Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 23, 2022.

Coat of arms of Harrow[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn/Keep. Content merged. Thankyou for that SilkTork. A7V2 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these was originally an article which was at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Harrow) which was closed after not a lot of discussion as merge to London Borough of Harrow. It doesn't look like any such merge took place, and the only mention of a coat of arms at the target is an image and caption, no actual information. I think unless information is added they should all be deleted. I suppose the third one isn't too bad as the first two are perhaps ambiguous as other entities known as Harrow also have coats of arms on (or similar at least) in their articles such as Harrow School, Harrow High School and Harrow RFC. A7V2 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Information exists that could be added, so I think the redirects are appropriate for the time being, unless someone needs to retarget them.—S Marshall T/C 07:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - information has now been merged in, and a reference source located. SilkTork (talk) 11:47, 24 June 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.

Anthonie Palamedesz.[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. Proposal withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this redirect which is just the name of the article with a period at the end. The only link here is from a User page. Its existence would just confuse readers searching for the actual article Anthonie Palamedesz. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This type of name for Dutch persons of that era typically include the full stop at the end as the name is an abbreviation of Palamedeszoon (son of Palemedes). See the following authoritative sites: RKD: https://rkd.nl/explore/artists/61543; Ecartico: https://www.vondel.humanities.uva.nl/ecartico/persons/5855. See also: Sotheby's: https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/important-old-master-paintings-n08825/lot.140.html Mimentalist (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If in doubt, User:Liz, do a little research before initiating a RfD. You could, for example, have tried to Google " Anthonie Palamedesz.", and would have come up with something like this: metmuseum.org. Indeed, given that a glance at the sources in the article show that Anthonie Palamedesz. is the most common use of his name, there may be an argument for renaming the article to Anthonie Palamedesz.. SilkTork (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SilkTork. It would be very naive of us to think that the not-READING ! but TALKING! (i.e. deleting) user Liz would feel that she has any responsibility after she has made a mess of things. LIZ DONT READ ! JUST DELETE ! has a record of Edits+Deleted of 329.606 and Pages deleted of 300.084 leaving in its wake a host of dismayed and distressed editors who then need to come and beg LIZ DONT READ ! JUST DELETE ! to revert whatever damage LIZ DONT READ ! JUST DELETE ! has caused. LIZ DONT READ ! JUST DELETE ! will not do anything about this particular uninformed edit either. If anyone can help us revert this completely senseless intervention of LIZ DONT READ ! JUST DELETE !, it would be very much appreciated Mimentalist (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration Mimentalist, though your comment is unhelpful and inappropriate. I suggest you strike it. In the meantime I will contact Liz, whom I have always found to be responsive. SilkTork (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my God. I don't understand the excitement about a simple RFD proposal. You would think that I'd tried to delete the main page not proposed deletion for what seemed like an obvious mistake. I don't check my pings so I wasn't ignoring this discussion, I just didn't think I had to monitor what I thought was a discussion about a typo. I withdraw this deletion proposal. I don't think I have caused any "damage" at all and if you think I have, well, maybe you should take a look at the world today and see what serious damage looks like. Sheesh. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 28 June 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.

El Fantasma (wrestler)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#El Fantasma (wrestler)

Astronomical event[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 Category:Astronomical events. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As with the verdict for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial event, this phrase is too nebulous (snark) to be of any worth. Its current redirect target has a different, more precise meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 23 June 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.

WikiProject Alaska[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 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what to do with this redirect. On one hand, it's a pointless cross-namespace redirect. On the other hand, it couldn't really mean anything else. Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It works for this account and my main account, it also makes it easier, small function but can't be confused for anything else Mycranthebigalt (talk) 09:24, 24 June 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.

Royal Match (Video game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No WLH; implausible capitalisation; delete per WP:PANDORA. Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 23 June 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.

Falling through the cracks[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 21:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase has a much broader use than this. It's not even mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 23 June 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.

Read the standing orders! Read them and understand them![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 21:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The section this redirect points to has been removed, the article about the incident in question, Cheshire East Council bullying and misconduct allegations was recently redirected to Cheshire East Council folowing an AfD, but the article does not contain this quote. Handforth Parish Council does have an article, but that does not contain the quote either. A search suggests that this redirect is also now the only page to contain both the whole quote and the shorter "Read them and understand them!", leaving nowhere that will enable someone searching on this phrase to learn anything about it, and given the sparsity of what we have it is likely that arriving at the town council's article will just lead to confusion.
I'm mildly suprised that this isn't included in a list of memes, and I would certainly support retargetting there if it is added, but while it isn't I can't see any good alternative to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 23 June 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.

