Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 27, 2023.

Jamal Woods[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 00:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a redirect from a player to a different team, especially one who that player does not play for. No idea why this was created. Debartolo2917 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy retarget to Miami Dolphins#Current roster. Woods was an "undrafted free agent" for the Colts but never played a game for the team, I don't know why the redirect was created that way either. However he was traded to the Dolphins last week and is now listed in the current roster at that article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a good example of a WP:COSTLY redirect. In this case, we can guarantee the redirect will need to be updated in the future because it targets a current roster. At some point, Woods will no longer be on the current roster for the Dolphins and then something will need to be done. That being said, if he's on an NFL roster he's likely notable and WP:REDLINK deletion may be best. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Tavix. We rarely, if ever, redirect pages on NFL players to team rosters. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 31 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).

Wikipedia:REFORDER[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation order per WP:SNOW. Closing this early since consensus is overwhelmingly clear. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation order, to match WP:CITEORDER. The old RfC is about AWB in particular, and isn't something people seem to need to refer back to very much. If it really needs a shortcut, something like WP:AWBREFORDER would work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:48, 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).

Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 2#Solaria Energía y Medio Ambiente. The main redirect was deleted, but this title without diacritic was not. MarioGom (talk) 16:45, 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).

ROI flag[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 disagree on whether the Republic of Ireland is the clear primary topic. signed, Rosguill talk 02:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ROI" is ambiguous and the abbreviation is not actually mentioned in any country article (as far as I can tell): India, Indonesia, Iceland, Ireland. I suggest this is deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "ROI" flag returns results exclusively related to Ireland. [1]. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So keep. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm mostly on the fence with this one, but I keep seeing the term being used by entities that want to sell you something online related to the flag of Ireland. Marks & Spencer is an example. There seems to be no other association with this term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: While as the nom noted all are Republic of I, it seems that ROI is overwhelmingly used to mean the Republic of Ireland. I honestly was a bit surprised myself by it, but it seems that it is the WP:PTOPIC. Weak keep because I think that it's not implausible that one would use it to mean Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, or Republic of Iceland either and I would not be favor of hat-noting given the confusion that could come of it for a not heavily used redirect. TartarTorte 02:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ambiguous, unnecessary, very little use. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Ambiguous term. #prodraxis connect 16:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are specific political reasons that the country of Ireland is commonly called the Republic of Ireland, whereas longer, official names of most countries are not used outside of official contexts. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "ROI" or "Republic of Ireland" Flag seems like a very reasonable search term for the Flag of Ireland. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After doing further investigation, TartarTorte does bring up the very true possibility of the acronym of "ROI" also possibly being ambiguous with other Republics with names that start with the letter "I". Despite this, the "Republic of Ireland" appears to be the primary topic for "ROI", in accordance with TartarTorte and BDD. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:46, 28 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).

Suimono[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. Participation was minimal and there was no opinion on deletion. No prejudice against retargeting to List of Japanese soups and stews. I would have done it, but the nomination suggesed reviewing incoming links before retargeting, so I would want someone knowledgeable about the topic to do it. Jay 💬 14:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese soups and stews says this is a generic name for clear traditional soups. Incoming links, such as at Miso soup and List of Japanese dishes, suggest that there's a real topic here that could benefit from WP:REDLINK deletion, and the topic isn't mentioned at its current target. As a second choice, we could retarget to List of Japanese soups and stews, though we should probably review incoming links if we do so. BDD (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the suggested list target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't have a position on whether this needs deletion or not, but I can tell you that suimono is typically a specific genre of broth-based light soup. The base is dashi, it has a fragrant garnish, like ginger or some herb, and some main item, often tofu. If you google "吸い物" you'll see examples. So yes, it's a generic name, but also a specific thing, if that makes sense? It shouldn't redirect to "broth" but redirecting it to the list of Japanese soups seems fine. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 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).

