Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2022.

June 31st[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 List of non-standard dates#June 31. Legoktm (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional date which does not appear at target article. I suggest deletion or a retarget to the film 31 June, where June 31 currently targets. CycloneYoris talk! 23:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of non-standard dates#June 31: I do very much like Cyclone's suggestion as an alternative, but in this article it lists both that 31 June the movie and another piece of media which uses said date. I think that page allows for a bit more room for expansion while still easily linking the reader to 31 June. TartarTorte 00:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and honestly that seems to be a better target than the film. CycloneYoris talk! 00:21, 8 October 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.

Dhul-Suwayqatayn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Dhul-Suwayqatayn

Pangangaluwa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was speedy deleted by CambridgeBayWeather as R3 despite not having been recently created. Procedurally recreating and listing at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While not having been recently created, this "word" is non-existent (pangangaluluwa comes from the word kaluluwa, meaning "soul"). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:44, 10 October 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.

Trans fag[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 speedy delete. Abusive term Firsfron of Ronchester 14:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE point #3 this is offensive and abusive and is an implausible search term. The term is homophobic and transphobic. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with this nom, offensive term Josey Wales Parley 21:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly abusive. The best case for this is a typo for trans flag, but that's clearly not the intent and in this case it's more helpful to delete than to retarget. – Scyrme (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Extremely offensive, very unlikely search term, absolutely no reason for it to exist in any capacity. TartarTorte 23:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and being a trans girl I'm baffled that this redirect exists. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 23:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suspect this is tied to 4chan, as "fag" doesn't quite have the negative connotation there as it does outside of it, especially if it's used as a suffix. Still, this is something that anyone not in the know on would find offensive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:10, 8 October 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.

CPU Blue Heart[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 Speedy Delete (G5). Speedily deleted by UtherSRG as was created by a user in violation of block. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No "Blue Heart" seems to be mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:13, 7 October 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.

Rosechu[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 Speedy Delete (G5). Speedily deleted by UtherSRG as was created by a user in violation of block. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 7 October 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.

John Walker Flynt[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 Speedy Delete (G5). Speedily deleted by UtherSRG as was created by a user in violation of block. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 00:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 7 October 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.

CWCville[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 Speedy Delete (G5). Speedily deleted by UtherSRG as was created by a user in violation of block. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 00:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious name not discussed at target. Madeline (part of me) 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If I had a guess this is somehow related to the person discussed at Kiwi Farms#History. Regardless, though, it's not a useful redirect if it's not discussed there. The creator's other edits are somewhat suspicious, too, and I have a hunch they're a sock of whichever LTA was behind Screendeemer, but not really enough evidence to start a SPI. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a historian so everything I say is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Casual Scholar (talk • contribs) 23:34, 7 October 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.

Spying kettle[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as "spying kettle" when there was a section on the page at the time, Old revision of Kettle; however, this has since been removed. It was largely based on seemingly sensationalist stories about how Chinese houseware was found in St Petersburg in 2013 to have spyware, but that is not mentioned in the article. TartarTorte 19:13, 7 October 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 Hell of Waters[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally can't find anything that ties this phrase to Niagara Falls in doing some different searches. It is not mentioned anywhere on the page. TartarTorte 18:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The phrase was apparently used by Lord Byron and Fitz Hugh Ludlow, and the latter seems to have used it in reference to Niagara, and specifically his nightmares about the falls. He doesn't really use it as a synonym for Niagara Falls (or, at least, that's not how I read it), so the redirect is a stretch. – Scyrme (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this term is mentioned somewhere it's not a useful redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scyrme. The phrase does have some history associated with the falls, but it's relatively obscure, and the redirect is too vague to be useful to the average reader. It also isn't mentioned at the target article, as brought up in the nom. Clovermoss (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no substantive mention that explains its meaning. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:45, 8 October 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.

Benjamin Epicure[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect. No information at target article nor should there be. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Epicure Whpq (talk) 18:39, 7 October 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.

