Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2022.

Respite directive[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 00:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is not satisfactory. Is Respite (law) better or should we delete because "Respite directive" occurs nowhere in Enwiki? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a mention can be added somewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:34, 15 May 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.

Googl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 22#Googl

Related articles[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 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This target doesn't seem helpful and does not disambiguate "related articles". Note Related article (singular) is red. I suggest delete as too vague to have an encyclopedic target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm a bit baffled over what this is meant to be pointing to. I thought I might find something in the target page history that made sense of it, but I turned up nothing. The redirect has no incoming links so no explanation there either. SpinningSpark 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this isn't helpful. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bad target. 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:90D2:9B30:7BA0:B8E7 (talk) 07:31, 21 May 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.

Sinobi-zyutu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 01:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, making the connection between the redirect and target unclear. The word "shinobi" (a possible variant of "sinobi", which is not mentioned in the target article at all) is mentioned a few times in the target article, but the term "zyutu" is nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: zyutu is Kunrei-shiki for "jutsu" (see the table and compare that to Hepburn romanization). "Sinobi" is Kunrei-shiki for "Shinobi". The article states "Shinobi-jutsu" is another alias for ninjutsu. Logically that would be "Sinobi-zyutu" in Kunrei. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @WhisperToMe: What you are saying makes sense, but there cannot be an expectation that a reader has to go to "article 2" to understand why a term they used led them to "article 1" when "article 1" doesn't mention the term. In other words, if the term is added to the target article in the way you just explained, the issue I have stated would be resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted back in the aughts to allow for Kunrei-shiki spellings to be displayed in articles, but the WikiProject Japan community rejected the idea because Hepburn is the most common. I personally would like to add the spelling of the term to the article, but not sure if the community now would agree to that. I could open a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan and ask for their opinions on the matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe: Per your explanation, that may be wise in order to alleviate any controversy with the addition such spellings into articles. In the meantime, regarding this redirect, worst case scenario, the redirect gets deleted, but then should not be eligible for WP:G4 if it is recreated after the issue which caused me to initiate this discussion is resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation! I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Question_on_Kunrei-shiki_redirects_and_using_Kunrei-shiki_terms_in_articles which you are free to comment in :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe: You know, I gave this some thought, and I realized ... WikiProjects sometimes aren't very responsive to such inquiries, so I decided to see if there was some sort of "manual of style" page which may relate to this. And, sure enough there is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Unfortunately, my knowledge of this subject matter is rather low, but I would think that any information regarding what we are discussing here would be on that page, or if not, possibly starting a discussion on its talk page could probably prove more fruitful? Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That might be useful if the WikiProject page fails to generate responses after a few days. I had the impression that people responsible for the MoS were a part of the WikiProject, but it's possible dynamics changed over the years. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a lack of response from the WikiProject I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 14 May 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.

Keep Pushin'[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! 03:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no primary; could also refer to the song from R.E.O. (album). UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate or hatnote: Both articles have plausible subtopics. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use a hatnote to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 14 May 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.

Mississippi flood & Mississippi flooded[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 05:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way these redirects are worded doesn't necessarily refer to their target. They could refer to the state of Mississippi being flooded or having a flood, and the Mississippi River is in more than just the state of Mississippi. Delete to let Wikipedia's search function help readers figure out what they are attempting to locate when searching for these terms. Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Floods in Mississippi points to Mississippi#Ecological problems, which discusses flooding, so I think the solution here is to disambiguate between floods of the river (in any state) and floods in the state. BD2412 T 01:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the way they are. The river is by far the main topic, famous world wide. The state is much less significant. If necessary that there is an article on floods in the state, then put a hatnote on the river list article. But is there an article on floods in Mississippi the state? Currently this is a redirect and there is a section Mississippi#Flooding with the main heading pointing back to the target of these redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is, it is more prominent and more notable for major floods in the river basin rather than the state. Indeed most major floods on the Mississippi do not occur in the state of Mississippi -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 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.

