Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2022.

Indelible spiritual mark[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 16:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "indelible spiritual mark" is extremely vague, and can refer - among other things - to either any permanent magical effect, or to any lasting influence a religion left on a culture or another religion.
Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this redirect used to be invoked as a disambiguation hatnote in Indelible marker [1]. fgnievinski (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The current hatnote is confusing to someone who comes to the Permanent marker article. Jay 💬 14:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: Indeed. I think the hatnote is useless, as there is no possible confusion. I guess it dates from a tome when Indelible mark was used as an article. I will therefore remove the hatnote. Veverve (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor: can you elaborate on the "valid idiom" opinion? Are you saying that the idiom is used only for Sacramental character, and hence should be kept? Jay 💬 05:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
idiom is used only for Sacramental character No. No, you're misunderstanding "idiom". "Sacramental character" is a specific kind of "indelible spiritual mark". Since this is the only meaning beyond the literal, dictionary meaning of "indelible spiritual mark" we have on Wikipedia, we redirect there as a {{r from hypernym}}. Paradoctor (talk) 06:25, 18 September 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.

Insect pest of grape[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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to retarget this to List of grape diseases having added the articles in the category to List of grape diseases#See also but this was reverted by @Invasive Spices:. Note that Insect pests of grape, Insect pests of grapes, Insect pests of vines, Grape pest insects, don't exist. Perhaps there is a better target, to avoid a cross-namespace redirect? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many problems with this.
  1. The insects should not be added to the List of grape diseases#See also unless they are described to be vectors
  2. Redirects to categories are not forbidden
  3. The other redirects you list (Insect pests of grape, Insect pests of grapes, Insect pests of vines, Grape pest insects) would be desirable. They should have the same targets.
  4. Redirecting to List of grape diseases is simply incorrect. Redirecting to List of grape diseases#See also would be slightly less confusing but still incorrect.
  5. {{R from list topic}} is incorrect. Insect pests will never be appropriate to the disease list.
Why not make List of insect pests of grape? Invasive Spices (talk) 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Insect pests of grape" is very bizarre phrasing; it reads like an incomplete search, and I don't think incomplete terms warrant a redirect. One would expect "insect pests of grapes", "insect pests of grape species", "insect pests of grape vine", or "insect pests of grape clusters", etc. I generally agree with Invasive Spices that "diseases" and "pests" are two different topics, so I lean towards creating a separate list. A better title for a hypothetical list article would be List of grape pests with a subsection on insects. That said, I think this redirect in particular should be deleted, although I don't object to replacing it with more plausible search terms. If those redirects are created, they should point to the category until a list article is created. – Scyrme (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Scyrme and Pppery: I had not considered whether the phrasing would appear strange. It's not really strange. This is normal phrasing in the relevant industry – the singular "grape" is very common.[1][2][3]
  • Only the first and second references support what you say, the middle one uses singular "grape" in very very different contexts and generally uses "grapes" or "grape vine" in the relevant contexts; however, the other two don't just use it in a relevant context but actually explicitly refer to "insect pests of grape", so I'll accept that I was wrong about this being implausible. – Scyrme (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oddly formatted, not a plausible search term. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Votes to delete are incorrect per WP:R#DELETE. This is not a harmful redirect and so should not be deleted as such. Note additionally that many misspellings have redirects and this is not a misspelling. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • That's just not true; see 5 ... redirect makes no sense (argued above: a pest is not a disease) and 10 ... redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article (argued above: a list article was suggested). I don't understand your point about misspellings since you seem to agree that this isn't a misspelling, and therefore {{r from misspelling}} doesn't apply. You seem to be suggesting that redirects shouldn't be deleted just because they're implausible, but that's not true at all. Implausible redirects are often deleted, and may even skip this process as speed deletions in some cases (see 8 ... Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created). This is all present at the guideline you linked to. However, I have changed my view in light of the references you've provided. (Also, what's with the reply button not showing up after your signature?) – Scyrme (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (revised view) unless a list article is created, otherwise retarget to that list. The references linked earlier demonstrate that this phrase is attested in relevant literature. The category is the most helpful target until a proper article is created, since readers can navigate to relevant articles from there. Again, if anyone wants to create a list article, I would suggest the broader title List of grape pests, with a subsection on insects which this redirect could point to. – Scyrme (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (argued above: a pest is not a disease) Yes. I am the one who argued against redirecting to the disease list. I made this to redirect to Category:Grape pests. (Also, what's with the reply button not showing up after your signature?) I don't know. That's a good question. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "UC Scientists collaborate to eradicate European grapevine moth from California". UC IPM. 2016.
  2. ^
  3. ^ Kim, Hyojoong; Kim, Minyoung; Kwon, Deok Ho; Park, Sangwook; Lee, Yerim; Huang, Junhao; Kai, Shi; Lee, Heung-Sik; Hong, Ki-Jeong; Jang, Yikweon; Lee, Seunghwan (2013). "Molecular comparison of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) isolates in Korea, China, and Japan". Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology. 16 (4). Elsevier (Korean Society of Applied Entomology): 503–506. doi:10.1016/j.aspen.2013.07.003. ISSN 1226-8615. S2CID 84595373.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:15, 16 September 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.