Giottiline Ginko[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was speedy deleted by User:Reaper Eternal out of process. Procedurally recreating and listing at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - This is process for the sake of process. Nothing links to the old, inaccurate title. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. It's a redirect from a title that the article had been at for 16 years. Such redirects are often kept even if inaccurate, and that's exactly why {{R from incorrect name}} exists. If I had agreed with the reason for deletion I wouldn't have bothered with this. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, restore history and apply a whale or greater to Reaper Eternal. This is a {{R from move}} and {{R from alternative name}} both are reasons to keep and not delete, let alone speedy delete out of process. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore history as {{R from move}}. If something has been at a title for 16 years!!, the redirect should not be deleted. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:26, 8 October 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.

WTK[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) 23:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (originally pointing to Sun Java Wireless Toolkit, which was redirected to the current target) was speedy deleted by User:Deb out of process. Procedurally recreating and listing at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig and apply a whale to Deb. A 1 minute search has found Apache Pivot#WTK, a Polish publication prominently mentioned at Tadeusz Mazowiecki, multiple references to Willie the Kid (although it doesn't appear in that article), a former railway mentioned at Austrian Society for Railway History, Noatak Airport, Watakataui language and there are probably other uses. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another use is We the Kings, which was mentioned in a hatnote at the original target before it was redirected. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't remember this but I'm somewhat confused by this discussion. How is "WTK" an appropriate redirect for Sun Java Wireless Toolkit or Java Platform, Micro Edition? Had it been a redirect to Apache Pivot, or even Widget toolkit, it might have made sense. Why not just explain and ask me to restore it, especially if you felt it should have been a disambiguation page anyway? Deb (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "WTK" was clearly (ignoring possible other uses) a plausible redirect to Sun Java Wireless Toolkit because the article started with "The Sun Java Wireless Toolkit (WTK ..."; Java Platform, Micro Edition is the target that it would have had if you hadn't deleted it due to double redirect fixing bots.Why not just explain and ask me to restore it -> I know have a tendency to prefer formal processes like RfD over informal discussions even when they are sometimes not ideal, but the net result would have been worse off if I had done so since Thryduulf and others would not have had a chance to opine. especially if you felt it should have been a disambiguation page anyway -> I never did, I'm not the same person as Thryduulf. Now, I do agree it should be disambiguated, but that idea had not entered my mind at the time. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: draft provided. Improvements welcome, but "WTK" must be mentioned in each target article, which it isn't at Java Platform, Micro Edition. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab. Java ME isn't a good target (no mention, no idea). SWinxy (talk) 20:41, 8 October 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.

Queen Kapau[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Queen Kapau

List of New or Broken Records in Guinness World Records Books[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in any form mentioned in the article. This is an {{R from move}} where the article was moved to Features of Guinness World Records Books which in 2007 was merged due to an AfD discussion, but nothing that is really relevant to this in any significant form is on the page 15 years later. TartarTorte 16:02, 7 October 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.

Stephen M. Kravit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Googling shows he is a VP at Gersh. Not sure why this redirect exists. Person is not mentioned in the article.--P37307 (talk) 15:58, 7 October 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.

Field instruments[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "field" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charitably, this redirect could be aiming for instruments used in field recording. However, my first thought when reading "field instruments" was tools used in fieldwork. Google provides a few similar results (such as this one and this), but most of the hits actually relate to industrial automation; various automated valves and sensors (such as this result and this). I think retargeting or disambiguation might be preferable to deletion here. – Scyrme (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to field work or disambiguate. I think instruments used in field work is the primary topic here, except that instruments are barely discussed in that article. Disambiguate if other specific uses can be identified and there is content to point to, but the status quo is clearly inadequate. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I am persuaded by Shhh's arguments that we just don't have a good place to point this at the moment. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My guess is that the connection between redirect and target is instruments used by marching bands and similar as opposed to e.g. orchestras, but that doesn't make it a good redirect. I don't have an opinion currently about retargetting to fieldwork. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Field drums and the like? Hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. Probably more likely than my guess. – Scyrme (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, marching band instruments (beyond drums, there are brass instruments specifically designed for marching) is certainly plausible, but far from the primary topic, and likewise not adequately described at the target and therefore potentially astonishing. Completely reasonable search term, but it seems like we don't have good coverage of the term's various meanings. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is vague and ambiguous, and Field instrument doesn't exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ambiguity isn't a good reason to delete, particularly when there seems to be a primary topic, and the singular could easily be created.
    Field instrumentation in field research, applied sciences, and industrial automation is definitely a notable topic; it's disappointing there doesn't seem to be proper coverage anywhere to point to. (Field instrumentation also doesn't exist, unfortunately.) A retarget to field research with an {{r with possibilities}} might encourage content addition. – Scyrme (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason #1: "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine"; Reason #2: "The redirect might cause confusion." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case there are no similarly named articles so #1 doesn't apply. I don't think most people searching for this term would be confused by being sent to field research, but some might so fair enough. – Scyrme (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguity is a great reason to delete if there's no way to remove the ambiguity; Wikipedia's search function will be the best option in such a case. Also, a "field instrument" could refer to more that just tools used in field work, especially considering the aforementioned article is about a subject other than tools used in fields in regards to the farming concept (and I'm surprised that I could not find neither an article nor a redirect for fields in regards to farming.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that I could not find neither an article nor a redirect for fields in regards to farming. Field (agriculture)? Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, yep, there it is! Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 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.