Dab hand[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. Jay (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving it unclear why the redirect targets its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep British slang term for an expert, easily verified with a dictionary [1]. There is also a Wiktionary entry for this term, though I don't see the need for a cross project redirect in this case. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag {{R from synonym}} per the M-W dictionary result found by 192 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:dab hand. Someone searching for this is likely looking for a definition of the term. Wikipedia doesn't have that, but Wiktionary does. Redirects from synonyms don't necessarily always have to be mentioned in the target, in my view, but "expert" isn't a particularly exact synonym for "dab hand", so Wiktionary is preferable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 14 May 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.

Euclidean norm[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 05:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had retargeted the redirect Euclidean norm to Norm (mathematics)#Euclidean norm, where the subject is treated in more detail. D.Lazard reverted the edit, keeping the redirect targeting to Euclidean_space#Metric structure Euclidean_space#Metric space, which is a very long and much broader article. The reasons are as follows: (1) the context of other norms helps understand this particular norm; (2) the reader doesn't need to grasp all of "Euclidean space" to understand a norm; (3) there are several related redirects L² norm, L2 norm, square norm, etc. already pointing to Norm. I'm seeking third opinions about the redirect, please. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also related: Euclidean metric, which currently points to Euclidean distance; even its mention seems disputable there, so it may well be retargeted to Euclidean norm. fgnievinski (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you mean Euclidean_space#Metric structure. I don't see that your suggestion has any great merit for the reader. The introductory section of that "Metric structure" section does a reasonable job. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews: I've now numbered my arguments in case you'd like to address them. fgnievinski (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirecting to Euclidean space#Euclidean norm. In Norm (mathematics)#Euclidean norm, only a specific case of a Euclidean norm is presented as an example of a norm, the Euclidean norm on not the general case of the standard norm of a general Euclidean space. Moreover, except for readers focused on norms, the interest of a Euclidean norms is to be the standard norm of a Euclidean space. So the present redirect is much more natural. 20:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs)
  • Keep the current target, as it works now and the benefits of changing it seem small at best. The same logic of points (1) and (2) could argue just as well the other way: one could say that the context of Euclidean space helps to understand this norm, and that the reader doesn't need to grasp all of the other norms in Norm (mathematics) to understand this one. Point (3) presumes that all these related redirects ought to point to the same place, which could be untrue if they're coming from different contexts. I also don't follow the rationale for changing the target of Euclidean metric. AFAICT, nobody has objected to its mention there, only to the conflation of related but distinct mathematical entities and the inclusion of an overly technical term in the lede of a page with a wide readership (as far as mathematics pages go). XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current target [for Euclidean norm], as one that covers this topic in appropriate detail. Nominator keeps trying to shoehorn this material into Euclidean distance, where it is too advanced for the target audience. (The nominator also keeps insisting that I contribute here before expressing my opinion on related article content, which I find extremely annoying; my participation here should not be required for participation there. But despite my annoyance, which makes me want to stay away, here I am...) We have multiple articles on closely related topics; Euclidean distance matrix is another, and for that matter so is Hilbert space. I don't see this as problematic. Euclidean norm might plausibly be another one of these, but if not then I think Euclidean space is the closest match. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for Euclidean metric, this currently redirects to Euclidean distance, but after recent significant revisions the distance article is more about distances between individual pairs of points, at a much lower level of mathematical sophistication, and only mentions the concept of the metric space formed by Euclidean points and their distances in passing rather than as a central concept. I wonder whether flat manifold might not be a better redirect target for people who are actually looking for material on Riemannian geometry applied to Euclidean and locally Euclidean spaces. (Note that "metric" is somewhat ambiguous in this context; see Talk:Euclidean distance#Metric?. A Riemannian metric is one reasonable interpretation of what is meant. Euclidean metric space would be unambiguous, and refer purely to distances rather than to Riemann curvature tensors, but as we don't already have a redirect under that title we don't need to figure out what to do with it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have merged Square norm, L2 norm, and L² norm into this discussion. Please see the same diff as this comment for clarification. (The nominator had the other three redirects in separate discussions, all directing readers to discuss them in this section instead of in their individual sections.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also merged Euclidean metric into this section for the same reason as my previous edit: It was separate with the rationale directing readers to participate in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a pretty clear consensus on Euclidean norm, but other redirects remain largely unaddressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all The remaining "Norm" redirects are to a topic that is more specialized and is the only one that mentions these synonyms, since the terms are used primarily in an advanced, often infinite-dimensional context. Euclidean metric suggests distance in a metric space, which is what Euclidean distance covers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:17, 14 May 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.