The Dove's Necklace[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the necklace anywhere in the target article, so the redirect should be deleted. If deleted, The Dove's Necklace (novel) should then be moved to replace the deleted redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 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.

Ark Nova[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#Ark Nova

Bocce (Locality)[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 is a consensus among participating editors not subsequently blocked for NOTHERE/CIR signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unverifiable that such a locality exists. It supposedly is the namesake of the "Monte delle Bocce", for which there is one, unreliable, source[3], and which isn't mentioned in any book[4]. Either such a locality doesn't exist, or it is extremely, extremely minor and thus very unlikely to be a useful search term anyway. The target article also has no further information on the locality. Fram (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about it being a unlikely search term and being minor but I have a source, the only problem being I realised that I misspelt it. But it's clearly listed as a locality here N1TH Music (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source, and shows a picknick bench... Fram (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing to a reliable source I found is this (in Italian), which is a route plan from the Calco section of the Club Alpino Italiano, which still isn't a verifiable source. The name of the supposed locality appears to be Bocche / Bocche di San Lorenzo. Hecseur (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The map used in the route plan (Le Vie Del Sale 1:25000 n°4 La Val Fontanabuona e i Golfi Paradiso e Tigullio) could actually be used as a source, although quite a weak one at best. Hecseur (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that there are no written or primary sources available, only a few maps like the ones all 3 of us have listed, but I'm sure the Commune has something written about it and when I go to Santa Margherita next, I could go and ask about it if they have a document or anything like that. But besides that the settlement appears on multiple maps and the mountain is named after it. It may only be a junction between trails with some picknick benches and a signpost but WP:GEOLAND clearly states that any officially recognised settlement has notability on it's own, even an abandoned one, and Bocche has some roads and picknick benches all of which are in use. Therefore by any reasonable definition, it meets the criteria for a standalone article although I was just writing a redirect as I wanted to write it one section about it as well as all of the other localities in Santa Margherita which meet the same criteria in the article, Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure. N1TH Music (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the redirect has since been moved to Bocche (Locality), and then to Bocche. Both should be deleted as well. There is no evidence at all that this is a "officially recognised settlement" or even an unofficial one, and nothing reliable can be said about it in the target article. Fram (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram But several maps refer to it's existence and all of them are independent from one another, plus an entire mountains was named after it, off course it's real. and all these sources were found searching with the wrong term even I'm certain there's more. N1TH Music (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram here you go Map from the official site of the Park of Portofino whom own the land of which Bocche sits and their map clearly states that Bocche is a real settlement. Is that enough evidence now? N1TH Music (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says nothing about being a settlement, it is a place called Bocche, but there is no indication that anyone lives or lived there at all. The world is filled with boulders, crossroads, outcrops, ... which have a local name but which aren't settlements at all. Fram (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:GEOLAND states that the place doesn't have to still be populated to be notable, it just must be official. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." While I agree that this place hasn't got much history, but if I went digging next time I actually go to Santa Margherita Ligure, I'd find something, this settlement simply has infrastructure.is a large hiking milestone for people travelling in the area and has a mountain named after it. Also WP:GEOLAND is for places to be notable enough to warrant an article; this is a redirect to what I want to become a section of another article which has a lower bar to clear, which I am certain it does clear. Maybe only if I start writing about it, which is completely fine by me. Tell me what you think. N1TH Music (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note the wording "legally recognised place(s)", of which I am unsure of Bocche's status, and that "abandoned places CAN be notable", but will not automatically be notable. If, when going to Santa Margherita Ligure, you find any reliable sources relating to a legally recognised Bocche and/or its history, these can be used for the formation of an actual article.
Additionally, I Support the deletion of both Bocce (Locality) and Bocche (Locality) since they're both double redirects that don't add any substance.
As for Bocche, it might qualify under WP:RPURPOSE: "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)" Even should Bocche turn out being just a hiking landmark in the area and not a locality, if the article is expanded to list its existence then I believe it should qualify. Hecseur (talk) 03:25, 27 June 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.