Febris undularis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Febris undularis

YMCMB[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#YMCMB

Sevastopol, Russia[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) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as no such city at specified country and redirect is created exclusively in contrast to Sevastopol, Ukraine just to confuse reader about what country this city is really belongs to. As one as nothing links to it, that way it vilolates WP:RNEUTRAL. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, and Crimea is a part of russia by some definitions. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some of such definitions for evaluation here? Please be more specific 85.238.103.38 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While Sevastopol is rightfully in Ukraine, it's been annexed by Russia since 2014. Additionally, it was part of the Russian empire from the 18th Century – 20th Century, so it's not a wholly unreasonable search term, even if the city is currently, by international law, absolutely part of Ukraine. TartarTorte 13:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Following your logic of historical connections it's good to create Sevastopol, Greece redirect to the same article as this city's territory have Greek origins and was populated by ancient greeks. BUt that obviously would create much more mess to Wikipedia search and reading. Please read carefully point 1 of WP:RDELETE: "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine" that clearly happens here. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What similarly named article is this making it harder for the user to find? There does not seem to be any location in Russia that goes by the name Sevastopol, so I don't think this presents any ambiguity. With regards to the Greek point, I'll concede the argument related to the Russian Empire isn't a particularly strong one compared to the Russian occupation. I would like to say that my argument for keeping this is in no way supportive of the horrific Russian occupation. I'm only arguing to keep in that others might find it useful. TartarTorte 14:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Occupation does not make city russian, it's just a ukrainian city under occupation - no more no less. About interferring - it clearly intereferes to above mentioned (btw linked by a couple of articles) redirect confusing both reader/editor's perception about what to read/link to if needed. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Greece and Russia aren't analogous situations in this case; "Greece" did not exist as a singular polity when the nearby Greek colony was founded, and the Greek colonists did not give the city the name "Sebastopolis". In-fact, as the article makes clear in Sevastopol § Etymology, the name does not derive from antiquity and originated with the Russian Empire wherein the modern city was founded. The Greek settlement has its own article under its historic name, Chersonesus. The ancient settlement had been abandoned for centuries before the modern city was founded, whereas the modern city has been continuously inhabited since it's establishment in the Russian Empire. That comparison is just a bad argument. – Scyrme (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dispute there was not about when was city found but about territory "claiming" based on historical events. And if follow such logic - greeks was obviously much earlier there tnen anyone else. However there's no such dispute anymore as Torte cancelled his statement about it (see above). I agree with you claiming territory based on historical events is really a bad argument, but you still doing it )) If that's about Russian Empire city - then why not rename that redirect to exact Sevastopol, Russian Empire - that will really not confuse nor readers nor editors as it's obvious that for now Russian Empire does not exist when Ukraine do. So I really don't understand what your comment about here 85.238.103.38 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Torte didn't make any argument about claiming the city for any particular country, they only acknowledged a historical fact that makes the search "Sevastopol, Russia" plausible, meaning that someone might have an understandable reason to search for that term. Since Sevastopol, Russia and Sevastopol, Russian Empire would point to the same article, it doesn't matter that the first one is ambiguous since the redirect still sends people to the intended article. It would only cause a problem if there was a separate article for the history of the city. Redirects don't have to unambiguous, so long as their target resolves any ambiguity.