l England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#l England

Real vampires[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 22#Real vampires

Indianapolis explosion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Indianapolis explosion

Verb forms and "one who performs verb" forms of Landfill[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 20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear how or why any verb form of the target page's title is likely or plausible. Also included here are the "-er" variations of this word since that assumes a thing or person who performs the verb, so if the verb isn't likely or helpful, neither are the "-er" versions. (These would have potentially be eligible for WP:X1 if noticed a few years back.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is probably going to end up as a WP:TRAINWRECK, it would probably be better to discuss these in smaller groups. At the minimum "Land filling" and "Land-filling" are completely legitimate words that describe disposing of something to landfill and should be kept, "Landfilled" and is a valid word that describes the past tense process of having disposed of something to landfill (though the hyphenated and version do seem to be either much rarer or neelix inventions). The singular "Landfiller" type redirects do seem to get some use describing companies and people operating landfill sites, and there seems to have been some kind of environmental campaign using this word? There's also the whole can of worms that some of these titles are potentially ambiguous with Land reclamation. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one can really predict the future, but I explained why I grouped them all together and still don't foresee a WP:TRAINWRECK, so I'm leaving them as is. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This redirect seems pretty fine, except for Landfilled, land-filled, and land filled. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I just realized how stupid that sounds 😂 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all For the same reason as WP:X1 although they seem to have fallen through the cracks of the cleanup operation. Same problem, none are necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:X1 except for keep land filling which strikes me as a possible search term. SpinningSpark 09:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All as implausible per the general consensus that let to WP:X1 existing. TartarTorte 19:47, 15 May 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.

Santo Sepulcro[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 Holy Sepulchre (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFFL, no reason for spanish I think? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. I originally intended it to be redirected to the Moriones Festival but when I put “Santo Sepulcro” in the search bar, it is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre that appears. Maybe change the redirect target to Moriones, or if not, feel free to delete it. Apologies for the issue caused by this one. Vida0007 (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because readers might know the Spanish name but not the English name, or run across it in literature and not be sure what it refers to. It's true that we don't always need redirects for other languages in English Wikipedia, but this seems like one that's likely to pop up and benefit readers, so it might be worth keeping. As far as WP:RFFL goes, I believe this qualifies under "appropriate redirects", No. 1 (see the note). Since the "original" is presumably Sanctum Sepulchrum, the closely-related and widely-known Spanish version seems like an appropriate redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Apung Mamacalulu where it is an alternative name. --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, No, No! Retarget to Holy Sepulchre (disambiguation). This is a fairly common name for churches & other things in several languages. The Jerusalem one is primary in English, but not on en:wp in Spanish. For heaven's sake, guys! Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax, for Pete's sake! If it's ambiguous in Spanish, of course redirecting to a disambiguation page as you suggest should be fine. I was just responding to the original argument that a redirect from the Spanish name of any of them was unnecessary and should be deleted—although I would be astonished if it led to Lenticel's proposed target, which doesn't seem at all intuitive to me, although obviously that's because I've never heard of it, unlike the phrase "holy sepulchre". P Aculeius (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're sticking to your keep? Why? Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there's no justification for deleting it—I've already said it should target whichever article readers typing it are most likely searching for—if that's not the current target, fine—as I said above, retarget it. Not sure how that's ambiguous, as long as you're certain of what the best target is. P Aculeius (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy Sepulchre (disambiguation) is in a hatnote on the Italian town Sansepolcro, btw. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nom-- - I'm back. I like what Johnbod said in light of P Aculeius' reasoning of why spanish makes sense. So Redirect to dab Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the nom's change in proposal, given that no suggestion currenty enjoys a majority.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 14 May 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:Kashmir Premier League[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 20:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect as Kashmir Premier League can refer to many leagues so the redirect should be deleted to avoid confusion.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 08:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist since the redirect was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep by default due to this unclear nomination. Comment: My only guess is that the "merge with each other" refers to some nonexistent template named Template:Kashmir Premier League (India) (compare Kashmir Premier League (India) vs. Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan)), but without any context and since the nominated redirect is a {{R from move}} with the move being to its target page, I am only left with educated guesses per my research into the matter. Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Steel1943, I apologise for being unclear. By ‘merge’, I wanted to say that we should delete the redirect. I have edited my nomination to make it more clear.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 05:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I have changed my "keep" to a "comment". Steel1943 (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Pakistani league is the only one with a navbox so there is no competing uses within Template-space. While it may be disappointing to be redirected to the Pakistani league if one is expecting the Indian league, I don't think confusion would be an issue because the target clearly notes in the title that it is the Pakistani league. On the other hand, deletion may make it harder to find the only relevant template. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:16, 14 May 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.

