Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2023.

Joseph McVey[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 Z-Ro. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why this redirect exists. It does not redirect to a specific section of the article and the name "Joseph McVey" (or the name "McVey" for that matter) does not appear anywhere in the article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:03, 10 December 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[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 and keep the second redirect which already targets there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should these target People of Northern Ireland with a hatnote to Ulster Irish (the dialect of the Irish language spoken in Northern Ireland and adjacent parts of Ireland) and Ulster English (the dialect of English spoken in Northern Ireland), or should there be a disambiguation page at this title? I don't think people using this title are looking for the Northern Ireland article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target both to People of Northern Ireland - As a Northern Ireland native, targeting both to People of Northern Ireland makes the most sense to me, in terms of how we'd ordinarily use the term. Locally Northern Irish is primarily used as a referrer to our national identity, similar to how you might also refer to yourself as Irish or British. Not sure a hatnote to Ulster Irish is strictly necessary here, as we never (to my knowledge) use "Northern Irish" when speaking about or in the Irish language dialect some of us use here. But it wouldn't hurt either. Not sure a hatnote to Ulster English would be necessary, regardless of whether we include a hatnote for Ulster Irish. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this - if someone is searching "Northern Irish" they're probably looking for information about the people of NI as a national category, rather than the territory itself or Ulster Irish/English. We could add a hatnote, but I don't think it's necessary. sawyer / talk 03:48, 11 December 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).

Disco-rock[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per previous discussions on similar genre re-directs (see Disco-pop and Funk-pop, there is no mention of Disco-rock on the Dance-rock article, so assuming one means the other is inappropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Current target specifically says its scope is post-disco.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 10 December 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).

Fire must never be extinguished[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18#Fire must never be extinguished

Auslit[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 leaning keep. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the existence of AustLit, and "Auslit" not appearing in the target article, I'm not sure this is properly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Auslit" is a widely used diminutive or nickname for the whole genre of "Australian literature". Maybe the "Australian literaure" page just needs a note to that effect. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a useful hatnote Doug butler (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would lean toward retargeting to the DAB page, but I'm skeptical there should be a two-item DAB page in a case like this, since simply hatnotes can distinguish. If this seems like a DAB page worth deleting then keep, but if the page is worth retaining then retarget. I feel I've fallen out of touch with general consensus regarding when we should have two-item DAB pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or hatnotes? it seems the relevant question is whether one of the two uses is the primary topic. If there is, then there should be a hatnote from that topic to the other use. If there is no primary topic then a dabpage should be located at the base name. My research (which I admit could be more thorough) suggests that Australian Literature is the clear primary topic.
    Pinging @NmWTfs85lXusaybq: who added the {{One other}} template to the disambiguation page last month. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pinging. I had no preference on the primary topic, but only tagged it as a WP:TWODABS whose title ends with "(disambiguation)". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there's now a hatnote our readers can use. --Lenticel (talk) 01:59, 11 December 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).

Centaur (chess)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18#Centaur (chess)

Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:G6, admittedly created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. The war has no affinity to French, and the creator admitted at the redirect's talk page that the redirect was a mistake. Further, Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023 does not exist at French Wikipedia. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:58, 10 December 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).

North of Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ulster. This phrase is in wide use as an apolitical geographical reference to mean, basically, "the northern area of the island of Ireland, i.e. the traditional province of Ulster, which is now mostly but not entirely within Northern Ireland", with the whole point being a way to say this concisely without saying "northern Ireland" with would be too easily confused with "Northern Ireland". If there is actually significant RS use of it to actually mean "the political entity of Northern Ireland", then it should instead become a disambiguation page, listing Ulster then Northern Ireland as the meanings. But that's very dubious to me, and I would think that {{Redirect|North of Ireland|the United Kingdom territory in the north of Ireland|Northern Ireland}} at the top of Ulster should entirely suffice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig: I lean this way now. Digging around in page history, I see that it was previously a disambiguation page and also included North of Ireland FC (which in footbally contexts would just be called "North of Ireland"). There also some PTMs in "See also" that seem more dubious to include, like North of Ireland Operative Butchers' and Allied Workers' Association and Royal North of Ireland Yacht Club which seem less likely intended targets of the phrase. PS: I didn't leave talk-page notices for anyone, because the page was created by an anon, and the other edits are mostly either twiddles to the DAB content or changing it back and forth between redir targets and disambiguation, but no one in particular seems to have a unique interest/involvement level in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. The phrase most does commonly seem to refer to "Ulster", but in either 6 or 9 county meanings (and sometimes deliberately ambiguous between them), and it is also used to mean the northern part of the island in a purely geographical sense (particularly in historical and environmental contexts). I think I've also seen it used to mean "the northern parts of the Republic of Ireland". There was also a North of Ireland Cricket Club and North of Ireland Championships might be an appropriate see-also entry. I'm also about to create North Irish (disambiguation), which should link to and be linked from North of Ireland if this is closed as disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sound like a Plan of Goodfulness +6.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Northern Ireland native, I'm not sure I'd describe the term "North of Ireland" as apolitical. Even to this day it's pretty heavily associated with an Irish Nationalist/Republican point of view on the geopolitics of the island. Retargeting to Alternative names for Northern Ireland#Nationalist-associated names might be a better choice here, as that section covers its actual use by people on the island. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon reflecting further, and reading the other comments that have come through, particularly Thryduulf's comment below, Disambig does seem like the best choice. I'd suggest care be taken on the disambiguation page however, due to the common geopolitical association with that term. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per above; the phrase can be used to refer to multiple things and readers would benefit from this page just becoming a short dab. sawyer / talk 03:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per above. DankJae 03:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. I've provided a draft. I agree it's not apolitical and I think a disambiguation page is better than a hatote here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In historical (typically Mediaeval and earlier periods), environmental and similar contexts the term is (or can be) apolitical. See Dalradian, Gancanagh#Legend, Carrickfergus Castle#English control, Lynn (surname), Theodoxus fluviatilis#Europe. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added North of ireland to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 13 December 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).