Brick red[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 Shades of red#Cinnabar. signed, Rosguill talk 02:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at maroon target. It's not a synonym from my quick search: e.g. 1. wikt has entries (wikt:brick red wikt:maroon) with different colours (colors). 2. online states them as different colours 3. List of RAL colours has brick red as "145 65 47" Candidate for retargeting:

See also:

Actually, it may be best to expand this into its own section inside the "shades of red" article (or create a new article entirely) rather than redirect it into a tangent color. Cinnabar isn't exactly brick red, and I do think that "brick red" is a prominent shade of red that should be represented in it's own entry.
Additionally, there's already a section inside Scarlet (color) called Fire brick (color), referring to an alternate name of "brick red". While this does appear to be a better target (being "fire brick" > "cinnabar"), I'm somewhat conflicted about even INCLUDING shades of "scarlet" in the aforementioned article, because the only entries in that section are "Websafe Scarlet", "Torch Red", "Flame", "Fire Brick", and "Boston University Scarlet". All of these are shades of red from my point of view, and it would be seemingly better to have those in the "Shades of red" article to avoid confusion about what constitutes "red" and what constitutes "scarlet". Through this method, I would suggest moving these five shades of "scarlet" from the Scarlet (color)#Variations of scarlet page and include them in the Shades of red article. I'd then suggest to retarget Brick red to the hypothetical "Fire brick" entry in the updated "Shades of red" page. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, I no longer think "taking the variations out of the scarlet page and putting them into the shades of red page" is the best idea, because this shift would include entries (such as websafe scarlet and boston university scarlet) that are probably better fits for exclusivity on the Scarlet page. However, much of the rest I still agree with, although it is looking to be something of a rabbit hole of apparent inconsistencies across different pages. Currently, the Shades of red seemingly lists 50+ colors indiscriminately, including every shade from pink to ebony. You'd expect from the name "Chinese red" that it would at least make an appearance in the list of shades of red, but no; it appears EXCLUSIVELY as a shade of Vermilion#Chinese red, and is nowhere to be found in the main article, despite having red in the name. (This may not be the greatest example due to its history with lacquerware... but similarly, "salmon pink" is listed as a shade of red, but is absent from the Shades of pink list... although "Brink pink" happens to be in both the red and pink list, as does "rose ebony" among many others, but I digress). In any event, however, this leads me to saying that different colors are currently not referred to consistently across the different pages of color shades. So, when thinking of the term "Brick red" and the redirect in question, I think it should definitely point to a subsection source on Shades of red, and not a subsection of Scarlet_(color)#Variations of scarlet or Vermilion#Variations. To this end, expanding "brick red" into a new section, or adding onto Shades of red#Fire brick would be the best course of action for possible targets here. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:41, 28 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).

💨[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 The Lexicon of Comicana#Briffits. Jay 💬 14:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague. As a "dash" symbol it doesn't necessarily represent someone sprinting (they could be fleeing, or falling, or biking), and tbh it just looks like a gust of wind to me. Delete. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Very clear as can be seen by Dash (disambiguation)#Sport pointing to Sprint (running). Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still just a gust of wind. It does not unambiguously refer to sprinting. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Lexicon of Comicana, where this is explained. -- Tavix (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...maybe? It might be confusing to the person being redirected though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be confusing about Briffits (💨): clouds of dust that hang in the wake of a swiftly departing character or object? -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the late reply but there is no anchor for that text. The person first sees "The Lexicon of Comicana". Aaron Liu (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:31, 30 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).