Conton[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! 08:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the small Luxembourgian village of Contern actually has an English name, as claimed in that article and when creating this redirect. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I live hear and well it's a coloquial name, it's really official so therefore I can't find much evidence so I assume you should delete it then. N1TH Music (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. This is the surname of several people, so disambiguation is doable (I've drafted a dab below the redirect). I've included Contern in the "see also", but if "Conton" is an alternative name for the village (rather than just a respelt form indicating how the name is to be pronounced) then there should be sources for that, and once sources are found then the entry can be moved up into main body of the dab page. If no sources are found, then the mention of the name should be removed from the article. – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Uanfala has made a clear point. There are many names attached therefore the page should remain a disambiguation article N1TH Music (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above. Thanks, Uanfala! - Eureka Lott 14:17, 25 June 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.

Edgelord[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. There was more support for deletion, but for varied reasons. Participants were not entirely sure if a new article was possible. But there was consensus that the current redirect was not suitable, hence soft redirecting to Wiktionary. Jay (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does not in any way get mentioned in the article. Perhaps an article for "Edgelord" would be better suited. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know if the generic concept of being an 'edgelord', as partially distinct from being a 'troll', is worth an article. It may be, though. At any rate, the current redirect isn't appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as can't see a suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a song on the album My Agenda that has this name, perhaps a disambiguation page between the current target, the song and a link to the Wiktionary definition would be reasonable? This has been getting a lot of page views (100+/month) so we should probably have something at this title. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per 192. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure Poseur, the current target, would bear mention at such a dab, which leaves the song (which most readers are probably not looking for) and the wiktionary entry. Edgelord appears like it might be in-itself notable (per [5], [6], [7]), so I would lean towards deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still not 100% clear on this one…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per above, this is a potentially notable subject, has a primary meaning, and the redirect is getting traffic. I suggest a soft redirect to wikt:edgelord and tagging it as a {{r with possibilities}}. - Eureka Lott 11:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to enable uninhibited Search. 3 of the 16 mentions are about the song. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Eureka. It is certainly a notable concept, but not sure if it's "notable" in the context of a WP article. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:41, 27 June 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.

Aroostook County Jane Doe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 30#Aroostook County Jane Doe

Wikipedia:CONTEST[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 Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting because the BLP Contest has long concluded, and its page currently receives no page views. This redirect The redirects also receives little incoming links. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:10, 23 June 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.

Singkong[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 13:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singkong is just an Indonesian translation for Cassava, which in my opinion, is not a manifestation of culture with special significance, as shown in WP:RFOREIGN. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. It is listed as an Indonesian common name at Encyclopedia of Life, but among names in 100+ languages. Cassava is of South American origin and widely cultivated in the tropics, so there is no particular significance to Indonesia. Declangi (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RLOTE. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:44, 27 June 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.

Complex exponential[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 Exponential function#Complex plane. Without prejudice to the creation of a separate article on the topic, as proposed by jacobolus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest retarget to Exponentiation#Complex exponentiation or Exponential function#Complex plane. I think Euler's formula is exponential(s) rather than complex exponential(s). --SilverMatsu (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:CRITERIA[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. Not enough misuse found to justify deprecating or retargeting such a longstanding policy redirect. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a widely used redirect so I don't love bringing it to RfD, but I think that it's come to be relatively confusing that WP:CRITERIA specifically means the criteria for deciding an article title. There is a {{redirect}} hatnote that links to Wikipedia:Criteria (disambiguation); however, I think this should retarget Wikipedia:Criteria (disambiguation). TartarTorte 21:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an RM may be in order. But no matter which venue, count me as a support. We will need to note that this was the longstanding target. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I just looked at the first 20 links on the WhatLinksHere page, and all of them use criteria in reference to article titles - removing this would both likely cause a significant amount of confusion in the short term, and make older discussions harder to read. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I agree that the term is technically ambiguous, this redirect is so well established that changing it can only create additional mess. Policy shortcuts are a project-internal thing that should only be changed when there is a demonstrable problem, and I don't see one here. No such user (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have long thought it silly that WP:CRITERIA redirects to a section on article titles that doesn't even use the word rather than what is by far the primary topic for criteria, WP:CSD. However, it's "established" so disambiguation would have to be the best solution. I disagree that this would cause confusion. If reading archives regarding an article title, the entry regarding article titles would clearly be what was meant. -- Tavix (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per No such user. In the WP world CRITERIA has referred to title decision-making long before the short cut was created. This proposed change would only create problems without solving any. —В²C ☎ 04:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm more interested in page titling than deletion so to me this is what it means but I expect not for most users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was no WP:RM initiated per the initial suggestions, hence continuing with the RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. While this is not the most intuitive title, the only real change from this move would be making old discussions a pain to read since WP:CRITERIA wouldn't go to the relevant page. Hecseur (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the cure is worse than the disease. "Criteria" is indeed somewhat ambiguous, but this is a longstanding redirect that has been used over 2000 times, almost always correctly. Making our shortcuts slightly less counterintuitive is not a strong enough reason to keep those links from going directly to their intended target, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 24 June 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.

