Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 18, 2023.

List of cities in Minnesota (population 3,000+)[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Eh, whatever. Either way, I'm going to renominate/separate List of cities in Minnesota(population 5,000+) by itself once I get this discussion closed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These titles are misleading since the target article include cities that have less than 3000 residents, in addition to there being no way to sort the page to include only cities with more than 3000 or 5000 residents. (Also, the redirect List of cities in Minnesota(population 5,000+) has a WP:RDAB issue due to lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It looks like these are all former titles of the article, so they should probably be kept as {{R from move}} - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not exactly sure what is proposed here but you can sort the table by population so you can see those over 3k or 5k quite easily. The page itself is in need of work, but I can't see any alternative to the redirects. Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 19 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).

Spiral(dinghy)[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 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Spiral (dinghy), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 18 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).

Row(database)[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 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Row (database), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 18 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).

Ronald Takaki(author)[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 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Ronald Takaki (author), is a redirect that targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 18 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).

Protoculture (DJ)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25#Protoculture (DJ)

An Ancient Journey(Kitarō album)[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 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, An Ancient Journey (Kitarō album), is a redirect that targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 18 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).

Bucky(comics)[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 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Bucky (comics), is a redirect that targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 18 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).

X-Men 0[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 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been many types of media related to X-Men and this is redirect is not necessarily a former name of the target article, this redirect seems to be vague to a point it may not be clear what readers are attempting to locate when searching this term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 18 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).

Young Magneto[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 23:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target section does not exist, nor is this phrase mentioned in the target article. Readers searching this term may be looking for something related to the target of the article, but a subtopic that may not be mentioned in the target. This redirect originally targeted a page that was eventually redirected to X-Men: First Class, but though that msg have been the original film where "young" versions of X-Men characters appeared in the film series, it does not seem as though any other redirects that start with "young" target X-Men: First Class. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 18 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).

Magneto(comics)[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 23:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Magneto (comics), is a redirect that targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 18 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).

Rise Against(band)[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 23:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Rise Against (band), does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 18 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).

Itch.io tasty[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 23:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at all at the target. No pages use this redirect and it seems like an incredibly obscure meme. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete. No googe search results  🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 19:02, 18 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).

Mr. Precision[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25#Mr. Precision

Current running thread[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 23:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target section or anchor is no longer present in the target article. In addition, without a mention, this redirect seems to be overly WP:PRECISE (Specifically, with the use of the phrase "current running") to a point where it no longer describes the subject of the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 18 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).

Execution abstraction[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 23:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not inherently evident that readers who are searching this redirect are intending to reach or locate the target of this redirect. In the text of the target article, there is the following sentence:

"The threaded programming model provides developers with a useful abstraction of concurrent execution."

...However, that sentence alone does not seem to validate the association between the redirect on the target. In addition, on third-party search engines, there does not seem to be any clearer definition of what these two words together mean, and most search results return results for the phrase "abstraction execution" (words transposed), which also does not seem to represent the subject of the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 18 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).

Thread(computer science)[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 23:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Thread (computer science), is a redirect that targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 18 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).

Thread(computing)[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 23:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Thread (computing), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 18 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).

