Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2023.

Katara (cultural village)[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. Withdrawn due to lack of support after a full period of discussion. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 00:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely useless as a search term due to Katara and Katara Cultural Village, and implausible because of the disambiguator; the disambiguator is also wrong – Wikipedia doesn't think that this is a cultural village (not a village in the first place), it's a commercial and cultural district of Doha. —Alalch E. 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an unambiguous if slightly implausible search term. I think given that the term Katara is ambiguous it's reasonable for someone to search for it this way. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by the second half of the nomination, Wikipedia doesn't "think" anything but certainly the current title being Katara Cultural Village and the lede mentioning "cultural and commercial complex" seems to be in line with this disambiguator being reasonable. A7V2 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really a terrible disambiguator. "Cultural village" in this context is a non-neutral buzzword, and a form of culture-washing.[1] Anyone who thinks that they need to type something beside Katara will not type a parenthesis, they will simply add cultural village, or will perhaps search by Katara Qatar, Katara Doha, etc. —Alalch E. 15:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. I don't think the concerns raised by Alalch E. regarding culture-washing are persuasive vis-a-vis this redirect's suitability; if "Katara Cultural Village" is the proper name of the topic, this is a plausible alternate formulation. The role that this commercial district plays in Qatar's international PR ventures is tangential to whether someone might search for the topic this way. signed, Rosguill talk 22:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox book redirect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Template:Infobox book redirect

Sneaker (computer security)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Sneaker (computer security)

Template:Doctorwhoaudiobook[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. There's some page move history that explains why this was created, but there's no need to preserve the history for attribution. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and pointless redirect. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Jessé) (singer)[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. FWIW, I would have accepted this as R3 had I come across the CSD tag. signed, Rosguill talk 22:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Page was created and subsequently moved by the author Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpeedySlowly delete per CSD R3 (I've tagged it); it's perfectly ok to delete, as it's just from a pagemove. Duckmather (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC); amended 02:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: the R3 tag was rejected by User:BangJan1999 on the grounds Not 100% implausible. Let the RfD decide its fate. I still think that this redirect should be deleted as an unnatural modification; we don't need redirects like Graph) (mathematics) or Word) (language). Duckmather (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Constance Marten[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 18:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This entry for a person currently in the news was created as redirect to the Wikipedia article about her deceased grandmother "for now", but this target article didn't mention Constance Marten at the time, hasn't since, and may never. That her granddaughter is currently being sought by the police is presumably considered inappropriate as a minor biographical detail. Belbury (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect to discourage others from starting an article, or should someone do so, then I could pick it up on my watchlist and turn it back into a redirect. Edwardx (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned. I doubt mention is justified. Given that this person is in the news that is all the more reason not to have a redirect to an article without any information about the person as that just leads to disappointed or mislead searchers. Edwardx you can watchlist redlinks or deleted articles, if that is a concern. An inappropriate redirect is not the solution to an inappropriate article. A7V2 (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, A7V2. That seems a reasonable solution. Edwardx (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Commodity operating systems[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Commodity operating systems

Terror Train (movie)[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 18:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed ★Trekker (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bharti surname[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Bharti surname

Brian O'Conner/archive[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 history merge to Brian O'Conner and delete the redirect.. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another merge-and-then-resplit. Has overlapping content, so histmerge to Brian O'Conner without redirect, discarding the edits since Oct. '09. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure about this so i would say delete. 174.27.66.83 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausable search term, and [article]/archive style redirects are usually deleted anyway. Someone-123-321 (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot delete this as it has history that was merged to another article. A histmerge-without-redirect would have the same effect of removing the redirect; is there a reason you are opposed to that, Someone-123-321? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
facepalm: Self reminder to check the history.Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: This was moved to the archive to make way for the independently created Brian O'Conner (Character) to be moved in under the main article's title. I don't see where a merge or a split, if any, happened, but I agree with the overlap. The target article was itself made a redirect, and the split that happened per Talk:List of Fast & Furious characters#Split only restored the target's pre-redirect content. Jay 💬 14:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and AfD to see if there is anything that can be merged to the target. Jay 💬 08:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Why would AfD be needed for that? Any editor can merge content from a parallel version of an article, past or present, no discussion needed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone can merge. The AfD is to decide if the page is to be deleted or does it have something that can be merged. Jay 💬 07:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge without redirect: per nom. This page is not helpful as a redirect, but it does have content that should be history merged into Brian O'Conner. TartarTorte 13:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing a very old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Tom van Vollenhoven Cup[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Tom van Vollenhoven Cup