Quahog, Rhode Island[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. Article accepted and pages moved without issue, no need for RfD discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting to delete this redirect in order to accept Draft:Quahog, Rhode Island as an article. After reviewing the draft, I tagged the redirect with {{db-afc-move}}, the variety of G6 used by AFC reviewers when there is a redirect that will be replaced by an article, typically, as in this case, where the draft will expand on a subtopic in the article. The G6 was declined by User:Jay with the comment "Removing G6 - this has been there from 2004, I would suggest a merge-and-redirect from the draft". I respectfully disagree, and am using RFD as the process to obtain consensus. I don't think that a subtopic or related topic redirect having existed for eighteen years is itself a reason to keep the redirect rather than to replace it with an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't understand what Jay means by a merge. In general, replacing redirects with articles is "wholly encouraged" and moves from draftspace over redirects can be requested at WP:RM/TR. I guess if a user (Jay) has objected to what amounts to a technical move request (the G6 request), it should either go through the WP:AFC process, where the draft will be moved over the redirect if accepted, and further disputes can be resolved at Afd. Rfd is not the correct venue for this. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's already in AfC, and you are trying to accept it. I guess if there is an objection to the move from draftspace, this needs to go through a RM? Really, someone should complete the move and then take it to Afd if there is still disagreement about whether there should be an article at this page or a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By merge and redirect, I meant a cut and paste move if considering there is nothing much in the draft page history to preserve. I'm not very particular about this, and didn't mean this to become contentious. I understand that AfC scripts work better by a page move. Robert McClenon, if you can repeat the G6 and is accepted by an admin, then the RfD can be procedurally closed. Jay (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cut and paste moves from draftspace aren't really consistent with policy and guidelines, unless the draft content is being merged into an existing article. I see your goal was to preserve the redirect history rather than the draft history, but maybe a round-robin move is a compromise? Idk. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moving the draft over the redirect, which deletes the redirect history, and then restoring the pre-draft redirect history would be the best way to preserve almost everything in one place (the June 2022 edits to the redirect would not be preserved, which I presume is okay). The result would look like the draft was started by overwriting the redirect (except for the move entry from draftspace). -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jay, User:Mdewman6, User:Tavix - Are you saying that you want me to do a round-robin move to accept the draft while moving the redirect into draft space? I can do that, but all that it will do is to preserve the history of the redirect. The redirect has been there since 2004, but has only been a redirect. Its history just consists of tweaks to its status as a redirect. Do you really want me to do a round-robin accept to preserve the history of a redirect that has always only been a redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with any of the options, but I am offering to perform a history merge if that's what it will take to bring this to an amicable conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jay, User:Mdewman6, User:Tavix - I've done a round-robin acceptance and move. The redirect has been rolled into Draft:Quahog, Rhode Island. However, I have a question, and maybe I need to ask it at Village Pump. Either I didn't understand when redirects were thought to have minimal history, or new rules are being made about when redirects need to be retained. I thought that the history of a redirect was considered minor if it had never had article content. This redirect was never an article, only a redirect. So is there another rule as to when a redirect acquires a need to be preserved as a museum piece? Drafts to replace redirects with articles are not uncommon. The AFC reviewers would like some set of rules as to what to do about them when. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects do not cross the threshold of originality, thus do not need to be preserved when there is no article history to consider. That being said, they can be preserved, either with a round robin move, a move-without-redirect somewhere else, or a history merge. Cut and paste is not recommended, so I think that covers the bases. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 24 June 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_June_23&oldid=1097711561"