918 as an INS number for "Nitrogen oxides". I don't see a letter "E" there, but I don't know if it's implied somehow; this is not my area of expertise. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mx. Granger: Thanks for locating that source! I had been looking around ... and somehow never found that one. The numbers in the source seem to match up with the targets of the redirects in Category:Redirects from E numbers, so I think this is a done deal, and I'm withdrawing this nomination. (I mean per the referenced list, the current target is probably the best target we have right now, even with the set index issue.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 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.

Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles[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) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies' singles has been renamed women's singles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 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.

Why Wikipedia Sucks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#Why Wikipedia Sucks

Aftonomi Monastiki Politia Agiou Orous[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#Aftonomi Monastiki Politia Agiou Orous

Criticism--of--Wikipedia[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 11:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the unnatural and implausible formatting. -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It is fine if redirects are cheap, but not if they're worthless, as seems to be the case here. Havradim leaf a message 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jay (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search results are unhelpful here as it "helpfully" ignores the hyphens and treats them as spaces, but equally the internal search engine does so too, so search results are as close to guaranteed to be useful as is possible. This means that this is only going to be useful redirect if the double hyphen construction is widely used somewhere, however I can find no evidence it is. Browsing the list of titles in the main namespace that include a double hyphen they all seem to be examples of either (1) a substitution for an en or em dash, (2) Canadian electoral districts that actually use a double hyphen in the name, (3) occasionally, a substitution for a single hyphen (presumably some sort of escaping), (4) very occasionally, a substitution for a comma. Where hyphens substitute for spaces, a single hyphen is used. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 20 January 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.

Ottoman Turkestan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#Ottoman Turkestan

CAT:PROFANITY[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 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially unused redirect that is not linked to from the page it is redirect to as a shortcut and the redirect was used 8 times total last year. TartarTorte 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The CAT pseudo-shortcut is best reserved for maintenance categories that editors might have to navigate to frequently, like CAT:CSD or CAT:CN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The CAT shorcuts are largely deprecated, and as pointed out by Tamzin, there's no particular reason for the existence of this one. – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 17 January 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.

Dqw4w9wgxcq[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 (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a plausible redirect. It is related by being the YouTube ID in the URL of Never Gonna Give You Up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ . But should Wikipedia replicate YouTube URL IDs? Mvqr (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nowhere close to a likely search term. --Masem (t) 17:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible search term. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with reservations. It's highly unlikely that someone would search for this and not know about rick-rolling. There is a very small meme associated with Dqw4w9wgxcq so I guess you could also argue WP:REDYES here, but this is one of those cases where it's a bit of a fun redirect, but not necessarily useful. OTOH, it is not really harmful if left because it's a cheap redirect, in that unless it becomes a page about the meme, then it would likely not have to have its target ever changed. TartarTorte 17:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I actually do think DQw4w9WgXcQ, the properly capitalized ID (ignoring the first character that MediaWiki forces capitalized), should be kept, as I argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ. However, because they are caps sensitive, this is not correct. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, but at some point I think a DRV for DQw4w9WgXcQ would be jutsified, keeping in mind recent RfDs keeping 01189998819991197253 (RfD) and 177013 (RfD), both of which have similarities to this case. Consensus can change, and I think I could make the case that the correctly-capitalized version is a plausible reference to the target ([1], twitter.com/search?q=dQw4w9WgXcQ)—however, it's "only" been 2 years since the RfD Tavix mentioned, and perhaps it would be better to wait a bit longer to see if there really is a comprehensive shift in RfD's attitudes to these sort of "strings of characters that only make sense within a subculture" redirects. Till then, this is a miscapitalization of a redirect that's already been deleted by consensus, and so should be deleted for now. (If the main redirect is restored, then there's still the question of whether this is a plausible miscapitalization, of course.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely implausible redirect. DQw4w9WgXcQ do not exist here... 2405:9800:BA31:F6:3C73:6E2:5974:634A (talk) 03:35, 23 January 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.