Fabric Freshener[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 Fabric Freshener to Fabric softener, Delete Whirlpool Fabric Freshener. Jay 💬 05:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Fabric Freshener" was the name of a product sold by Whirlpool Corporation, but since Swash (brand) has been redirected to List of Procter & Gamble brands we no longer have any content on it in the encyclopaedia (with the exception of 2005 Industrial Design Excellence Awards). "Fabric freshener" is probably a plausible search term as a generic term, but I can't see any good alternative target for it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:14, 16 September 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.

Glitch house[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Glitch house

Noitaton Hsilop[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. BD2412 T 20:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if anything this is worse than the now twice deleted lowercase, since it has the same problems but is also not in sentence case. – Scyrme (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You will find hits for it in Google and even in a few (printed) publications, so people occasionally run into the term (in upper- and lowercase variants) in the real world wondering what it is, then turning to Wikipedia and rightfully expecting to get an answer. If we don't have an entry point for it, we are doing them a disservice and leave them uneducated - this is against our goal to create an encyclopedia for everyone to use. Our normal procedure for misnomers like this is to create a redirect to the correct term and tag the redirect with the special rcat {{r from misnomer|correct term}} (as we already do), so that it cannot be confused with a "proper" term. The rcat allows for automatic bot correction of the term if someone would link to it. Per our criteria for redirects WP:REDIR, this redirect cannot cause any kind of confusion as we are explicitly telling users that this is not the official term. It will be only entered into the search box by people running into the term in the real world, and for them, it is clearing up the confusion they are under by pointing them to the correct term per WP:R#KEEP #3. This is not weaking Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but strenghening it, and by deleting the redirect, we would not improve Wikipedia in the slightest, but making it less reliable. Therefore, keep.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These arguments were already addressed in the discussion for the lowercase redirect, linked by the nominator. – Scyrme (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You offered your opinion based on a mere essay which however does not reflect community-consensus and did not convince me as following it is detrimental in the community's quest to achieve the goals of this project.
However, as in the real world, we have users who are here spending their precious spare time to construct the most comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia ever and users who seek to destroy what they don't understand or like. Seems unavoidable to deal with, as in the real world. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's less merit to keeping this than the one that was deleted due to casing. Wikipedia does not need to explain jokes in redirects as that is not their purpose. Anyone searching the joke either would know the joke and would be able to get to the right term or anyone not knowing the joke and searching that term on the off chance that happens would likely be surprised by the result they get as there is no explanation in the article (and no place in the article for explanation) of the joke. As an aside, this joke is improperly targeted as the joke itself should target RPN, not standard Polish Notation, so it has not ever really been that helpful of a redirect as it's targeting the wrong thing; having said that, it should not target RPN because as stated above, it's not the job of redirects to explain fairly obscure jokes. TartarTorte 14:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained at length in the old thread, we do not care about explaining jokes, but we very much care about providing encyclopedic contents to users of any background and therefore we systematically create redirects for any plausible input into the search box to the corresponding contents in Wikipedia. That's the purpose of redirects per WP:REDIR - and that is the goal of Wikipedia per WP:PURPOSE. The reversed spelling certainly isn't the most likely search term, but since it is occasionally used in real world publications, it was actually used by people as input into our search box (as the usage statistics of the old redirect clearly showed), so we could help them out of their confusion. Deleting the redirects we can't. That no good at all. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:52, 17 September 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.

