Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 23, 2023.

List of fictional people who were delivered by caesarean section[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 23:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target contains no information on subject of page title. Tollens (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Courtesy ping to 123957a, who nominated the page for speedy deletion under G8. Tollens (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Abdullah bin Hussein[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Abdullah bin Hussein

List of cities in the United States lacking inter-city rail service[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. Most of the participants support "keep". Furthermore, I think that TartarTorte's argument that a complete list would be indiscriminate is a particularly persuasive counterargument against the nom's original rationale. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"List of cities in the United States..." != "List of major cities...". The former also include minor (American) cities without intercity rail, whereas the latter title (the redirect target) excludes such cities. Silcox (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: A list of such completeness would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there are many minor cities in the United States (if one were to use the definition for a city as a municipality incorporated as such, it would likely be in the thousands, as there are ~150 cities in South Dakota alone, a state that has no inter-city rail service at all). It seems that such a page that uses >100,000 people largely represents what people are looking for with "List of cities in the United States lacking inter-city rail service" even if it is not completely precise, but I don't think there is a better target and per my above argument about a potential article at this title, I would not support that so I don't think it's worthwhile deleting via WP:REDYES. TartarTorte 14:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: misleading. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TartarTorte. I acknowledge the rationale that the current target excludes "minor cities." Yet, I feel that our policies advise against the creation of such an exhaustive list (see e.g., WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as mentioned above). WP:LSC states that Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. Most minor cities are unlikely to ever receive rail service, so their inclusion would not be relevant IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a redirect to the place on Wikipedia where one finds a list of cities in the United States that lack inter-city rail service, so it is linking to the correct article. The criteria for inclusion in the list is another matter and is why the title of the target article is what it is. It should be apparent to any reader who thinks about the question for a few seconds that not all cities can be listed in such a list. The redirect doesn't seem to be harmful or unclear where it should lead to. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that two of the keeps are weak I think this can stand a relist for firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per BarrelProof. If a reader is looking for a list of cities in the United States lacking inter-city rail service, the current target is where they will find it. The list explains its selection criteria and limitations. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, List of cities in the United States lacking inter-city rail service will never exist as its own article, so the next best thing is to redirect it to the article that does. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 21:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's misleading. And readers aren't familiar with WP policies and will thus be annoyed. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 01:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's not misleading at all, it takes a reader looking for a list of cities in the United States witout inter-city rail service to a list of cities in the United States lacking inter-city rail service. Hut 8.5 07:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes a reader looking for a list of cities lacking inter-city rail service to that list restricted to major cities. As the nom said, city ≠ major city. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that makes it misleading. The target page is still a list of cities. The fact it doesn't include all cities doesn't change that. Hut 8.5 11:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is useful for people to find the article. Also, to the point about minor cities: we cannot address the minor cities. They are far too numerous. This page with its attention to metro areas covers a broad span of territory in the continental United States.Dogru144 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But readers don't know that; they aren't acquainted with WP policies; it's confusing. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A reader looking for a "list of cities in the United States lacking inter-city rail service" will not be confused upon finding our only list of cities in the United States lacking inter-city rail service. It's not complete, but it takes the reader to what information we have that matches their query within reasonable limits of selection, and there isn't a different list that would be more appropriate. A redirect's job is to get the reader to the information they're looking for, which this does; a reader looking for a list of every municipality in the United States without intercity rail will be disappointed no matter what we do, as no such list exists on Wikipedia. The title is doing the best we can, and it would not be better at all if we showed the reader a redlink nor a list of search results (which this target would be at the top of anyway). If it redirected to a list of hamlets in the United Kingdom lacking inter-city postal service, it would be confusing. As it stands, it is not confusing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exactly what redirects are for. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; if I was at this article once and wished to return to it to peruse it further, this is one of the most likely strings with which I might incorrectly come up in trying to remember the article's name. J947 † edits 04:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