George Wallace (New Zealand)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#George Wallace (New Zealand)

Fundamental theory (canon law)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects are misleading, as the article is only about Catholic canon law and not canon law in general. I highly doubt the Catholic Church is the only denomination to have those.
I recommend deletion to encourage creation. A redirect to Canon law would be unwise, as those subjects are not present there. Veverve (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; Catholic bias -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless it can be shown that corresponding articles exist for non-Catholic religious groups on the English Wikipedia. Roman Catholicism remains the most high-profile ecclesiastical body with a well developed body of religious law and religious courts in the West. You're unlikely to find news articles in secular papers about canon law of other groups. The term comes up fairly frequently in secular papers in regards to the Catholic Church. In particular, no evidence has been presented that fundamental theory of canon law is used by any other body, so regardless of what happens to the other two, no valid deletion rationale has been proposed for the first. If articles exist on the philosophy of theology of canon law in other Christian churches, the solution is to disambiguate the pages, not delete them, and that can be done easily without requiring an RfD since it wouldn't be likely to be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: unless it can be shown that corresponding articles exist for non-Catholic religious groups on the English Wikipedia: Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church also has theological and philosophical aspects. All I can find searching for "Fundamental theory of canon law" is a book by Carlos José Errázuriz, Justice in the Church: A Fundamental Theory of Canon Law, so it does not seem like it is a Catholic term, rather it is a the title of a book by one author using a vague expression. Veverve (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine deleting fundamental theory then. Modern canon law isn't really an area I have interest in. I don't see a separate article on the concepts for Eastern Orthodoxy there, just one overall one on canon law, so it seems like the redirect to the Catholic one makes the most sense because its the only group with its own article on philosophy/theology of canon law. We can put a hatnote or something referencing the Eastern Orthodox canon law article if needed. If someone creates a separate article for the Eastern Orthodox topics, we should obviously disambiguate, but that isn't the case currently, and we should not delete a plausible thing people would be searching for in order to achieve a false neutrality between an article that exists and an article that doesn't exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: you are heavily implying that Catholic canon law is recognised as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC designated by the expression "canon law". It is not the case, as Canon law is not about only Catholic canon law. Therefore, redirecting expressions which designate parts of canon law as a whole to articles specifically about Catholic canon law is misleading and POV. Veverve (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not implying anything. I'm stating the fact that there is not a second article about the philosophy of canon law. If there ever becomes one, we disambiguate. We don't make it more difficult for readers to navigate, though, out of a sense of fidelity to NPOV when there is literally no other article the redirect could plausibly go to at this time. Redirects are not supposed to be a source of fighting about NPOV when there's only one article on the topic at this time. They're literally just navigational aids. In my opinion, trying to make it so it is harder for readers to find information that they may be looking for is a bad thing, and when there's no reason to think it would aid in NPOV, we shouldn't do it. Like I said, if/when someone creates the article on philosophy and theology of canon law in Orthodoxy, I will be the first to suggest a DAB page because it is needed for NPOV. Currently, however, that article doesn't exist, so we don't make navigation more difficult for our readers in anticipation that it might exist one day. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. As Veverve says, the primary topic for canon law is not Catholic canon law, so redirects about canon law should not point to articles about Catholic canon law, unless the topics are terms exclusive to thereto, which none of these seem to be. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:27, 23 January 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.

Voluntary agency[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 26#Voluntary agency

Yishayahu[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 Isaiah. Jay (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this transliteration redirect seems to be an error. Yoshiyahu and Yoshiahu correctly link there already, but our redirect needs to point to Isaiah, as does Yeshayahu currently. (*Adding: As does Yeshaya and Yeshayah. Yishaya seems to be a short form of Yeshayahu used by some people.) While our redirect is more of a mistaken transliteration for Isaiah, since the first syllable of the latter bears the shva (eh) and not the hiriq (ee) of our redirect, still they are close; but our redirect is a far cry from the holam (oh) of the current target. Moreover, in the second syllable of the target there is no "ah" vowel (Hebrew patah or letter ayin), only a hiriq (ee). Since the redirect opens with a hiriq as well, this might explain the confusion on the part of the article creator. Note: Adding that Yishayahu Goldstein-Ophir redirects to someone with the Hebrew name Isaiah, while Yishayahu Yosef Pinto redirects to someone with the Hebrew name Josiah. The latter example apparently was done to help people who think that his Hebrew name is really Isaiah. Havradim leaf a message 12:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Havradim, thanks for the thorough explanation, and also for and the conjectures, without which I would not able to recall why I created this redirect!
Yes, I made it because I came across a modern figure with the first name Yishayahu, who also known as Josiah (I forgot who, maybe the Rabbi Pinto you linked). But, as you pointed out, equating Josiah with Yishayahu seems to be linguistically unexpected: perhaps an exception than the norm, an unconventional personal choice in naming?
I just searched Google Books, and there are a number of English texts written by Jewish authors where Yishayahu is used as an equivalent of Isaiah (for the book, the prophet, and personal name).
Could it be retargeted to Isaiah instead? If not, a disambiguation page listing both links to Isaiah and Josiah (but this sounds misleading)?
Thanks for the insights. --Menchi (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to retarget to Isaiah, no to a dab page. Isaiah and Josiah are two very distinct properties. Leaving the Pinto redirect is fine as it is, as there is no entity named Yeshayahu Yosef Pinto to be confused with. Havradim leaf a message 13:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Isaiah The nominator is completely correct in the explanation. The difference is subtle but in Hebrew Josiah is יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ which transliterates to Yoshiyahu whereas Isaiah is יְשַׁעְיָהוּ‎ which transliterates to Y'shayahu/Yishayahu. The distinction is more clear in Hebrew with the presence of ayin in the latter name. TartarTorte 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having had more time to think about Menchi's comment, I was wondering whether there was some kind of precedent in WP about where Hebrew transliterations of Anglicised Biblical figures redirect - To their article (bib.), their eponymous book or chapter (if they have one, such as in our case), their tribe, or to a dab or name page (in either iteration). In our case, we have a choice to target either Isaiah (bib.), Book of Isaiah, Isaiah (disambiguation) or Isaiah (given name). [Note: Since no Yeshayahu (name) exists, I added 2 Yeshayahus to the former.] When I went to check out previous practice, it turns out to my consternation that it has been quite haphazard. Here is what I have found so far. Note that Hawwa (first on the list) Yitzhaq (8th from top) Rivqa (10th from top) and Yehezqel (5th from bottom) are split in three directions, while all 12 Zidqiya's (7th from bottom) point to the biblical figure:

