Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2022.

Uncle Clarence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Uncle Clarence

All of Creation[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. The suggestion is to start a WP:RM for All of Creation (song) to All of Creation. Jay (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search shows that All of Creation (song) is clearly the primary topic and therefore should be the target. Veverve (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget with hatnote to current article. According to target article this is a partial title match of "All of Creation Rejoices in Thee" but it is still a plausible search term for it. --Lenticel (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's already a hatnote placed at current target article which solves any ambiguity. No need to retarget anywhere else; and I'm not sure if the song is notable enough for it to be considered the primary topic. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs decision on primary topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: a Google search clearly shows the pop song is the primary topic, not the liturgical one. Veverve (talk) 22:43, 20 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 17:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if All of Creation (song) is the primary topic, the article should be moved there over the redirect, instead of the redirect being retargeted. Questions of primary topic thus are usually resolved in WP:RM discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:55, 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.

Draft:Joint Opposition[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years after draft promotion, would anyone ever need this? Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, but we do usually keep the draft redirects around just because they're cheap and there's no benefit to deleting them. Anarchyte (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this one after disambiguating the title. Should we move the draft title accordingly? It seems cheap, but this seems like more waste of volunteer time... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay based on an RFC from 2016. This is becoming increasingly arcane :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion here is on the Years after draft promotion part, then yes it helps to keep the edit history right from the first edit, regardless of number of years. Jay (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I now get the point about the potential overhead of keeping the draft title in sync with the mainspace title over different moves over the years. It did take some time figuring out the page history of this case, since the mainspace article underwent a move without redirect. I may revise my vote depending on any strong opinions coming in. Jay (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The draft that was at this title is the article now at Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka), so if it is kept it should be pointing there due to the "help article authors find their draft" rationale that pops up by the keepers of these redirects. However, the draft was accepted over five years ago and any benefits from this redirect have long since expired. Couple that with the title mismatch which makes it a bit more confusing to keep it around, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RDRAFT maybe Retarget to Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka). As something that WOULD HAVE been an {{R from avoided double redirect}} (but obviously dont tag as such since it isnt.) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real reason to delete a redirect like this. The benefits to keeping it are few, but even they outweigh the benefits of deleting it (which also takes more effort). Glades12 (talk) 13:01, 21 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 17:18, 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.

Natalie Mariduena[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 22#Natalie Mariduena

Rob Derbyshire[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 John Derbyshire (swimmer). Further suggestions to rename the target can be undertaken by editors proposing them or raised at WP:RM. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to John Derbyshire (swimmer), four-time Olympic swimmer, gold medalist, and coach featured in International Swimming Hall of Fame, where he is called "Rob Derbyshire" see (International Swimming Hall of Fame and Olympedia). (In fact, I propose to also rename John Derbyshire's page to "Rob Derbyshire" and have "John Derbyshire (swimmer)" redirect to "Rob".) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was created as a redirect to the swimmer and this stayed for close to 3 years before being retargeted to present target. Disambiguate or hatnote from the primary target. Jay (talk) 20:52, 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! 22:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to John Derbyshire (swimmer) as his alternative name. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:00, 19 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 17:18, 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.

The 60-day child-emperor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a neologism, should be deleted unless evidence of use can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 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.

Wikipedia:EDITS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to redirect to WP:edit count. Q28 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, WP:Edit count is an essay while the actual list is a stand-alone daily undated accurate list of English Wikipedia edit counts. 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. Agree with Randy Kryn, and it has been traditionally so, it isn't some new, astounding shortcut. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 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.

Friedrich Linde[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Friedrich Linde

Walter Engelmann[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:R#DELETE #1. It makes readers it unreasonably difficult for readers who are seeking the character by the same name in Frau Margot to find that article. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: Seems like the best way to resolve this where they are both redirects is to create a WP:DAB page. Hatnotes could work as an alternative, but we'd need a WP:PT. TartarTorte 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to allow for search. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, disambiguation is not suitable here: Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 27 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 05:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The disambiguation page is not a complete listing of every person named Walter Engelmann, but a list of articles in which a Walter Engelmann is mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION and SNSL. I gave a more thorough explanation on the intersection of DABMENTION and NOTDIRECTORY here. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 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.

Johannes Buder[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. Issues with the disambiguation page may be taken up through the editorial process, discussion on its talkpage, or an AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R#DELETE #1. Another Johannes Buder is mentioned at University of Wrocław Botanical Garden. They appear to be different people; the Olympian studied philology, while the other Johannes led the Botanical Garden.

WP:REDLINK may also apply, as it is possible that the other Johannes is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:R#KEEP #1, as well as WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. User has previously recommended a redirect on articles after they added a prod ("I do not mind if you remove the prod and redirect the article"), so I'm unsure why they feel so strongy that they MUST delete the page instead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same post, I also say that if I disagree with a redirect, we can then discuss that at RFD or an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed they two Johannes Buders are different people. The more notable one is de:Johannes Buder, so the ideal outcome would be an article about the botanist with a hatnote for the gymnast. I suggest to move the history under this redirect to Johannes Buder (gymnast) when the article about the botanist is created (which I could do in a few days if there is interest). —Kusma (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or move to Johannes Erwin Buder. Jay (talk) 21:10, 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! 22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Draft provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, disambiguation is not suitable here: Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 27 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 05:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION and SNSL. I gave a more thorough explanation on the intersection of DABMENTION and NOTDIRECTORY here. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 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.