TESS[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. Editors are divided between keep and retargeting to a disambiguation page. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation page at Tess. This seems ambiguous, e.g. with the Trademark Electronic Search System as well as the Telescopic Sighting System. The current target article gets about 100 pageviews per day, which doesn't seem exceptionally high. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, this seems an easy oppose. While the satellite commonly known as TESS often peaks at over 100 views a day, the 'Trademark...' gets 0 (zero) views a day and does not have an article while the Telescopic Sighting System gets 2 (two) views day. Aside from the overwhelming readership advantage for the satellite it also qualifies as primary due to its historical significance in the space age. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects generally don't get a lot of views, as they are typically avoided. I discovered this issue when another Wikipedia editor remarked about not being able to find a trademark in TESS. So I wondered what TESS was, and figuring that out led me through a circuitous route through Wikipedia's navigation process. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BarrelProof. I wasn't talking about redirects but the articles themselves! The satellite outsatellites the two of them combined by 50-to-1. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the target article of Trademark Electronic Search System gets about twice as many views per day as the satellite and clearly has greater historic importance. However, I won't claim that a majority of views of that article are about the trademark search system. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks for the correction, the target for that one, United States Patent and Trademark Office, would get more views. But still, it is a redirect and not primary, and since the redirect gets 0 views it doesn't seem adequate competition for primary or equal-primary to the satellite. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite seems to be the primary topic for the abbreviation TESS, and the hatnote to the disambiguation page there aids navigation well. Additionally, Trademark Electronic Search System is only mentioned indirectly at United States Patent and Trademark Office, and its name only shows up in the reference list. Sending searchers to the disambiguation page for that would not be useful to anyone. ― Synpath 17:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Also target article has a hatnote to the dab page so no issues with our readers --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I'm not convinced by arguments/opinions that there's a primary topic. Incoming redirects (per Synpath ) can be fixed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, with a hatnote to the aircraft sighting system, and to the dab page. The trademark system isn't described by this initialism at its target article and does not need to be disambiguated, and no other entry on the dab is known by this initialism (WP:SMALLDETAILS). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retagret United States Patent and Trademark Office has more views (3,578) than Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite ([1]) but may be known as "TESS" less often. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Good ol' boy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Good ol' boy

Bank of america theatre[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect from unlikely capitalization error. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Mens' Love[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. Jay 💬 06:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This term does not appear in the article (and I don't see why it would). "Men's love" is ambiguous and I can't see any use for the title case version, so I say delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ambiguous, per nom. Human male sexuality is a possible target, but I think search results would be better here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad of a concept. Also, "Mens'" is improper grammar. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 01:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as Men's Love still exists, as a plausible R from typo. The latter seems to be a less common counterpart for the term boys' love, which is an alternative term for the yaoi genre, and some sources e.g. Japan Today describe it being used as such. Maybe what is needed instead is addition of mention at the target? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify per Paul_012's argument, at Boys' Love with the related forms (and boys' forms) redirecting to the list. There are a few things this could refer to which I think aren't suitable for a dab (though I wouldn't oppose it), including Bara (genre), Yaoi, Boys Love (manga), and maybe some disparate topics like human male sexuality. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I didn't word that well. By counterpart, I meant that men's love refers to bara the same way boys' love refers to yaoi (though boys' love is much more common). I would oppose conflating uses of men's love with boys' love, as they are distinct terms in Japanese media and unlikely to be confused with each other. Maybe the terms should be more clearly laid out at LGBT themes in anime and manga as a broad-concept article, but each of them is adequately specific and should redirect to its own genre. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understood what you meant. My concern was that "men's love" and "boys' love" are similar enough to an English speaker to be confusing, and thought a common set index could handle distinguishing the terms while also disambiguating the work with the same name, and general topics related to either of those concepts. I'm probably overthinking it - a couple of "not to be confused with" hatnotes would handle it just as well. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul_012 and the discussion above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul_012. I was unaware of the other similar redirects, and it makes sense as a redirect from typo. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 01:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Satara[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 procedural close as the page is not a redirect; the process for this sort of request is Wikipedia:Requested moves. @MMJ TheIndianWikiFreak: if you need help making the request, please ask. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'Satara' ALWAYS refers to the city, NEITHER the district, NOR ANYTHING else! I recommend to include Satara_(disambiguation) at the beginning of the article Satara_(city) instead. But I strongly believe that 'Satara' deserves to be a redirect of Satara_(city). MMJ TheIndianWikiFreak (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be a WP:RM instead of at RfD as it seems you want to move Satara (city) to Satara and hatnote Satara (disambiguation) there. I've also removed the RfD tag from Satara (disambiguation) as that page is not a redirect so it cannot be listed here. TartarTorte 15:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Micro-region[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 retarget. Very clear {{R from alternative hyphenation}}; no need to keep this discussion going, especially with the SNOW falling. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why this should redirect to microregions of Brazil when there are other countries with microregions. ~TPW 15:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for the 2024 Indian general election[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. No prejudice against recreation once there is enough information. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information on this located at the target page, and this will likely become an article in its own right once information is available enough to write it (see Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for the 2019 Indian general election and Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for the 2014 Indian general election), but as of right now this redirect is to a location with no information on the topic contained in the redirect. It seems that this would be best served as deleted until an article on this topic is/can be written. TartarTorte 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Cloud Drive[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 Cloud storage. Jay 💬 15:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Drive is a very general term for Cloud storage. Why not redirect there? Greatder (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to cloud storage, with a hatnote to the Amazon product. Amazon's product was formerly known as "Amazon Cloud Drive" so this made sense when the redirect was created, but it makes less sense than the general concept article now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to cloud storage with hatonote pointing to current target per Ivanvector. --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Northern Irish nationality[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 People of Northern Ireland. Jay 💬 08:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget to People of Northern Ireland; the redirect is not correct. 'Northern Irish nationality' or 'Northern Irish national identity' do not refer to a minor school of thought in the politics of Northern Ireland that seeks the independence of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom without joining the Republic of Ireland.. A better target would be People of Northern Ireland. However, it might be even better to simply delete it and rely on search results. Yelysavet (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to People of Northern Ireland as proposed. That article has a detailed analysis of Northern Irish national identity, which is an appropriate subject for a "nationality" title. If it was "nationalism" instead, then the current target would be appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to People of Northern Ireland since it covers the topic of Northern Irish national identity extensively. As a note, Northern Irish nationalism, mentioned by Ivanvector, already exists as a disambiguation page. – Scyrme (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ratarget per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to British nationality law, or delete. Nationality primarily refers to the legal concept related to citizenship, not the looser meaning of national identity, and the nationality law article is where one would expect to find such info, though it isn't really directly or clearly covered. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    British nationality law doesn't really cover the topic; its coverage of Northern Ireland seems to only cover the history pertaining to the Irish Free State. It's unlikely to be helpful and would probably be surprising.
    Additionally, the wording "national identity" used by People of Northern Ireland is taken from the census data page referenced in the article. This reference includes an explanation of what it means by "national identity", which it defines as follows: "the nationality or nationalities that the person identifies with". (source; expand the "Country of Birth & Nationality" section, then click on the 🛈 next to "National identity (person based)") – Scyrme (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my idea of nationality is more reflected by the "Passport(s) held" statistics on that page, though I'm just reminded that the situation is much more complex than elsewhere. This redirect really should point to an article that explains how the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to either or dual nationality/citizenship per the Good Friday Agreement, but there doesn't appear to be one that does this properly. People of Northern Ireland does seem to be where the topic should be covered, as it's the specific term used by the Agreement, but currently it fails to provide proper context. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently this vital context was removed from the article by an IP editor in October 2019. I've restored the previous opening, so retarget to People of Northern Ireland as it now covers the topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Passport(s) held" doesn't necessarily reflect nationality; not all citizens apply for a passport even though they're entitled to one, and nationals of multiple countries don't necessarily renew every passport they're entitled to have. The census data shows that many people don't hold even a single passport but this doesn't mean they're stateless. That said, I suppose it doesn't matter much with regards to this redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Vaccinationists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4#Vaccinationists

