Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 11, 2022.

Aether theory[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 Aether theories. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put in a link in an article to aether theory expecting it to go to aether theories. It doesn't, it goes to luminiferous aether. It seems perverse to me to have the singular term not redirect to the article titled with the same plural term. I would have boldly changed it, but all the current incoming links seem to be intended for luminiferous aether. SpinningSpark 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget and change the incoming links. There aren't that many incoming links, so it should be easy to sort out. "Aether theory" does not unambiguously refer to luminiferous aether, and it makes sense for the singular case to redirect to the plural. A redirect to a disambiguation page isn't necessary, because linking to aether theories naturally sorts out any ambiguity. – Scyrme (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not as silly as it looks. There are several aether theories. But if someone says Aether Theory, singular, he very likely means the luminiferous aether. Roger (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree, I think retargeting to aether theories is not only harmless, but beneficial, in that the very first section of the article discusses luminiferous aether (and links to the main article for that topic), while also briefly explaining other aether theories. Someone looking for luminiferous aether will find it, and someone looking for other forms of aether will find that too. Win/win! (!vote Retarget) Fieari (talk) 07:16, 15 July 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.

Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine[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 as follows:.

Per recent precedent of deleting Potential Tropical Cyclone Two, we shouldn’t have a redirect of a PTC when the storm developed. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete PTC Nine since it's ambiguous and can refer to any storm, but keep PTC Three as it includes the year which makes it unambiguous and harmless. N.b., Just wanted to note that I took the liberty of bundling both redirects nominated by the same IP, and also arranged nomination in chronological order. CycloneYoris talk! 01:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nine, keep Three per CycloneYoris. It's impossible to get a suitable target for Nine, while Three is unambiguous. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a firmer consensus on Three
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 11 July 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.

Dante in English[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not equivalent, Dante wrote several other notable works as well that have also been translated to English. Deletion seems appropriate unless someone wants to write up List of English translations of works by Dante Alighieri signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Target is too narrow, and the redirect doesn't appear to be in use by any article. – Scyrme (talk) 10:50, 18 July 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.