    The point of my comment was that your argument about the Greek colony does not make sense because the situation is not the same. The arguments for "Sevastopol, Russia" can't even apply to "Sevastopol, Greece" because there has never been as a "Sevastopol, Greece" (or even a "Sebastopolis, Greece") located in what is now Crimea. – Scyrme (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Difference between Russia and Russian Empire is huge. First one - is present country, second one - is former, already non-existent one. First one interferes with Ukraine as same time period (nowadays') country and, that way, confuses a reader. Also there's clearly told 'For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.' as one of the main reason to delete a redirect, which clearly corresponds to pair of Sevastopol, Russia (not only misleading, but much longer named) and Sevastopol. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to Russia, Stevastopol is in Russia so this is a plausible search term - it is the job of redirects to take people to the article they are looking for, which in this case is unambiguous. It is the job of the article to present the various competing claims and explain that the international consensus is that the city is in Ukraine. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't Sevastopol much easier search term? ))) As of other your comment, I have to note your logic is a bit faulty, as that redirect by eve it's existence denies Sevastopol as Ukrainian city. So your comment is quite ambiguous and contradictory to itself (something like "Sevastopol is Ukraine, but it's good that redirect, telling Sevastopol is Russia exists"). What exactly you meant is unknown. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a pretty standard precedence for contested territories and the cities contained within. For example, there's a region that India and China have disputed claims over, but I can't remember what that is named at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some such example? Because what I see is there's NO ANY redirect named Falkland Islands, Argentina despite it exactly contested territory between Great Britain and Argentina for decades. Do you see any? Please confirm your views. As one as please provide examples about India and China contested territory having redirects named owned by both countries. Can you confirm your opinion with some exact verifiable reason? 85.238.103.38 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Not responding directly to that somewhat "red herring" inquiry as that redirect should probably be created based on the now-established plausibility above. Also, the territory I was mentioning above is Arunachal Pradesh. Long story short, if these redirects don't exist, they probably should be created; redirects don't have to conform to one political view over another, but rather aim to serve all readers regardless in what context they search for their topics and the search term (redirect) is, in one way or fashion, correct at the present time (as long as they don't violate WP:G10 and/or WP:G11, and this nominated redirect sure doesn't.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note, but Falkland Island, Argentina probably doesn't need to be created because Argentinian claims also consistently apply a different name: Las Malvinas. The latter term is widely attested in English-language sources that note the dispute. The alternative name already is a redirect to Falkland Islands, so even this example follows the precedent. – Scyrme (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? As it looks like it's just spanish name of same islands. Nobody dispute about Sevastopol spelling here as it same both on Ukrainian and Russian. However there's no any redirect named Las Malvinas, Argentina that clearly would be similar to current redirect example. as one as no any Arunachal Pradesh, China or Alaska, Russia redirects. Probably that's because of written at WP:RNEUTRAL about redirect have to be neutral until it's quite needed but still verifiable, but discussed redirect still doesn't have any of links to it, so it does not look verifiable based on WP:RS, that way have not to exist at Wikipedia. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    India and China dispute two large and multiple small pieces of territory, see Sino-Indian border dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Clearly a valid search term regardless of your views on the subject. The existence of a redirect does not convey an opinion, it is to allow people to find the article they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 01:43, 11 October 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.

Hardware hacking[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 12:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HW hacking is an entirely different subject from Physical computing, and needs a seperate article. I suggest we remove the redirect and delete the blank article for the time being, before a new article is ready. Vulpes-bengalensis (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I originally proposed retargeting to Hacking of consumer electronics, however on second thoguht that would be redirecting a broader topic to a subtopic which isn't generally useful. I concur the current target does not work because it is not mentioned there. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pppery. Ovinus (talk) 01:01, 8 October 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.