Greatest Hits So Far...[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 Greatest Hits So Far. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move at Talk:Greatest Hits... So Far!!! (Pink album) was closed as no consensus; the main reason I opened it was to resolve some WP:MISPLACED concerns. This redirect is of particular note to me – if the concern is that the ellipsis isn't enough to differentiate between this album and others, then I don't see why it should continue targeting the album with this specific ellipsis. Retarget to Greatest Hits So Far. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 December 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).

GPay[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! 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gpay is different - see https://gpay.com.tr/yardim

Suggest this redirect is deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a legitimate alternative name for the app. I have added a source that verifies that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but the source you added says it is no longer called Gpay - source says ‘ now confusingly called the Google Pay app’ Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Google Pay" is the official name; "GPay" is the alternative name. I literally have the app on my phone right now, and it says "GPay" on the homescreen. And even if it were a former name, that would not mean a redirect should not exist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see - so is the “Gpay” on your home screen something written by Google or someone else I wonder? Maybe at the time you installed it it was called Gpay, so Google wrote “Gpay” on your phone and for some reason have not changed it when the name of the app was officially changed. Anyway it is probably not a problem for anyone outside Turkey, but for those of us here it is confusing. I don't know when the Turkish app was created but if it was after the Google one and chose the name to get ex-google customers I don't understand why Google don't sue it under some trademark or copyright law. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments and edit summaries strongly suggest that you are trying to promote the Turkish app. Wikipedia is not the place for that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per InfiniteNexus. If the linked app gets a Wikipedia article, a disambiguation hatnote could be added to the target page; but I’m not inclined to delete this {{R from alternative name}} just because it’s the same as another mobile payment app without an article - especially given the redirect has been around since 2007, and averaged 32 pageviews/month in the last year (engaging WP:R#K4 and K5). (If the linked app is the primary topic, the third bullet-point of WP:PRIMARYRED would apply and the redirect should potentially be converted into a disambiguation page - however, for the purposes of RfD, the redirect should still not be deleted if that is the case.) Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 10:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the official Gpay is notable for English Wikipedia. I might try to create an article on Turkish Wikipedia but as I am not a native speaker I don’t hold out much hope of being successful. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to add to the confusion I now see the logo in the infobox of both Google Pay (payment method) and tr:Google Pay says "Gpay". Chidgk1 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a logo. This is like arguing that Apple Pay is really called "🍎 Pay". InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Pay has existed as a redirect to Apple Pay since 2014. I'm not sure how much that adds to this conversation though. TartarTorte 17:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per InfiniteNexus and A smart kitten. GPay is clearly an alternative name and the article for this turkish GPay currently doesn't seem to exist. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – great, there's a non-notable service named GPay; that has no impact on whether this redirect should or should not exist. It's a valid alternative name, so it should exist – if the other GPay becomes notable and gets an article, then we can revisit. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 December 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).

List of Umbro sponsorships[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as these following...

Primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING, now that I purged the offending sub list . SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: unhelpful, no significant mention of the topic at the target. Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this section isn’t added back to the article/the edit removing it isn’t reverted, delete due to having no mention at the target (per WP:R#D2, as it may cause confusion to readers). If the section is restored, keep - without prejudice to renomination after consensus has been determined as to whether or not the section should be included in the article. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 17:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What A smart kitten said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 (i.e. do what A smart kitten suggests). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 10 December 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).