Single-party government[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 Government#Party system, which was created during the course of this discussion to handle the nuances of the term where a disambiguation page may fall short. Later discussion showed broad agreement with this solution. -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. This redirect is linked to a wikidata item that corresponds to a government formed in a multi-party republic that only consists of representatives of one party. This is distinct from One-party state, and isn't described in detail at the current target of Government, which would be less-than-useful for readers searching this term. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two possible ways to improve are:
  • add a section to the page Government about "Single-party government" vs "Coalition government" and redirect to that section
  • edit the page Single-party government and turn the redirect into an ordinary page
Deletion of the redirect or retargeting to One-party state are not useful.
Taylor 49 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to adding relevant content at Government, but that's something that should ideally be done before the redirect is created, rather than creating a redirect that does not help our readership. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49 and Rosguill: I created a section at Government § Party system; amend it as needed. – Scyrme (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks for putting in the work to write the section. signed, Rosguill talk 14:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would retargeting to Dominant-party system as {{R from related term}} be helpful? I understand that there's technically a distinction in that a single-party government isn't necessarily a lasting, continuous situation but a dominant-party government is a type of single-party government, and the lead section of the dominant-party system article explicitly addresses the distinction between this and a one-party state, so it may be helpful in that regard. If the redirect is simply deleted it seems like it will eventually just be recreated; someone may even mistakenly redirect it to one-party state. It may be better to retarget it to a section or article which explains the distinction now to avoid this problem. – Scyrme (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like it would have the same issue as pointing to Single-party state; it's a similar, but distinct term. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick look: Dominant-party system is less bad than One-party state, still not good. A single-party government still can be a weak government without majority. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can a single-party government not have a majority? By definition, it's the only party in government. I suppose the majority of seats could be vacant, but that's a contrived example. – Scyrme (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a such constallation in Sweden just now. The weak Single-party government is tolerated on borrowed time by some further parties sitting in the parliament but not participating in the government. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a confidence and supply relationship (which is what Sweden has, unless I'm mistaken) counts as not participating in government. If I'm wrong, I suppose this raises another issue that the encyclopaedia could clarify. Perhaps redirecting to a section on "single-party government" vs "coalition government" (as you suggested) would be the most helpful solution. – Scyrme (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A confidence and supply agreement is not participating in government, at least not as it worked for Theresa May's government. The partner party does not hold any offices, or take part in formal decision making, unlike a coalition. It is just an agreement that it will vote with the government in a confidence vote or a budget vote, thus ensuring that the opposition cannot immediately bring down the ruling government. The partner party is perfectly free to oppose the government on any other issue. SpinningSpark 05:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The term is not a clear, single topic that could ever have an article, but we can usefully point readers to what they may be looking for. Minority government (as an alternative to coalition government) immediately springs to my mind. Plus the already mentioned one-party state and dominant-party system gives us three entries. SpinningSpark 05:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between majority government, minority government, dominant-party system, and one-party state. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This implies that "single-party government" is used synonymously with these terms, but as far as I know it's not. I could see it mistakenly used to refer to a dominant-party system or one-party state but that would be an error; listing them equally alongside the actual meaning would just further the confusion - it would be less than useful. "Single-party government" is the antonym of "coalition government". Either a single-party or a coalition can constitute majority/minority governments, so "disambiguating" to majority and minority doesn't make any sense. "Minority government" is not an alternative to "coalition government"; a coalition can form a minority government. – Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new redirect One-party government (democracy) pointing to the now available section Government#Party system.
Retarget / Redirect Single-party government to One-party government (disambiguation).
Disambiguate One-party government between Government#Party system, majority government, minority government, dominant-party system, and one-party state (done).
Taylor 49 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49: One-party government the way you created it was fine at not being misleading in the ways I raised, but after Mx. Granger simplified it to conform to the usual disambiguation page format it now has exactly the problem I raised. While this could be reverted, it's likely someone else will simplify it again. The disambiguation page shouldn't have been created until this discussion was closed (and even then, only after it was agreed upon), because now this discussion exceeds the scope of a "redirect for discussion".
The disambiguation page that now exists is misleading and doesn't even link users to information about a "single-party government"; the same problems the original redirect had (before I added relevant information to Government, the original target). The current situation fails to disambiguate and, if anything, actually creates more ambiguity by implying synonymy and offering misleading targets. – Scyrme (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scyrme: Is this better? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than it was but it still seems to have the problem that was the original redirect had; that it implies that "single-party government" is synonymous with "one-party state", at least in some contexts, which is misleading. Additionally, the new redirect pointing to the relevant information at Government § Party stystem, namely "One-party government (democracy)", seems unnatural and contrived, particularly when compared to the original redirect.
@Rosguill: what do you think? – Scyrme (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I think that the paragraph at Government#Party system does a better job disambiguating the relevant concepts than the dab page, so retargeting all to there is my !vote at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 14:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 July 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.

Sistema solar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular affinity between Spanish, Italian, or Arabic and the solar system. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insignificant redirects for foreign-language translations of words. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:37, 12 July 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.