2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing[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. It took awhile but there is now consensus to delete this following the last relist. -- Tavix (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a bombing but a car accident. This redirect should be removed as it is misleading. There was no bomb or bombing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to the article the facts are leaning to this being a case of reckless driving and also cites an New York Times article stating they so far no explosive devices have been found. I will reconsider if new facts come to light.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this was someone being too hasty in assuming the worst when creating the article. Nthep (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsupported. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a common misnomer - the term that was used in multiple sources before the facts were clear and it's very likely that people will misremember an explosion as a bombing. The article will educate people that there was not a bomb. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perfectly plausible per Thryduulf. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 05:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note AfD. J947 ‡ edits 00:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Totally an erroneous description of the event, but might reasonably be searched, and it would be good to link to the article on what actually happened. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Red-tailed hawk. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I appreciate the redirect-from-incorrect-name, now with the benefit of hindsight, the rush to call it a "bombing" was a short-term aberration. I see little reason to believe this will be a lasting plausible search term for this event. Especially since entering "2023 Rainbow Bridge" in the search area, if autocomplete will added, will already highlight the correct entry. Therefore it is merely misleading and unhelpful. Martinp (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Autocomplete is only available for a few of the many ways people use to find Wikipedia content. While it might have been an "aberration" to call it a bombing, it's far from implausible that people will misremember it as such. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to snark, genuinely seeking to be informed: Of those other ways, in which ones will someone plausibly fall onto the specific combination "2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing" in particular (and in that order), as more likely than "...explosion" or the equally incorrect "...terrorist attack"? And as opposed to confusedly searching and eventually ending up in our "Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls)" article, which is a pretty good place to get educated? It just seems strange that of many different potential descriptors for this unfortunate event, we're proposing to keep around one blatantly (in retrospect) incorrect one, which seems equally semi-plausible as a confused search term as other more and less correct ones. Martinp (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A brief search in the news for Rainbow Bridge still brought up several headlines/titles referring to the "bombing", so I'd keep the redirect. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did an experiment. I did a Google search for "rainbow bridge niagara" looking only at News, and classified the first 3 pages of hits according to what label they used in the article title. First I did it while logged in, in Canada. Then I logged out, used incognito mode, and used a US VPN. For the Canadian experiment, I saw the following labels: crash 10, explosion 9, blast 5. For the US experiment: explosion 10, crash 8, blast 2. "Bombing" did not ever appear in the title in the 1st 3 pages of hits in either case (I didn't check any further). While results may vary based on what else Google knows about you, and "in the title in the first 3 pages of hits" is not a perfect metric, and Google is not the be-all and end-all, the absence of "bombing" being part of the title at all confirms my impression that its use was a short-term aberration. Martinp (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak to Google Search, but DuckDuckGo's news-search tab brought up a few then and now (a new search hit Daily Mirror, RealClearPolitics, and Manchester Evening News). I don't mean imply "bombing" is still being used, but I think it was prominent enough in the beginning to make this redirect a cheap assist for a reader or external-linker who read those early reports. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless you want Wikipedia to actively spread conspiracy theories. When was the bridge bombed? Before or after the explosion? The top result on Google is this redirect. That's "original research" by Wikipedians. Is X a reliable source for information about this bombing? At least KISS has performed their final concert, so the threat has ended. Just found a source for the Bomb, though that might require disambiguation. Did you know that the Bomb was made of mineral-rich sea salts, which work to detoxify the Internet? This pseudo-reliable report calls it a car bomb explosion; do we have that covered so that people searching for the car bomb will find it? What about the suicide bomb attack? Any updates on that since November 22? There was No initial indication of bomb in car at Niagara Falls explosion so I don't understand why people would be credibly searching for that? Was there any pre-initial indication of bomb? wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The AfD for 2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion resulted in merge so if this results in a keep it would target Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls)#2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion and should have {{A2r|2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion}} placed on it. TartarTorte 15:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Martinp. Media may provide misleading headlines and reports the first few hours after an event. It doesn't mean Wikipedia retain similar titles assuming long-term significance. Jay 💬 07:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't mean Wikipedia has to, but it equally does not mean Wikipedia can't. In this case the evidence I see is that this remains a likely search term for people who have misremembered the nature of the event and so should remain as a {{R from incorrect name}}. We do not require people to know the details of the subject they want to learn about before they are allowed to find our article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Martinp and nom. signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The relist allows us to track evolution over time here. I've just re-checked with Google News search. Prompted with 'rainbow bridge', it gives me (in Canada) 96 hits, of which none uses "bombing" in the title (and 2 refer to a different Rainbow Bridge); they use the terminology "explosion", "blast", "crash", "accident" instead (though this may be editing after initial release, of course). A pure (not news-specific) Google search for 'rainbow bridge "bombing"' (the double quotes to force inclusion) silently shifts to finding and highlighting the word "explosion" in lieu of "bombing". The only hits in the 1st 2 pages with the word "bombing" actually in the text are a) this very Wikipedia redirect, and b) a Newsweek article that itself uses the word "explosion" but has embedded a Nov 22 tweet from BNO News that does use the word "bombing". Arguably, this factbase provides evidence in support of both keeping and deleting this redirect. It supports keeping as it documents Google is in effect redirecting behind the scenes in spite of news agencies editing their reporting. It also supports delete (my vote above) in that lasting mention of "bombing" is disappearing, and in fact it is Wikipedia itself, via this redirect, that is the sole meaningful public user of the word "bombing" remaining. Martinp (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Gaza bombing a red link? Gaza Strip bombing? Gaza City bombing? I heard that Israel was bombing Gaza, but searching for it just gets me that nothing. We're not helping the readers find it. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's well-documented by users here that it was described initially as a bombing. Is a redirect to correct that error and redirect people to what actually happened so very expensive? I'm also struggling to understand how correcting this mistake can possibly be described as "actively spread[ing] conspiracy theories", or why this redirect to the truth featuring prominently in Google search results for the term is somehow a bad thing. 92.30.149.54 (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term "bombing" appears nowhere in the target. If it being erroneously thought of as a bombing is significant enough to deserve a redirect, then it is significant enough to mention there, and the inverse applies too. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Martinp and Jay. This makes increasingly less sense as time goes on. I'm generally fairly open to keeping such misnomers if there's any hint of ambiguity, or even conspiracy theory, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article says it was suspected to be a terrorist attack, and it could mean that it was believed to be a car-ramming attack without a bomb, and it does not mention the term "bombing". A car is not a bomb. A car can explode without there being a bomb. "Bombing" is not synonymos with "explosion". It is original speculation and fuzzy thinking to infer a bomb from an explosion. There is a reason the article doens't mention a bombing, it's borderline nonsense. No mention, no redirect.—Alalch E. 09:59, 11 January 2024 (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).