Bear children[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 Childbirth. I see a weak consensus for retargeting Childbirth. Among the retarget suggestions it is the clear front runner, and enjoys some second-choice support from delete and keep camp editors. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another bad redirect from UserTwoSix. Humans are not the only species to bear childern. This should either be deleted or retargeted to something more general (Reproduction? Pregnancy?) 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bear#Reproduction and development. -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to Childbirth per Tamzin. With my previous !vote, I was throwing something at the wall to see if it would stick. It did not. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think this is a pretty reasonable redirect to exist, since "bear children" is a phrase someone could easily hear, not know, and search Wikipedia for. In which case the question is what the phrase usually refers to. We usually don't call other animals' young children. The article Childbirth is about just birth in humans, for that reason. And I think that's the right logic here, so retarget to Childbirth. Hatnote to Tavix' proposed target (which is also the target of Bear cub): {{redirect|Bear children|bear cubs|Bear#Reproduction and development}} -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Retarget to Childbirth per Tamzin. I found this RfD from the first paragraph of Dwarfism, a use case which would best lead to Childbirth or the current target, either of which is perfectly reasonable. I think it is incorrect to say that other species "bear children", so a more general redirect is unnecessary and would likely break many existing wikilinks. Redirecting to Bear is ridiculous, bordering on humorous, as I have never, ever, heard someone using the phrase in that sense; bears have cubs, not children. Hence, I support the current target, Human reproduction, or Tamzin's suggestion, Childbirth, but I oppose deletion and the other suggested retargets. Toadspike (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to hear that I have more material for my upcoming stand up tour. Coming soon to a den near you! -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Retarget to Childbirth, per Tamzin. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Childbirth per above. The phrase bear children is usually applied to humans; other species are more often said to bear young. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Initially I thought this was a Neelix redirect because it certainly sounds like one. However, it is too ambiguous whether it is referring to bear children or bearing children, therefore it should be deleted to let the search engine actually do its job. Redirects that interfere with the proper functioning of search shouldn't be allowed to stand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user supports the right to arm bears.

(Off-topic ... bear with me) Note that Bear arms (disambiguation) has a See also to Bear#Morphology. Jay (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Childbirth. The possibility of someone using this phrase to search for the children of bears or for carrying children seems vanishingly remote. BD2412 T 02:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer [Bear # Reproduction and development] over childbirth. I think it is a bit WP:SURPRISE ing to go to humans when you type the word bear. I get that it is a verb, but it seems quite implausible for everyday speech. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the origin of the term may refer to "bearing down" during childbirth, in common use the term is used more broadly to refer to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth, so the current target seems more appropriate. For that matter, Child bearing currently redirects to Pregnancy. However, I'm not strongly opposed to a retarget to childbirth. A hatnote to Bear cub can be used for anyone searching for that. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:04, 22 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 05:02, 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.

Oshkosh International Folk Festival[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 12:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to List of folk festivals#Wisconsin and make it a redlink there. Jay (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "refine" you mean "retarget" then it wouldn't be a redlink. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, retarget. The refining part was to indicate that it can point to the specific section. I didn't get your point about then it wouldn't be a redlink. Why can't we make it a redlink there? Jay (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redlinks occur when a link doesn't exist. This link would exist (as a circular redirect). I think you mean "unlink". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops, I didn't think of that. I have struck off the earlier, and will go for Delete as that will help create the only redlink for this title on enwiki. Jay (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has no substantive content about this subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:26, 26 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 04:59, 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.

Fools' Day[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, also move Fool's Day. The main question here became whether the song is the primary topic for "Fool's Day". Based on three explicit !votes to move Fool's Day to Fool's Day (song) and two other comments (CycloneYoris' and Mx. Granger's) getting at that, I find consensus to move it. With that eliminating the logic for retargeting to the song, there is a clear preference for keeping over the remaining option, retargeting to the DAB.
There was little explicit discussion of what to do with the Fool's Day title after moving the song; I've taken the most straightforward approach of retargeting to match the three listed redirects, but Jay or anyone else is welcome to start an RM if they think that Fool's Day (disambiguation) should be moved to that title. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Fool's Day, or delete altogether: Whereas it only takes moving the apostrophe to go from "Fools' Day" to the song, the April Fools' Day page does not state that the day is simply known as "Fools' Day". Also, the redirect is unlinked to. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the Day is more often called "April Fools" than "Fools Day", it does not mean that "Fools' Day" and its variants should not be redirect pages to April Fools' Day. They are still the Day's alternative names.--Neo-Jay (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Fool's Day (disambiguation). To varying degrees, these can all be misspellings of the song titles or a nickname of the day, so probably best to send users to the disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be a malplaced dab if we were to have Fools' Day -> Fool's Day (disambiguation), notwithstanding the small detail of the apostrophe? In this case, should we consider moving Fool's Day (disambiguation) to Fools' Day? NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be malplaced (since Fool's Day currently has a primary topic), but it's an open question what title a dab page should have when multiple ambiguous terms are disambiguated there (combined dab page) per WP:DABNAME. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:54, 28 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 04:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and I also support moving Fool's Day to Fool's Day (song). The song is a clear reference to the day. The day clearly can be (and is) called "Fool's Day" sometimes, regardless of whether this is expressly mentioned in the article... [1] This google nGram shows that "Fool's day" is used at the start of a sentence without saying "April", but searching for "fool's day -april" [2] returns 0 results, showing that these references to a "Fool's day" are in fact referring to the one in April. Despite the existence of the disambiguation page, this is an unambiguous redirect with a primary topic. If they were actually looking for the song, they can easily find the disambiguation page once they reach the page for the day. Fieari (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as they imply the April Fools day. Move Fool's Day to Fool's Day (song) to make way for the moving of Fool's Day (disambiguation). The new Fool's Day dab will have April Fools' Day as primary topic, even though the apostrophes don't match. Jay (talk) 06:37, 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.