Noble Consort Mei[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. Apparently this discussion may involve knowledge of multiple language Wikipedias, and a more focussed audience. No prejudice to this being re-nominated under a different rationale, if local discussions do not produce a desired outcome. Jay (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consort Mei was a disambiguation page with two entries - Jiang Caipin and Noble Consort Wen - but has been redirected to Jiang Caipin by @Yinweiaiqing:. Noble Consort Mei is a redirect to Noble Consort Wen. Is this correct? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like that this RfD has attracted no participants because nothing seems clear in the nomination, but I infer two implicit questions from the nominator. Should "Noble Consort Mei" and "Consort Mei" point to the same target? And if so, which target should that be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - These terms translate Mei Fei (梅妃; Consort Mei), Mei Guifei (玫贵妃; Noble Consort Mei), and Wen Guifei (玟贵妃; Noble Consort Wen) respectively. The name of the article for Noble Consort Wen on Chinese Wikipedia is 玟贵妃 [zh], however on Japanese Wikipedia it is 玫貴妃 [ja].
Notably, 玫贵妃 [zh] is a redirect to 玟贵妃 [zh] on Chinese Wikipedia, although the inverse is not true of Japanese Wikipedia. Also notably, 梅妃 [zh] is a redirect to 江采蘋 [zh] which corresponds to Jiang Caipin. The current redirects on English Wikipedia mirror exactly those on Chinese Wikipedia.
Assuming the titles of the articles on Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia are correct, and that the redirects on Chinese Wikipedia is likewise correct, it makes senses that their respective translations redirect to the equivalent target on English Wikipedia. – Scyrme (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the confusion on this issue is because there's nothing in the Noble Consort Wen page that refers to her as "Noble Consort Mei", or explains why this term refers to her rather than Jiang Caipin. If that could be explained somewhere, the decision on the redirect would be easier. Tevildo (talk) 17:33, 12 July 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.

Talk:Interstate 885 (North Carolina)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 18#Talk:Interstate 885 (North Carolina)

Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory[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. Jay (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect leads to an unrelated article. The Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory is an Eastern Orthodox liturgy of the Western Rite Orthodoxy (source). The expression "Divine Liturgy" is mostly used within Eastern Orthodoxy. However, the target is an Oriental Orthodox liturgy used in the Coptic Church.
Therefore, and as per WP:REDYES, this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term "Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory" is also used in English-language material relating to the Coptic Orthodox Church. See this, or this for example. It could be turned into a disambiguation page, but deleting it is a mistake. – Scyrme (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the boldlead at the current target says Liturgy of Saint Gregory. I say tag it with {{R with possibilities}} and should it ever be created there would be a hat at each pointing to the other. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (created the redirect) - Since MOS:DABNOLINK states A disambiguation page should not ... have only one blue link on the entire page, conversion to a disambiguation page would not be appropriate, so I retract my earlier suggestion (prior to relisting). I think the best solution is to keep the redirect and tag it with {{R with possibilities}} until an article on the Western Rite liturgy is created (as IAmChaos suggested prior to relisting). – Scyrme (talk) 17:47, 11 July 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.

Perelman's theorem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 22#Perelman's theorem

Tax expense.[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 14:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. Lithopsian (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless. Target will be the first hit in the search bar. --Lenticel (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. You have to type in the target before typing the name of this redirect in the first place, and the search bar should catch anybody on the way there. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:57, 14 July 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.

Filipino queen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 18#Filipino queen

Samay Shah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was moot. Redirect has been turned into a stub article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logic behind redirecting Samay Shah to TMKOC page. Either we should create fresh article or delete this redirect if information from reliable source is not found. HamimM7 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 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.

Stone laterite Borneo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 18#Stone laterite Borneo

Nasir Greer[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 to encourage article creation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to link to either itself or to a single year page for his college. Should wait until relevant to be created. Debartolo2917 (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been no effort made to turn the redirect to an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to leave behind an article-encouraging redlink, per WP:REDYES. Deletion and then later article creation are not incompatible. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:30, 12 July 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.

Simon Fieschi[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 Charlie Hebdo#Staff tentatively. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in Template:January 2015 France attacks, but not at target. Also listed at Charlie Hebdo#Staff. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was in the article at the time of the redirect. It appears that Simon was removed from the article at some point. There are sources that say Simon was injured, so the text could be restored to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:23, 11 July 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.