TNT (TV station)[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 TNT (disambiguation)#Television. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see someone retarget TNT (TV station) to TNT (disambiguation)#Television in the next week. Bassie f (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to disambig per nom. TNT (American TV network) and TNT (Russian TV channel) at least are equally plausible targets. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as TV stations differ from TV networks. As TNT (TV station) is the only "TV station" with this name, it is more unlikely that someone would use this specific redirect to reach the American network or Russian channel, and even if a reader did, there is a hatnote that directs them to the disambiguation page. Happily888 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only when somebody knows the distinction between an station, a channel and a network and knows which one the one they are looking for is. Without looking it up I don't know the difference between a TV station and a TV channel - I've always used the two terms as synonyms, and it's incredibly unlikely that I'm alone in that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the network is composed of a single station on a single channel, then they are equivalent. If the station broadcasts on a single channel then channel and station are equivalent (most stations are historically single channel; until the ATSC revolution, stations didn't really broadcast multiple channels). -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep - TNT is the only TV station with this name. Bassie f (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bassie f: Why are you voting on your own nomination? You previously wanted to retarget this to TNT (disambiguation). Are you withdrawing your retargeting proposal? CycloneYoris talk! 07:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes CycloneYoris, I am voting on my own nomination just because I can. And yes I’m withdrawing my retargeting proposal. Cyclone, can you close this discussion please. Bassie f (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be a disservice to other editors who have supported your proposal. Unless Thryduulf, Shhhnotsoloud and 65.92.247.226 also withdraw their votes, I cannot close this discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 10:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that retargetting is the best option here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By The Way I’ve Retargeted this redirect page just now. Bassie f (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bassie f, do not retarget redirects that have an open discussion at Rfd, it creates confusion. Simply wait for an uninvolved editor to close the discussion and make the appropriate changes to the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I tried to close it on October 8 but Shhhnotsoloud re-opened it, Mdewman Bassie f (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bassie f you shouldn't close discussions in which you have participated, especially when it still has time to run and the consensus is not unanimous. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for an admin to close it probably, Thryduulf Bassie f (talk) 20:52, 11 October 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.

Sovereign Protectors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 18#Sovereign Protectors

Joe Perez (graphic designer)[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 05:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary redirect; Joe Perez is not mentioned in the Kanye West article Joeykai (talk) 04:59, 7 October 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.

St.Antony's Church, Chemmanvilai[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was speedy deleted by User:BD2412 out of process. Procedurally recreating and listing at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process? I created the redirect in the first place. I should not have. BD2412 T 00:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a redirect from a move; the article was at this title from 2014 to 2016, so G7 didn't apply. This should have at least had a discussion (this discussion). * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue G6 would have justified suppressing the redirect as a move from a title "unambiguously created in error" but given it had been at the incorrect name for over 2 years and the misspelling not completely implausible, it weighs heavily toward the usual procedure of leaving a redirect behind. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible spacing misspelling. I think just a small WP:TROUT is in order here, and that's all; I can say with 99% certainty that BD2412 would not incorrectly perform a WP:CSD knowingly, and strongly believe they know the entirety of WP:CSD rather well and don't suspect in the least that this is a repeat occurrence. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept the edit history could be restored, normally I'd argue delete per WP:RDAB but the article was here for 2 years so probably has several links elsewhere on the Internet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as standard {{R from move}} and an acceptable {{R from incorrect spacing}}, restore previous edit history if possible. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore history per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete G6. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an R from move. I'm not sure it should be deleted even if it wasn't the former location of this article for such a long time as it seems a pretty harmless and plausible misspelling. A7V2 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 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:CASTINGASPERSIONS[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 and restore history. ✗plicit 04:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was speedy deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury out of process. Procedurally recreating and listing at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope/assume the majority of those were deleted per deletion policy and just have inadequate summaries, but yeah, all page deletions should reference a justifiable reason for deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore history per above. Harmless redirect. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:57, 8 October 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.