Airbus Group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18#Airbus Group

PARAMIL[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 Glossary of military abbreviations#P. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target page makes no mention of an abbreviated form called "Paramil", much less that same form (or any form for that matter) stylized in all caps; "PARAMIL", "PARAMILITARY" or otherwise. I could very well be missing context however, but based on this and google searching the phrase, I'm coming up blank. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak retarget. While some of the google hits are related to paramilitary (or just military) activities, it's equally likely to refer to other non-notable things. However the only mention on Wikipedia is at Glossary of military abbreviations#P, linking to paramilitary, where it, along with all other entries, is stylised in all-caps. Retargetting there will explain the term and provide a link to those who want that use, while we can't help anyone who wants something different, so that's my weak preference. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Thryduulf. This is one of the things that glossaries are great for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:04, 10 December 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).

Nobody fucks with the Jesus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A comedy catchphrase that isn't listed at the target article. As a standalone phrase, this phrase is already pretty vague out of context, and the current location without a mention does not do it any favors. Would be unclear why this redirect points here to an uninitiated reader. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems useless. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to q:The Big Lebowski#Jesus Quintana: The quote is at the wikiquote for the movie and provides some context (it also appears later down in the wikiquote page in the dialogue section, so I'm fine retargetting there also) TartarTorte 17:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) (Struck after seeing that the overwhelmingly common outcome for these is to have them deleted. I'm not trying to create new consensus at this RfD alone and while I don't outright support deletion; I don't opposite it, at least not for consistency's sake. TartarTorte 19:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikiquote per TartarTorte. Cremastra (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or soft redirect to wikiquote?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 10 December 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).

CAT:SURNAMES[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) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. (While the target category gets a lot more pageviews than the others nominated here, as nearly everyone has a surname, the PNR does not appear to be a necessity for this otherwise-ordinary category). Utopes (talk / cont) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: intuitive and harmless. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Ideally, I’d be !voting to delete all the CAT: XNRs nominated on this page, per my comments under § CAT:XHOSA and § CAT:CROATIA. However, the age of these redirects mean I’ve been !voting weak delete instead (rather than just delete) on the other nominations. CAT:SURNAMES is different from the others, though, in that its traffic has historically been consistently much higher - in my opinion, this comparison demonstrates it pretty well. For me, this tips it over the edge - the likelihood and number of off-wiki links that might break if this were deleted makes it (for me) worth keeping (against the arguments to the contrary I’ve made under the other nominations), per K4. Because of all the arguments to the contrary, however, my !vote is a weak keep. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to the above - Tavix’s comment below also goes to a potential K5 reason for keeping, as someone is finding the redirect useful. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the amount of pageviews a good reason for keeping this redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:SURNAMECAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace. PS: I'm guilty of creating one of these myself in 2007; the next of these RfDs should be CAT:CUE since WP:CUE already has WP:CUECAT to match all its other convenience links like WP:CUEBIOS, WP:CUEGAMES, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I view this as a pseudo-maintenance category for surnames. I have used this shortcut to navigate to this category, then I go to 'related changes' to patrol for things like juveniles inserting themselves or their friends into a surname list. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to reinforce, this situation is different from the other 5 as it has received historical attention. I don't know whether its a particularly useful XNR in 2023, but I can envision this having some importance despite it being an otherwise normal content category. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:53, 13 December 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).

CAT:SLOVAKIA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:SLOVAKIACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 12 December 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).

CAT:CROATIA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: intuitive and harmless. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to straightforwardly !vote weak delete on this nomination; however, I noticed that there is a (piped) wikilink to this redirect from the reply at User talk:Oxford St./Archive1 § Diacritics. This for me has really made it hard to decide how to !vote here.
    On the one hand, XNRs are costly, unneeded for this sort of category (per Utopes at § CAT:XHOSA), and might (even if incorrectly) imply that other, similar, categories should have a CAT: XNR. There’s also a precedent that similar redirects have been deleted at RfD before - while this obviously isn’t binding, I guess I’d want to have a good reason to come to a different decision on a similar matter to previous deletion discussions.
    On the other hand, I worry about the possibility of breaking links made to these redirects, given that they’ve been allowed to exist since 2007 — hence why my other delete !votes have only been weak. In this instance, there is a wikilink that’s been made to this redirect, which will break if it’s deleted, and the existence of which may (potentially) be indicative of more links existing to this redirect off-wiki (although, of course, there’s no way of knowing that for certain one way or the other).
    In the end, I basically have to weigh up what I personally view to be of greater importance in this case - and while I worry about the possibility of breaking links (as I also do with the other CAT: nominations); having considered it, I don’t think that the one wikilink is enough such that the CAT:CROATIA RfD should result in a different outcome to the other nominations. Therefore, weak delete, per above and per my comments at § CAT:XHOSA.
    Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 17:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:CROATIACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 12 December 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).