Blacklight (city)[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 00:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor (?) plot element not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia as far as I can tell, delete unless a suitable target can be identified. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is from Morrowind, but there is no place to target it that would make sense, so it should be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable to even be mentioned. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:44, 17 May 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.

Vampire, (car)[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 00:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the essay WP:AFFINITY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 14 May 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.

Folkism[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a redirect to Folkspartei (Jewish People's Party) in 2007, it has been recently proposed to re-target it to Völkisch movement (German ethnic and nationalist movement). Myotus (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: If Völkisch movement was the only logical target I would agree, but I think this a serious WP:XY problem. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov correctly points out that essentially no sources refer to the ideology of Folkspartei as Folkism and that Folkism is an english translation of Volkism; however, Folkism also seems to refer to a concept in Nigeria theater studied by Sam Ukala called Folkism. I think the XY comes in as to whether to retarget to Völkisch movement or Sam Ukala#Folkism. TartarTorte 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically if you read about the Jewish People's Party out side of Wikipedia the connection to Folkism is explained. The Wikipedia article does a poor job of it. Currently I do not have the time or the knowledge to properly write out the article. I propose that instead of a redirect a disambiguation page is created with links going to Folkspartei, Sam Ukala, and the Völkisch movement. Myotus (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how I missed YIVO as that is generally my go to resource for 19th and 20th century Jewish politics, and of course they have an article on them.[1] TartarTorte 21:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this idea, I support it. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Weiser, Kalman (6 August 2010). "Folkists". YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe. YIVO. Retrieved 15 May 2022.
  • Disambiguate: After Myotus has pointed out that Folkism (and after confirming with a YIVO source) is used to refer to the Jewish People's Party, Nikolai has pointed out that it refers to Völkisch Movement and I found that as well this refers to a concept written about by Sam Ukala, this should be DABified. TartarTorte 21:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: Making my thoughts on this official. Myotus (talk) 00:28, 18 May 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.

Special military operation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 22#Special military operation

Mikhail Morozov[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 Mikhail Morosov. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 01:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2006, when the DAB had three redlinks on it for people named Mikhail Morozov. Those redlinks were subsequently removed from the DAB though, and there are no Mikhail Morozovs at Morozov (surname). Thus this should be deleted as misleading. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either Move the article currently at Mikhail Morosov to this title, or retarget this redirect to point at it, since the subject of that article seems to have his name Latinised as both "Morosov" and "Morozov" in different sources. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:07, 14 May 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.

HM The King & HM The Queen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 23#HM The King & HM The Queen

Indian Food Recipes[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 00:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recipes are not in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a recipe guide so it's unlikely that anyone will actually look for them here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to wikibooks:Cookbook:Cuisine of India. Recipes and cookbooks are not in scope of an encyclopaedia, but they are in scope at wikibooks. A cross project redirect would get searchers to some relevant content on a sister project. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:39, 14 May 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.

Island monkey[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 00:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey and porch monkey are mentioned in the article, but not island monkey. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As overly vague, could also refer to actual monkeys that live on islands. There is no clear target for it, search engine should handle it instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The vast majority of time this will be brought up somebody is thinking of actual monkeys living in actual islands. Best to, as stated above, simply let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:01, 18 May 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.

Barrier Islands of New Jersey[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 21#Barrier Islands of New Jersey

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_14&oldid=1091409802"