Template:Cit book[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 10:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "cite" can and should be easily spelled out, and keeps editors more liable for their edits doing so. If there is a mistake in the format while creating a citation, it gets shown during the preview. This was also never intended as a shortcut for "cite book", and the retarget happened as a result of a Templates for discussion outcome, where an editor had created a set of different citation templates, and used this name to avoid conflict. Delete similar to a recently concluded RfD for Template:Cit web from where I have paraphrased most arguments. Jay 💬 08:14, 18 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).

Tank Girl (2020 film)[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 under CSD G7. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected Tank Girl (2020 film) to the relevant section at Tank Girl (film) as there was a wealth of media coverage on the film's reboot in 2019 and a release the following year looked likely. However, production was put on hold due to the pandemic and does not appear to have resumed. Each year I moved the redirect to Tank Girl (2021 film), Tank Girl (2022 film) and Tank Girl (2023 film), however, production has still not resumed. I feel a bit embarrassed about this now and propose they all be deleted. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note the redirects have not been tagged, I don't have time to fix this myself right now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: This has now been resolved. 14:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The general way discussions about redirects like this go is that they are kept if it is reasonably likely that someone will look for them under the wrong year, or deleted if this is unlikely. Most commonly the reason for looking under the wrong year will be because of references in contemporary publications or discussions (e.g. there was publicity or news articles stating or implying that the film would be released in a given year). I haven't got time at the moment to look into this, but from the nomination statement it seems likely that at least 2020 will be a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks as though each of these redirects is eligible for speedy deletion via criterion G7. @Thryduulf: Do you have any reservations about this? Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: Having looked at what sourcing I can find, I've not seen anything that convinces me people are likely to look for the film under any of these titles. Evidence to contrary could convince me otherwise, but as it stands I have no justification for standing in the way of a G7 if that is what Damien Linnane wants. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think any of the links will be helpful. There was a lot of talk about the film being in development in 2019 so I thought the chance it would come out in 2020 was high, but I don't think there's any chance people will be searching under that title now. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:13, 19 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]