CAT:BOTSWANA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:BOTSWANACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 12 December 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).

CAT:TIGRINYA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:TIGRINYACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 12 December 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).

CAT:XHOSA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 05:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarily, from my angle, these particular pseudo-namespace redirects are neither of those two adjectives described here.
To set the scene, there are over 2 million pages in Category space. Contrasting that to the 550 redirects that populate the CAT: pseudo-namespace, 0.0002 of the categories have associated CAT pages (and that's disregarding the redirects that double-up targets). Per WP:PNR, the intention of pseudo-namespace redirects is to be "shortcuts to frequently-referred-to Wikipedia pages". Now, "frequently-used" is a very open-ended description; it's one that (rightfully) opens the door to different categories of all shapes and sizes. If a category needs to be closely monitored due to it frequently changing, or if it needs to be quickly accessed for maintenance and/or other repetitive work, I can definitely get behind the need for a shortcut.
But don't get me wrong. Wikipedia is a technology built around namespaces. From my POV, all PNRs are harmful in nature to varying degrees even if just by a fraction, as they bend and break the guidelines of namespaces. Though, on the flipside of this con, most PNRs should in practice (and do) make up for this inherited fault by leaps and bounds due to the convenience factor that is offered to experienced editors whom make use of these shortcuts. If even just a small handful of people find use in a particular (and approved) PNR that would unlikely impede in general searches, then it's fulfilling its purpose.
Returning to the 2 million point, I see nothing intuitive about this title. For a redirect to be "intuitive", it would mean that, without already knowing the answer, one would be able to expect and intuit the existence of a title, without having to type in even a letter, or search it for oneself. Given that Happiness is a page in existence, I can intuit that "there exists a page called Happy", and that it is a redirect to the aforementioned page. It makes sense. On a more relevant example, 0.0002 categories have a CAT page. These are, more often than not, intuitively reserved for highly important categories that need to be searched quite often, to the point where they would clearly benefit from a CAT page, especially when they have a long title that might not be easily remembered. Category:Candidates for Speedy Deletion comes to mind; it makes sense why there would be a CAT PNR redirected there.
Now, we have CAT:XHOSA. The target category has 6 pages, and 4 subcats. Out of the millions of categories, the Xhosa category doesn't even make the shortlist of cats I'd expect to warrant a PNR shortcut. Especially when the name isn't even shortened; it's literally just the name of the cat, but occupies a place in a pseudo-namespace when it doesn't need to. Because PNRs appear in search results and otherwise make organization more difficult by circumventing the software, such redirects should be kept to a minimum and only kept in exceptional circumstances where usage is predicted to be regular and helpful. In most cases, the MOS space is a highly reliable pseudo-space as it is part of the Wikipedia community vernacular, and even obscure MOS points will need to be linked to now and again. However, such pages are limited in number, so it's easy to capture the whole scope with relevant redirects, and nearly any MOS redirect can be intuitively inferred to exist.
CAT pages are not MOS pages. While maintenance categories see regular use of CAT: shortcuts whenever maintenance is being performed, I see nothing to indicate that the Xhosa Category would need to be regularly accessed in this way, much less in a shortcut with the exact same title as the category itself. PNRs are not dumping grounds for infinite redirects, and if a PNR in question isn't a valuable shortcut to a category of importance and/or has no chance of ever being used as such, it has no reason to defy norms and exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Utopes. As a shortcut, CAT:XHOSA isn’t that much shorter than Category:Xhosa. It also isn’t currently getting pageviews that would indicate that the shortcut is useful to someone/in use. However, this redirect was created in 2007, and certainly used to get pageviews back in 2015 (the earliest I can see), which tells me that this redirect may have previously been useful, even if it isn’t much today. (See also, monthly pageviews from 2015-2023)
    So, in favour of deleting: it’s a CAT: cross-namespace redirect (D6, and for the reasons Utopes gave), that’s not that ‘short’ of a shortcut, and has very few recent pageviews (both anti-K5). In favour of keeping: it used to have a little greater use, and it’s existed since 2007 (which both potentially engage K4 for me, at least to an extent). If this redirect was created yesterday and brought straight to RfD, I’d probably !vote delete. However, given the length of time that CAT:XHOSA’s existed for, I find myself !voting more weakly for deletion.
    Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: There is precedent where similar redirects have been deleted (see RfDs for CAT:MAZDA, CAT:PROFANITY). Obviously this doesn’t bind the decision here, just thought it was worth noting. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 16:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:XHOSACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I meant to link the CAT:MAZDA and CAT:PROFANITY precedent, which is what I was gauging with this set of nominations; I appreciate the link 🙏. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 13 December 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_December_10&oldid=1190496112"