🤪[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#🤪

😬[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 Grimace. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, doesn't necessarily refer to the current target. Emojipedia calls it a "grimacing face" but it could mean a lot of things. Delete. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. It could mean a lot of of things, so can any other word. That being said the Unicode Name, which is the official name, calls it "Grimacing Face". Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's so vague that any target could be unhelpful. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vague to you does not mean it is so vague. Support your arguments with actual evidence. Finally as I said in other places, you can always redirect to the emoji table. Not everything needs to go to RfC just because you don't understand or like the current target. Gonnym (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does this emoji unambiguously refer to bruxism as opposed to, say wikt:grimace or just teeth? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I doubt any of our arguments will go anywhere. Could other editors offer third opinions? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before WP:SOFIXIT if you have a better target. Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a better target. That is why I am nominating it for deletion. Because there are no good targets. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects aren't some kind of hunt to find vague correlations. Have you read WP:RPURPOSE? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Grimace Since this emoji is called "Grimacing Face," the current target doesn't seem the most useful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll (grudgingly) support that. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Grimace. I'll let 2017 Tavix explain why. -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I like to make up sentences with emojis (and I DO like it!) it is highly subjective across cultures and even individuals, plus "emoji" would be a hieroglyph-like language and this is not emoji.wikipedia.org but en.wikipedia.org - Nabla (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Grimace per others above. CycloneYoris talk! 04:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Grimace. It's a grimacing face, and thus should point towards our content on grimacing, regardless of it being a disambiguation page. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:25, 5 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).

🙀[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#🙀

🐱‍🚀[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 Emoji#Joining. signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Extremely unlikely search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Extremely likely search term. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: It's a highly specific emoji only supported by Microsoft apparently depicting a cat in a spacesuit (but only on Windows, I guess). To type this in, you would probably have to bring up a specialized emoji menu or copy and paste it. Very very few people would use emojis of all things as search terms anyways. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we delete things because they interest a small subset of readers? Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how many emoji's have articles written about them? Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, only one cat has gone to space so this redirect fits like a paw. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Emoji#Joining where this is explained as Ninja Cat in Space (🐱‍🚀). -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoji#Joining per above. Skynxnex (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I like to make up sentences with emojis (and I DO like it!) it is highly subjective across cultures and even individuals, plus "emoji" would be a hieroglyph-like language and this is not emoji.wikipedia.org but en.wikipedia.org - Nabla (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoji#Joining Aaron Liu (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoji#Joining per Tavix et al. In this case, retargeting is better than keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 04:25, 4 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).

🐱‍🐉[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 02:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unlikely search term and WP:PANDORA. We certainly don't need redirects from every possible emoji combination. and why is this tagged with r from printworthy? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Clearly not WP:PANDORA. Also, we certainly do need redirects from every possible emoji. And finally, this isn't an emoji combination but a single emoji. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we certainly do need redirects from every possible emoji. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random combination of two emojis (cat, snake). No plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is explained at the target as Ninja Cat riding T-Rex (🐱‍🐉). I agree that WP:PANDORA makes no sense here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not saying exactly how we decide where to redirect emojis and which ones have articles is the best solution but keeping this at its current target is consistent with what I've generally seen and deleting doesn't really improve the experience for anyone. Skynxnex (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I like to make up sentences with emojis (and I DO like it!) it is highly subjective across cultures and even individuals, plus "emoji" would be a hieroglyph-like language and this is not emoji.wikipedia.org but en.wikipedia.org - Nabla (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why this opens up new redirects but we don't need redirects from every emoji either. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the outcome of my previous nomination in 2022. No valid reason for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 04:24, 4 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).

😶‍🌫[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 02:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unintelligible square which is allegedly the emoji for fog (okay, fine) – preceded by a mouthless face? What is this even supposed to mean? Delete. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. If you nominate stuff, please take the minimal effort to educate yourself on what you are nominating. This isn't an unintelligible square [...] preceded by a mouthless face but a single emoji called "Face in Clouds" which was added to Emoji 13.1 in 2020. Your OS has not been updated to support this emoji which is why you can't see it as a single emoji. Emojis should never be deleted as they are always valid search terms. If the current target isn't good enough then it should be redirected to the emoji table it belongs to. Gonnym (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even when it appears as "face in clouds" it is very vague in appearance and doesn't necessarily refer to fog ([2]) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm fine with a literal target. Otherwise, the closest we have is probably confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we could just delete it, because it's so vague. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be opposed to that. Yes, there are a few options as far as targets go, but I firmly believe any of those options are better than leaving a searcher with nothing. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I like to make up sentences with emojis (and I DO like it!) it is highly subjective across cultures and even individuals, plus "emoji" would be a hieroglyph-like language and this is not emoji.wikipedia.org but en.wikipedia.org - Nabla (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. For some reason, on Firefox only, the former emoji doesn't display due to the lack of U+FE0F : VARIATION SELECTOR-16 [VS16] {emoji variation selector}. This redirect does no harm and isn't really confusing Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it refer unambiguously to fog though? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Aaron Liu above. Harmless, no valid reason for deletion in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 04:23, 4 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).