Anti-Colonialism[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 Decolonization. There is a clear consensus that these redirects should point to somewhere directly about anti-colonialism efforts, and Decolonization seems to emerge as the most relevant target. No prejudice against creating an Anti-colonialism article later, though. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to our Decolonization article, as anticolonial movements currently does? QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle per Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bundled all. If anyone does think the current target is preferable, they might want to also bundle Anticolonial movements -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all - I agree that these should all go to 'decolonization'. Seems like a logical change. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless all 300 or so incoming wikilinks are first examined and piped as necessary. Many of these redirects have pointed to anti-imperialism since their creation in 2006 or 2007 and it's possible that editors linked them with the intention of readers getting to the anti-imperialism article. Station1 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article specifically on "Anti-Colonialism" at this title. BD2412 T 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Might be same in meanings but different applications. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:44, 24 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 04:56, 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.

Java Edition[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 Minecraft. Jay (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few searches doesn't suggest to me that there is a significant differance in meaning between these two capitalisations, so I think they should be syncronised to point at the same place. From a few searches the overwhelming primary topic here seems to be minecraft. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom to MC Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:02, 21 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 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Minecraft. The Java platform is never referred to as "Java edition". There seem to be no other works or programs I can find that refer to themselves as "Java edition". This honestly does appear to be an unambiguous name for a single thing, and it is popular enough to be a valid search term. Fieari (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Minecraft per Fieari. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unify at Minecraft, absent evidence that the term is frequently used to refer to anything else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:28, 4 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.

Triple threat (entertainer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft redirect to Wikt:triple threat. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection covering "triple threat" was removed in April by @Drmies, and the article now makes no mention of this term. ––FormalDude talk 14:56, 17 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 04:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to wiktionary entry, per Jay. Fieari (talk) 04:18, 30 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.

Template:School[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Template:School

Inactive delsorts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these pages. ✗plicit 12:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four inactive delsorts that were redirected in 2007. I had intended to create a delsort for Tanzania, as many English-language media sources exist from this country and the associated WikiProject has about 7,000 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 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.

Nazeem (Skyrim)[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) 04:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The man is not mentioned at the article. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete triggered a lot of players in game but is otherwise non notable in or outside the game --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not even being brought up in the article. The character might be a meme but we don't need to redirect every single character name to the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:26, 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.

Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel[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 12:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. People will not type the four apostrophes. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible spelling variant --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Implausible. If it used actual "s that would be different... but not apostrophes like this. Fieari (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we should be getting a proper title sometime soon anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unnecessary. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:26, 29 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:0104[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:April Fools. Jay (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose retargeting this redirect to Wikipedia:April Fools since it represents 01/04 (i.e. April Fools' Day), not specifically the Day's rules. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom as WP:4-1 is an official shortcut to WP:April Fools. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:10, 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.

Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game

Wikipedia:Geouf[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:WikiProject Microformats#Geo. ✗plicit 14:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another cross-namespace redirect, yes, it has existed for quite a while but the only links to this page are from two User space subpages. And I also can not find the term "Geouf" any where on the target space, as either a word or acronym. Liz Read! Talk! 14:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 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.

University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication[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 restore and send to AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School is worthy of article but article is a bit promotional and needs to be cleaned up Wiseoleman17 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to Afd. Looks like this has been WP:BLARed and restored 6 times since 2019 by various editors, which is ridiculous. The article was last redirected on 6 June 2022. The article was discussed at Afd in 2015 where the consensus was to cleanup the article. If the edits since 2015 have not resolved the article's issues to the satisfaction of all involved editors, Afd is the proper venue to reach consensus on the fate of the page. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair comment. 24.85.227.103 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to Afd per Mdewman6. --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain and page protect for at least a month The redirect is perhaps best right now as this back and forth redirect removal is only recent. – The Grid (talk) 21:34, 1 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_June_27&oldid=1099774784"