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 Airbus Group, Inc.. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Airbus Group, Inc. per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I did this manually, but was immediately reverted because "The parent company was known as Airbus Group from 2014–2017". But a name that was used by the broader organization for only three years is clearly not the primary meaning, when the operation by this name has been spun off into a specific subsidary. While I added a long-missing {{Redirect|Airbus Group|...}} hatnote at Airbus that points to Airbus Group, Inc., this is still unnecessarily confusing for readers. The redirect should obviously go to the company that currently has this name, and the fact that it briefly formerly referred to the parent company should be dealt with using a hatnote at that article. Really, the article presently at Airbus Group, Inc. should probably be at Airbus Group as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that can be dealt with later by WP:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the subsidiary using this name wouldn't be misleading, as long as it has a disambiguation hatnote on it. That's what they're for. Even the current situation isn't "misleading", it's just confusing, because the name in the present day (and for some time now) pertains specifically and only to a particular notable company, but we're instead sending readers to dig around in the article on the parent corporation for buried historical trivia relating to a very temporary name change. This kind of thing comes up all the time in the publishing industry, with particular "imprints" being merged into bigger publishing companies and then sold off to other corporations, sometimes only partially (e.g. with both companies keeping a "Foo" imprint but one of them called "Foo Books" and another "Foo Publishing", or whatever. It's important that the "Foo Books" name go to the present-day information (either a stand-alone or a section), not to the page of some temporary former corporate owner, or readers have no idea what is going on. The article on the present-day entity needs to and generally does summarize the history.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Very temporary" is three years, only six years ago; there is Special:WhatLinksHere/Airbus Group, and current use in https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v8wgt, https://www.weforum.org/organizations/airbus/ and others. Peter James (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. @InterstellarGamer12321, Thryduulf, and SouthParkFan2006: opinions on disambigation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. This seems clearly the sensible thing to do given that the entities are closely related and (over time) forming part of the same corporate history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 18 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).

Test seat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25#Test seat

Mandarin Publishing[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. Can be restored if a mention is added. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 05:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Seems reasonably likely to be a subsidiary or imprint or RH or of something that RH absorbed, but it's not covered there now, so the redirect is just confusing. It's tagged with {{R with possibilities}} as if someone thinks it may be independently notable, but whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A couple of sites suggest this was an imprint of RH at some point, but there isn't anything really citable from an RS to add a mention. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:55, 18 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]

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. Jay 💬 13:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly specific and clunky redirect, the text doesn't show up in the target article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless and unambiguous. This will help someone who can't remember the name of the article to find it either directly or by search engines finding when asked for similar search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This appears to be a clunkier version of Fire ever burning created by the same user, but this phrasing as a strangely constructed sentence makes this title unnatural and seemingly impossible to intentionally search for, much less an expectation to end up at this article. Its existence as a command to "never let [the fire] be extinguished" makes little to no sense (due to no parts of the text making mention of this title anything close to verbatim). It's not an equivalent phrase to the target by any means, in my eyes. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Weird but harmless. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not harmless. I came across this from someone wrongly linking it in an entirely irrelevant context, if you really think this is a valid redirect I'm not really sure what to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just a plain wrong use of links. Any redirect can be used incorrectly, that doesn't make them bad redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Eternal flame (disambiguation). As Thryduulf noted, this could help those who can't remember the name, and it will provide a breadth of options related to the idea. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the DAB page per Significa liberdade. It's weird by not harmful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, clunkiness is not the potential problem here; I'm not sure the target really fits what the redirect is claiming. If this were fire never extinguished or something along those lines, it'd be a keep, but this phrasing implies that there is a necessity to keep it going, which is not necessarily the case (even for intentional eternal flames). Is there a good section to retarget to? I'd say weak delete for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 18 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 25#Centaur (chess)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_18&oldid=1195701220"