🤗[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a hug? Extremely ambiguous & an unlikely search term. Delete. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Likely search term. Gonnym (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: It seems to me that anyone searching up an emoji on the enwiki search engine is either doing it to a) see what they get (for fun) or b) looking for Emojipedia-style information about the emoji itself. This is neither and extremely vague to boot. It doesn't necessarily refer to hugging, and, again, so marvellously vague no good alternate targets could be found. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you support your assumptions for "a" and "b" with any non-anecdotal evidence? If you can't find a better target, the base Emoji#In Unicode which does list this emoji, is always a valid target. Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's common sense. Who would use an emoji as a search term in an encyclopedia? We're not the Free Emoji Translator or Wikiemoji. And again, besides the emoji-specific arguments, it's very vague. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your common sense seems broken to me. My common sense sees emojis as valid search terms. So whose common sense wins the argument? Have you read WP:NOCOMMON? Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still extremely vague. This is the core issue. Is "Hug" the best target? Maybe. Maybe not. The outcome is usually deletion if the glyph is unclear, its meaning is difficult to determine, or there is no consensus on a target. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: I'm interested in your opinion on what the most common scenario of searching an emoji is, and I think Edward is too – what's the main use case of these redirects? Partly because valid search term ≠ good redirect often, but more importantly I'm interested in why we have this class of redirects, as someone who doesn't use their phone / type emoji much. It's also very helpful to delve deep into the reader's mind to determine the precise target of redirects; depending on your answer it could be for example the article emoji, detail on this emoji, or the topic to which it refers. J947 † edits 09:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't researched what the most common scenario of searching an emoj is, and I can only speculate based on personal experience. I'm sure with the ever increasing usage of emojis in a lot of different aspects of life (web, instant messages and even in film and tv shows), people come across a given emoji which isn't clear to them and want to learn more about it. Or maybe one that is clear to them but inspires them to learn more about it, the set it comes from, or emojis in general. Here are two of first results I got when I searched for "emoji usage" [3], [4], these might give more insight. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It just seems weird to me that [a] one might try and understand the meaning of emoji as if it isn't pretty clear on one's phone and [b] to do so a reader might search it up on Wikipedia, put an emoji into the search bar (???). But that is probably the main use, and views for these emoji are high (particularly this one), and the target seems to explain what the readers wants to know so – hey. I do think a broader discussion on emoji redirects is warranted however. J947 † edits 21:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The emoji is called "Hugging Face." This seems like the most plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Presidentman. "Hugging Face" is definitely most closely associated with Hug. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. (or maybe retarget to 9th Shorty Awards#Content ;)). Skynxnex (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I like to make up sentences with emojis (and I DO like it!) it is highly subjective across cultures and even individuals, plus "emoji" would be a hieroglyph-like language and this is not emoji.wikipedia.org but en.wikipedia.org - Nabla (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above. Unambiguous per the title of the emoji. No valid reason for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 04:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a hugging face, and therefore the redirect should point towards hugging. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:26, 5 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).

Roadworks Gifts and Souvenirs[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 15:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete giftshop was removed from the article in 2021 -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 11:36, 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).

Coach Lombardi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 5#Coach Lombardi

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_27&oldid=1174221517"