Belarusian mythology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore article without prejudice to nomination for AfD. While there isn't agreement that a standalone article would survive AfD, there is broad agreement that the current target is not adequate and that AfD is a better judge of this question. signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Belarusian mythology is not connected with Slavic paganism, these are superstitions inscribed in Christian motives. There is Christ, the Virgin Mary, St. George and other saints, the church calendar is used. Maksim L. (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could write an article about this topic, by any chance? (Here are some relevant Google Scholar results.) Duckmather (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't create an article, my English level is low. The article is in Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian, but the topic is difficult to translate. The page has a history and the first versions were informative. Then they were removed and redirected. I can't rate the quality of the first versions.--Maksim L. (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't we restore the old article? It's unsourced (apparently it was supposed to be merged into Slavic paganism in 2017, but the relevant content was never added from what I can tell of the latter page's history), but it's much better than nothing, and I think we'd be able to use the sources I've found to back up at least part of it. Duckmather (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article seems to consistent largely if not entirely of dubious original research, so I don't agree that it's much better than nothing.
The lead defines its topic as the system of legends, myths and cosmological presentations in ancient religion that was practiced in Belarus before Christianization in the 10th century. The glaring problem with that there was no such thing as "Belarus" (even the Belarusian language; see Belarusian language § History) that long ago. "Belarusian mythology" is an extremely anachronistic label. Those ethnic, national, and linguistic distinctions had not yet developed, and to present the topic in these terms is very misleading to readers. If any sources which explicitly discuss the topic in terms of "Belarusian mythology" even exist they are very unlikely to be reliable.
Honestly, there's probably a nationalist POV at work here. Unfortunately Rodnovery-adjacent topics like Slavic mythology and folklore are a magnet for it, and the version of article you link to includes a link to a nationalist blog in its "External links" section. – Scyrme (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since Belarusian mythology is (also) an aspect of East Slavic mythology or multiple subjects called Slavic religion (disambiguation), at least until a new article is written.  —Michael Z. 17:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm good with restore to the version found pre-deletion. The current target is questionable and we do have a minimal article under the redirect. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To use "Belarusian mythology" in reference to pre-Christianisation Slavic paganism is anachronistic and misleading to readers. If this redirect were to exist the ideal target would be an article on Belarusian folklore, similar to how Swiss mythology redirects to Swiss folklore, but no such article exists. The broader Slavic folklore exists (and is the target of Belarusian folklore), but is a stub that has no section on Belarus specifically. I don't agree with restoring the article, for all the reasons I described above in my reply to Duckmather. – Scyrme (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go. Notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Scyrme. Certainly do not restore the dubious and largely unsourced article. I endorse the original act of redirecting.—Alalch E. 09:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AfD as an intermediate position between my original position of restoring (endorsed by Hobit), and Scyrme and Alalch E.'s positions of deleting. Duckmather (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or restore article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those made it into the merged article, but often with good reason:
  • Russian myths had little-to-no sourced, encyclopedic content to begin with; it reads like one of our articles in the 2000s.
  • I've reverted the blatant BLAR of Polish folk beliefs.
  • List of locations in Slavic mythology and folklore was entirely unsourced and possibly FANCRUFT.
  • Wendish mythology relied on a single, very dated source; EE's merger target uses several more modern sources to give a better overview of the same topic(s).
  • Serbian mythology was another BLAR, but on reasonable grounds; I've replaced it with a true merger that still cut most of the content as uncited or irrelevant.
Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Olivia Page[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 Playboy Playmates of 2010#September. I think this is the most reasonable target. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The name "Olivia Page" doesn't even appear on the page List of people in Playboy 2010–2020. There is an "Olivia Paige" (different spelling), but she seems to be a very minor mention. Additionally, the page itself is up for deletion. Also, I think the article namespace Olivia Page should be available for the New Zealand footballer who just signed for English second tier club Sheffield United and will most likely be notable enough for a page soon. --SuperJew (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep since Olivia Paige is included in the list and this is harmless as a plausible misspelling. Delete if the target is deleted. If/when the footballer has a bio written, it can replace the redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the retargeting proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Mob theft[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30#Mob theft