Aeolia (floating 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 retarget to Aeolia (mythical island). (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was speedy deleted by User:Paul August out of process. Procedurally recreating and listing at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessary red tape, nothing links to Aeolia (floating island), how could we possibly need this? Paul August ☎ 00:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-established that deletions of pages that have been around for years should be brought to RfD, rather than admins acting sua sponte based on their own assertions of lack of need or links. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: "Unnecessary disambiguation pages" (G14) is a criteria for speedy delete, isn't it? And I don't think anyone will ever type in the string "Aeolia (floating island)", in the search field, however redirects are cheep keep it if you like. Paul August ☎ 11:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:CSD#G14 - it only applies to pages that are disambiguation pages or redirects to one, this redirect is neither. No single editor gets to decide whether a search term is likely or not unless it's both recent and completely implausible, this redirect was neither. Your comment and actions do not encourage me to believe you should remain an administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced Paul August needs to be desysopped yet; hopefully these discussions being closed as something other than "delete" will serve as a warning message to them, and if not, well, I'll keep periodically patrolling the deletion log as I have been doing on-and-off since January and will likely find a recurrance. And, for the record, I agree Aeolia (mythical island) is preferable to the current target. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops sorry, in my haste, I misread the meaning of G14. Look, as part of cleaning up after my moves, I've tended to delete redirects which in my opinion are obviously unnecessary. I've assumed that was the right thing to do. I still think it is. But since others disagree, and unneeded redirects are no big deal, I will stop deleting them altogether. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I suggest you reread the entirety of WP:CSD and any other policies you might be misremebering. Incorrect speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things an administrator can do. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Aeolia (mythical island) per above. For what it's worth, the reason why discovering issues such as this can be so problematic (even after the first discovered occurrence) is because they usually take years to discover, and by that time, the damage has already grown to enormous proportions. In addition, problems like this usually result in WP:ARBCOM cases ... which have resulted in administrations being desysopped. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 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.

Channa Mohallah[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 16#Channa Mohallah

Dotis of Thessaly[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. Legoktm (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was speedy deleted by User:Paul August out of process. Procedurally recreating and listing at RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is nowhere near a complete set of all redirects deleted out of process. I deliberately didn't recreate and nominate a few where I agreed with the reason for deletion, quite possibly missed a few in my search, and only looked at redirects deleted since August 2022. I took these here instead of DRV because my point was to determine whether the community agreed with the merits of the deletions, not engage in bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, and DRV would likely say just "relist at RfD". * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is unnecessary red tape, nothing links to Dotis of Thessaly, how could we possibly need this? Paul August ☎ 00:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-established at RfD that more than just one person's assertion of how could we possibly need this? is required to delete a redirect from a page move. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, for someone claiming to care about process, I'm surprised you chose such an out of process approach here. Per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, If you believe a page was wrongly deleted...you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion. If this fails to resolve the issue, you may be able to request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Most of the time if you explain to the admin why their deletion was incorrect, they will restore the page and we don't need a WP:DRV nor WP:RFD. If you can't come to an agreement, then you need to lay your case out at DRV, but I disagree that the result would be an obvious "relist at RfD". However, if that is the outcome, it is best for the redirect to be restored properly (either by the deleting admin or the DRV closer), and then taken to RfD by an editor who actually wants the redirect deleted. That way, the RfD is on the merits of the redirect rather than the process. Additionally, a restored redirect would contain the context of creation, which these redirects are stripped of because they were simply recreated rather than restored. In this particular case, the recreation masks the fact that this was a {{R from move}}, so it's not obvious that this was the title of Dotis (son of Asterius) from 2018–2022. -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, if my delete of this redirect had been questioned, by anybody, for any reason, I would have simply restored the page (or ''any'' other deletion of a redirect for that matter). As I've stated above, I routinely delete redirects (such as this one) after a move of mine when, in my opinion, the redirect has no incoming links and extremely unlikely to be entered as a search string. This just seems to me to be good housekeeping to clean up after myself. But redirects are cheap, and I don't really care to argue about any of them. What I certainly won't do, and would do is take such a redirect to this page, which seems to be a big waste of time for all concerned. Again, as I've said above, what I will do from now on, is to never again delete a redirect. Paul August ☎ 15:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CSD exists for a reason and admins speedily deleting out of process need to be taken to ANI post haste. In this case this is a perfectly plausible search term for the target. Also the history of these redirects should also be restored. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article name comes from a editor who is unfortunately unclear about how to disambiguate names. This article is about a mythological character named "Dotis" (as are other mythological characters). He has no other name, in particular this character is never called "Dotis of Thessaly", this name was simply made up by the well-meaning editor. Consequently I do not believe that anyone will ever type in "Dotis of Thessaly" in any search field. Paul August ☎ 11:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have found this term is pretty much entirely unused, so it wouldn't hurt much to delete. TartarTorte 12:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article was at the wrong title, not at a plausible redirect. Deb (talk) 17:39, 7 October 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_October_7&oldid=1116901498"