List of algonquin terms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#List of algonquin terms

Pork markets[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Pork markets

Diaereses[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 Diaeresis. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This plural form can refer to any meaning of Diaeresis, not just the diacritic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1234qwer1234qwer4. I don't understand what you're proposing here. Can you please explain? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently these redirects go to Diaeresis (diacritic), but Diaeresis is probably a more appropriate target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. :P I'm not sure a formal discussion is needed for simple retargeting, but shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Diaeresis: No reason the plural has a specific affinity to the punctuation mark. TartarTorte 18:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget all: I find the above reasons convincing.Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:29, 17 September 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.

Red.nar[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 23:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just nonsense? I think so. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*G3 per Cryptic. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the mover immediately self-reverted and didn't have a history of PMV, I'm willing to assume this was a error and should be G6ed instead. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:33, 16 September 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.

Small People Throwing A Ring Into A Volcano[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 23:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complete joke of a redirect. There's not much else to say. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any usage of this phrase online either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by throwing into Mt Doom :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Throw it with the ring. This was the only page created in mainspace by someone with 2 edits, and doesn't seem useful. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 18:39, 16 September 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.

P:W[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 00:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, and previously deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 11#P:A. I'd tag as G4, but the redirect has existed since 2021 and Portal:World is probably a better target then Portal:Wales. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 16:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this cross-namespace redirect per previous discussion. This is almost a speedy G4, but it points to a different target. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects with a different target to the one discussed are only G4 candidates if the content of the new target page is essentially the same as the old one (e.g. the page or content was moved). Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment P:W is the fourth most used route into portals but, if there's some compelling reason why it's harmful, then I suppose it will have to go. Certes (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which is still only 9 views per month, so not very convincing. Delete per previous discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:15, 16 September 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.

Hôtel[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) CycloneYoris talk! 19:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term just means "hotel" in French, the current target looks too specific. feminist (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or set up a disam page It's not true that "This term just means "hotel" in French". When used in English it is likely to mean some kind of large town house - ie a Hôtel particulier - that "inn" French usage for "hotel" came in from English I think, and typically lacks the accent. Bear in mind that the invariable French term for Town hall is Hôtel de ville, but don't try booking a room. A disam page might be an idea. The Hôtel-Dieu, Paris is a historic hospital and another one a theatre, while the Hôtel Matignon is the official residence of the Prime Minister of France, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too specific target, Hotel would be a better target but the French word isn't relevant. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else. Sorry for my ignorance. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 23:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hôtel pariculier essentially covers what a WP:DAB for Hôtel would cover. It covers Hôtel de Ville and Hôtel-Dieu, which are two of the more common times people would common across hôtel. TartarTorte 19:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nominator is mistaken. In English hôtel usually refers to hôtel particulier not hotel. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:50, 16 September 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.

Λυκάνθρωπος[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) CycloneYoris talk! 19:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this needed on the English encyclopedia? Of course, there are alternate spellings for different languages, but this one uses the Greek letters, and as such is of no use to anyone using keyboard's based on English letters. Delete? TNstingray (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to Werewolf#Names, where slightly more context for the usage of the Greek term is given. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Name is mentioned in the lead. There is a specific affinity from Greek to werewolf with the alternative name lycanthrope (λυκάνθρωπος). TartarTorte 18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Greek has no special affinity with "werewolf" it does have affinity with "lycanthrope" (and its shorter derivative "lycan"), a synonym for "werewolf" common in some contexts such as fantasy fiction, including some prominent films/franchises. The first sentence opens by naming both "werewolf" and "lycanthrope" as the subject of the article. Accordingly the target of the redirect is related to this language via the latter subject. – Scyrme (talk) 17:57, 17 September 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.