Template:Redirect asn[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 07:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused shortcut. Canonical versions of redirect templates mostly (all?) start with "R" as an abbreviation for "redirect" and write out the type of redirect (i.e. "alternative scientific name") being classified by the template. There are used shortcuts for redirect templates that abbreviate the type of redirect as well as abbreviating "redirect" ({{Rsa}} is one I've used). Writing out "redirect" and abbreviating the type (i.e. "asn") is not a useful shortcut. Plantdrew (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Theory of Physic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Theory of Physic

GGV[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 close. Yes I'm involved as I commented at the RM but I think we can just close this to avoid the discussion being in 2 places as RM is more appropriate. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC, non-Filipinos when they try to search for GGV on Google, the talk show doesn't pop up first. I think the existing dab page shall be moved without a parenthesis "(disambiguation)". RMXY (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Gold Hat[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 Golden hat. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be retargeted somewhere else – the main article on the film that the character Gold Hat appears in has more content on him than the current target, which covers a single line that broke into pop culture. There's also the question of whether the capitalization satisfies WP:SMALLDETAILS, or whether it should target Golden hat like its uncapitalized counterpart Gold hat. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need no badgers, either. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]
  • Restore to Golden hat where it went in 2010, until changed by a now blocked sockpuppet, which I failed to notice at the time. The obvious solution. The current one is wildly unlikely to be searched for. There might be other "golden hats" but none I think with articles. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of note: That sockpuppet was unblocked at that time; it seems they were on a one-account restriction at that time, due to past sockpuppetry, but the edits wouldn't fall WP:BANREVERT. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to golden hat as proposed, with a hatnote similar to ""Gold Hat" redirects here. For the literary and film character, see The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." The quote/meme need not be mentioned at all, as the character is barely mentioned in stinking badges. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to golden hat per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the above comments. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 01:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Lard Yao[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 Lat Yao. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lard Yao" is simply a variant spelling of Lat Yao, the subdistrict of Bangkok where Klong Prem Central Prison is located, which gives the complex its alternative name (Lat Yao Prison, Lard Yao Prison, etc.). I would suggest retargeting to the disambiguation page at Lat Yao, but the redirect has existed for almost 15 years and a brief Google search does seem to suggest that the specific spelling is most often used when referring to the prison. Should this be considered a spelling variant that indicates a distinct topic? Paul_012 (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_23&oldid=1174242385"