Doly Gringy[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 Amedy Coulibaly. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to another article or delete: Doly Gringy is an alias for a person named Amedy Coulibaly. At the time of creating this redirect, there was also a redirect for Amedy Coulibaly pointing at the Charlie Hebdo shooting which I had also created. The Amedy Coulibaly redirect was expanded into an article a day later, but this redirect was not changed to point to the new article. (It looks like I was not aware of the new article, which is why I didn't fix the redirect.) The only problem with redirecting is that the Amedy Coulibaly article does not mention his alias currently, so it might still make more sense to delete than fix. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC) (Creator of Redirect)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Amedy Coulibaly and amend the target to mention the alias since it can be supported by a reference like the news article linked above. This addition could be made unintrusively by adding to |other_names= already used in the infobox. – Scyrme (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the alias to the Coulibaly article. Retarget. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:57, 18 July 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.

10001 (number)[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. There are now no remaining keep arguments since the first relist. The argument that G4 does not apply is a non sequitur. Two other keeps argued that other numbers have such redirects. Besides being an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this is generally done for numbers that actually have an entry at the target, which this one doesn't. Thus, no policy based reason for keeping has been advanced. SpinningSpark 14:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC) SpinningSpark 14:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10001 (number) → 10,000#10001 to 10999  (links · history · stats)[ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement as discussed. 176.98.158.31 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. D.Lazard (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, G4 doesn't apply as the result of an Articles for deletion discussion does not apply to a redirect. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    G means General, not Article, and the previous RfD was a deletion discussion, since the conclusion was delete. D.Lazard (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see a previous RfD discussion, only one for AfD. While some participants of that discussion suggested no redirect and no merge, there is no consensus for such. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I know of CSD rules, redirects take G and R but not A criteria. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, G4 stats that it applies to sufficiently identical copies which isn’t the case here.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects do take G criteria, but G4 does not apply to a redirect of a title deleted at AfD, as it is not sufficiently identical Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect was made 16 years after the AfD discussion. The number isn't notable enough for a standalone article but I don't see any harm in keeping it as a redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since many other numbers have a redirect in this fashion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after setting aside the WP:CSD and WP:OSE arguments that aren't applicable. This number is not discussed at the target, so someone wanting information on this specific number will not be helped by where they end up. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Sending readers to an article where this number is not covered is not helpful. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix: G4 doesn't apply, but there isn't any relevant content at the target. – Uanfala (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is nothing in the target about this number specifically. A7V2 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and others. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid a redlink at the number infobox. Otherwise this will keep getting recreated as long as the redlink is there. Go to 9999 (number) or 10,000 and look at the number infobox which has bluelinks for the Previous and Next. I don't understand {{Infobox number}} enough to customize the Next to make 10001 non-redlinked text. I checked 5000, 2000, etc., to see how they managed, and they have done the same as the redirect under discussion. If someone has a solution to the Infobox problem, I'll change my vote to delete. Jay (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per Jay's arguments regarding redlinks, above. Fieari (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If anything, the usage of the template is all the more reason to NOT keep this, as a bluelink on 10,000 which is just a circular redirect to a section which doesn't actually discuss that number is not helpful to readers. Perhaps a solution to the problem of having this repeatedly recreated would be to apply a creation protection until (if ever) there is a good reason to recreate it as a redirect or article. A7V2 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete until the number is brought up in a number article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Regarding Jay's point, the infobox appears to be smart enough to resolve the problem on its own: if there's no article/redirect for a given number, it just doesn't create a link at all. See User:Extraordinary Writ/sandbox4 for an example where the number that does have a redirect (10946) is linked while the one that doesn't (10948) isn't. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is wonderful! I was looking for an existing example, either redlink or black, and tried several number pages, but could find none. I have struck off my vote. Delete per Tavix and others. Jay (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise. Fieari (talk) 04:50, 14 July 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.