Winged Draco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Winged Draco

Leurozancla[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Leurozancla

Dinosavr[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 00:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable typo. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching dinosavr on Google and looking past the first page brings up a number of results in Slavic languages, particularly Russian where the word for "dinosaur" is динозавр dinozavr; although a direct 1:1 transliteration would have a Z not an S, evidently some people prefer to transcribe it with an S. Russian often converts an intervocalic S into a Z (eg. physics <-> физика fizika) in loanwords, and the inverse is sometimes done in transcription. The Cyrillic динозавр is also the word for "dinosaur" in an number of other languages which write in Cyrillic, such as Kazakh, but the results I found for the transcription were mostly Russian.
Since the word "dinosaur" and the study of dinosaurs don't have any particular affinity for languages written in Cyrillic this should be deleted. Additionally, dinosavr also brought up results for apps called DinosaVR and DinoSAVR; they don't have Wikipedia articles, afaik, but it might be best not to pollute the search results for people looking for them. – Scyrme (talk) 18:39, 16 September 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:ARCHIVES[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 Help:Archiving a talk page. I also created WP:ARCHIVERFC which points to the previous target as suggested per nom. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect is for a failed proposal from 2006. I would think it's more beneficial to have WP:ARCHIVE and WP:ARCHIVES point to the same page Help:Archiving a talk page. Therefore, I propose the following

. – The Grid (talk) 14:41, 16 September 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.

Tattooing in China[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 00:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading, as the target has a section about history of tattooing in China, but the main topic (covering history and modern customs, as for example present in Tattooing in South Korea), is missing. A red link here will serve better to indicate the topic is needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:03, 16 September 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.

Chupacabras (Legend and Failures)[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 00:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Seems like some user made their own chupacabra page back in 2011 and it was cleared and redirected to the actual page. It is an improbable search entry. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 12:31, 16 September 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.

Locless monster[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 00:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a name for the cryptid. May just be nonsense. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; online search results are mostly for a product named "Lockless Monster". Was a duplicate article when created but that appears to have been at least partly a copyvio. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one of the more ridiculous redirects. Come on, people! Bishonen | tålk 07:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a portmanteau for Loch Ness monster.--Auric talk 23:09, 21 September 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.

Barias[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 00:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not marked {{R from misspelling}} but I suspect that's what it's for, but it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found that spelling in a source, but to trace the source right now will be difficult. JMK (talk) 12:27, 16 September 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.

Bigfoot the bigfooted[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 00:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really a nonsense redirect. No one refers to the cryptid as such. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; can't find any usage of this term online. Was a duplicate article when created but did not contain any significant content. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah, silly. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Bishonen | tålk 07:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a plausible search term.--Auric talk 23:03, 21 September 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.

Barden booger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Barden booger

The masked being[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#The masked being

Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I[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 12:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very poor title, dating back to when Wikipedia was still a bit shacky. The article was moved to Thought of Thomas Aquinas in 2008, so there is nothing to worry about attribution.
The name is very unlikely to be typed, and is archaic.
Therefore, I propose this redirect be deleted. Veverve (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thought of Thomas Aquinas is currently at AfD, it was relisted with a comment saying there is consensus to merge but no consensus about whether the destination should be Thomism or Thomas Aquinas. If this is kept it should target the same place, whatever it is. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The AfD of Thought of Thomas Aquinas was relisted today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Extremely janky title. It is actually misleading because it reads as if this is some singular philosophical concept developed by Aquinas. TNstingray (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In a similar vein to TNstingray, this reads to me as it would be about a Part I of a book called "Thought of Thomas Aquinas". I can't imagine anyone using this as a search term. TartarTorte 12:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also no meaningful article history. TartarTorte 12:40, 16 September 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.

P500[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#P500

Kill yourself[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Kill yourself

Metro-1[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 Line 1. Jay 💬 18:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently made into a disambiguation page (see this version ) which I PROD-ed with the rationale "The term "Metro-1" isn't used in the articles Moscow Metro or Metro 2033 and there are no pages linking to Metro-1 so there seems to be no need for this disambiguation page". That has been reverted to the initial redirect to Moscow Metro but the problem remains that the target page does not mention "Metro-1". Pichpich (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Metro Line M1 (Budapest Metro), where the lead bolds "Metro 1" as an alternative name (the only article I've found that does so), alternatively we could retarget to Line 1, a dab page listing 88 systems with Metro in the name that have a line 1 (Google finds a couple of results related to Paris Metro's line 1 on the first page). Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sort of reluctant to retarget to Metro Line M1 (Budapest Metro) because I suspect (can't prove) that other metro lines in various cities are sometimes known as Metro 1. I still favour deletion but my second choice is to retarget to Line 1. Pichpich (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 16 September 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_September_16&oldid=1112704148"