Havradim leaf a message 09:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Havradim: are you fine with retarget to Isaiah for the redirect under discussion, as you agreed previously? I'm sure to achieve consistency for all of the names you mentioned, it may take several discussions on and off RfD. Jay (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine by me. Understood that WP is a work in progress. If I ever get around to it, I will surely go about it piecemeal. Havradim leaf a message 10:29, 25 January 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.

Akash DTH[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 now that the brands are mentioned. I note that Real VU appears to be a misspelling of the actual name, RealVU, and so will create that redirect. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect of a deleted article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akash DTH, but it isn't even mentioned in the target leaving the reader to wonder why they were redirected. There is also a declined Draft:Akash DTH that hasn't been edited in months. MB 00:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing two other variations. This appears to be another version of the article that once existed. Real VU is not mentioned at BEXIMCO either. MB 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment that old article is available from the article history at [2] for Akash DTH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Akash DTH was renamed from Real VU to Akash DTH in 2019 [3][4] -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've expanded BEXIMCO with a paragraph about its joint venture Beximco Communications, and that company's direct-to-home (DTH) satellite brands RealVU and Akash. So now readers will find some information about their search term at the target. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Worldbruce's changes at the target. Jay (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:38, 16 January 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.

Compagnie Financière de Suez[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 Suez Canal Company. Jay (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This previously targeted Suez (company), which was moved first to Suez (company, 1858-2008) by RT59RC, and then to Suez (company, 1858–2008) by me for MOS:DASH reasons, and then (more importantly) to Suez (company, 1997–2008) by me when I noticed that the article drew a dividing line in 1997, with the company's/companies' history before that being at Suez Canal Company. (I assume that RT59RC was mirroring frwiki's naming scheme; however, they cover both entities in one article). It only points to the current target due to a double-redirect cleanup mixup; the 1997–2008 title should be considered the status quo. Since this name seems to be associated with the pre-1997 company (see :fr:Suez (entreprise, 1858-2008) § La Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez: Rebaptisée Compagnie financière de Suez en 1958 → Renamed the Compagnie financière de Suez in 1958), I move to retarget to Suez Canal Company. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:24, 16 January 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.

Banque de la Compagnie Financière de Suez[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long name of Banque de Suez, which is redlinked from two articles. fr:Banque de Suez redirects to fr:Suez (entreprise, 1858-2008), but our corresponding articles (Suez_(company, 1997–2008) and Suez Canal Company) do not mention such a bank once. Mentioned briefly at Banque de l'Indochine, which notes that the two banks merged to form Banque Indosuez, a term which redirects to Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, which does not mention Banque de Suez. Delete to encourage article creation or until discussed in depth at one of the articles on its successor entities.

(Note: This originally targeted the article now at Suez (company, 1997–2008), and only points to the target due to a mixup with double-redirect correction. Thus the status quo here would be to retarget to Suez (company, 1997–2008), although Suez Canal Company might actually be the better target... There's been some confusion over the years based on the fact that frwiki treats this as one company that existed from 1858 to 2008, while enwiki treats it as two with a dividing line in 1997.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:13, 16 January 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.

Civil Administrator[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 23#Civil Administrator

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_16&oldid=1068146467"