Filipinos in ca[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. Slightly early close based on strength of previous RfDs for this user; see also Special:Diff/1098465139. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this should target an American place, it would be California (CA) not NY, but why not Canada per ISO 3166? Either way neither of those have a page so I propose Deletion Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Current target definitely doesn't seem to make sense and no suitable target appears to exist. A7V2 (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. Can mean Canada or California. --Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the redirect means something else except its current target, which it absolutely does not mean. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:54, 14 July 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.

Little Manila wood[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. Slightly early close based on strength of previous RfDs for this user; see also Special:Diff/1098465139. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another implausible cutoff? The search bar would fill in to Little Manila while typing without this redirect Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled 05:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC) If anyone wants to bundle Filipinotown, Wood or Filipinotown wood - I didn't as its a slightly different nom reason, because its not an exact match to the title, but instead a different term with a similar cutoff issue. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:24, 11 July 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.

Filipino in q[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. Slightly early close based on strength of previous RfDs for this user; see also Special:Diff/1098465139. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an actual page that starts with Filipnos in q - Filipinos in Qatar, would be a better target but still implausible, I propose deletion Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bundled 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The search feature does a better job at this than these redirects. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have Filipinos in Queens as a redirect. Why do we need these very cryptic redirects as well? SpinningSpark 14:05, 14 July 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.

Filipino community in[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. Slightly early close based on strength of previous RfDs for this user; see also Special:Diff/1098465139. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why new york? Implausible and WP:BIASed to a large population center Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:13, 11 July 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.

Filipino commun[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. Slightly early close based on strength of previous RfDs for this user; see also Special:Diff/1098465139. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd cutoff mid-word, also why specifically NY? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:00, 11 July 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.

Violence in television[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 00:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, not all television violence is graphic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not all TV violence is graphic, and not all graphic violence is from TV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Target only mentions violence in television, but doesn't really discuss it in any detail; it doesn't even discuss graphic violence in television in any particularly helpful detail, so it can't be justified as {{R from related term}} or {{R from related topic}}. I would've suggested retargeting to Violence in art but that article does not yet have any information specific to television. Until relevant information is added to the encyclopaedia somewhere, there's no appropriate target. – Scyrme (talk) 18:18, 11 July 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.

Violence in film[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Violence in art#In films. Tides changed very quickly after the retargeting suggestion appeared. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target is different from the subject of the redirect, and should be the same as Violence in movies below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is deletion all you can think about? I am amazed. As this touches upon another aspect, I don't think that combat automatically implies violence, or v.v. See also: below. -- Kku (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a personal attack? Ironically, you have just supported deletion in this argument instead of opposing it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Real amazement with maybe a trace of irony. Besides, is this a personal threat? Either way, I have a hard time understanding how one can try to argue in one specific direction and not provide any constructive alternatives whatsoever. -- Kku (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:31, 11 July 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.

Violence in movies[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 Violence in art#In films. Tides changed very quickly when the retargeting suggestion appeared. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, not all film violence is graphic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and think again. Which percentage of violence would you say comes from language (or sound) in movies? Be specific. If we talk about the US, at least on TV four letter words are bleeped out, aren't they? I don't know how it is with cinema presentations. But how often do you hear a one-to-one reiteration of the result of torture or killing in explicit dialogue? In Apocalypse Now, afair, the graphical violence makes up almost 100%. In every horror movie I watched, pictures are foremost. Monsters do not declare whom they will eat and how. They just do it. Where does 'violence' in language even start in general? While your general impulse is probably valid, please prove to me that it's not mainly the depiction of violence that people can and will find appalling,disgusting,revolting. -- Kku (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot comprehend why this is relevant to your argument — graphic violence is severe and realistic violence. Profanity is not violence, and cartoon violence can appear in films like Looney Tunes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As per

    Graphic violence refers to the depiction of especially vivid, brutal and realistic acts of violence in visual media such as film, television, and video games. It may be real, simulated live action, or animated.

    , you have just affirmed my thoughts. Or you are able to state clearly which part specifically of film violence is not graphic. Thank you for your consideration. -- Kku (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_11&oldid=1100174671"