Vallavanukku Vallavan (2016 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Vallavanukku Vallavan (2016 film)

List of 2023 box office number-one films in South Korea[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. I'll also be deleting the similar redirects named in the last comment. --BDD (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect needs to be expanded into article as it constitutes list for 2023. The criteria applicable for deletion is R10 as follows: If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Rickyurs (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep temporarily as 2023 is beginning to approach shortly, henceforth that the South Korean #1 box office list is to be kept whether expanded or not. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 00:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom as the redirect was created rather prematurely. Without prejudice to recreating the list article at a later date. CycloneYoris talk! 22:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The first entry to this article is due on January 8, being the first week end of the year 2023. It is right time to delete the redirect. Rickyurs (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and overwrite with an article tomorrow. Deletion is not required and will not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of South Korean films of 2023#Box office until we have enough content for expansion. Jay 💬 12:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Situation has changed since last relist, with the first South Korean releases of 2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Reference necessary[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 Redirect non-ambiguous English titles to Template:Citation needed, delete others. Thanks to TartarTorte for carrying out the AWB cleanup. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why those should not redirect to Template:Citation needed. Veverve (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because it would break their current usage. Not all of these are used, but {{Refnec}} is, and some of the others are used once or twice. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid reason to keep redirects as they are, specifically per TartarTorte's comment/method, which I have done several times myself. The discussion would get closed, and then if the redirects are to be deleted or retargeted, their transclusions would be bypassed and replaced with the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have an opinion on keep vs. retarget, but I will note using AWB if the decision was made to retarget the uses of these templates could be replaced by {{citation needed span}} before the retarget happens. I have done that a time or two before for other similar scenarios, so if the decision is made that way, feel free to ping and I can do the replacements. TartarTorte 16:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget or delete as proposed by Steel1943, except that the French-language redirect should be deleted per FORRED. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipedia:Presumed consensus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9#Wikipedia:Presumed consensus

Hydra Siberian Facility[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 most, no consensus on Hydra Siberian Facility with 1 keep and 1 redirect !vote opposed to the 3 delete-alls. There is disagreement on whether the HSF redirect could serve a useful purpose. For the deleted Captain America and Maveth redirects, near-unanimous support bolstered by valid arguments outweighs the also-valid keep rationale. Consensus is unanimous for Asgardian actors and Warsong (Marvel Cinematic Universe). signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These used to point to sections on Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but those sections have since be removed due to notability and WP:FANCRUFT/WP:LISTCRUFT concerns. The current targets no longer mention the redirect title, so the redirects are useless per WP:RDELETE#D8. All incoming links have been removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Hydra Siberian Facility is mentioned at the target, against Avengers Civil War which is a redirect to Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Civil War which would be a better target.
  2. Maveth (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. planet) - retarget to Maveth
  3. Captain America Exhibit - refine to Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Marketing which mentions a Smithsonian-type exhibit showing Captain America and the Howling Commandos from Captain America: The First Avenger.
  4. Captain America Museum Exhibit - same as Captain America Exhibit
  5. Asgardian actors - retarget to Species of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Asgardians which is the same target as Asgardians (Marvel Cinematic Universe) retarget to Asgardians (Marvel Comics)#Other media or delete
  6. Warsong (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - delete
Jay 💬 17:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: What purpose would these redirects serve? How would they be helpful to readers or benefit them in any way? It is highly, highly unlikely for anyone to search for these terms, and the redirects will never be used as bluelinks. Understand that these are in reference to trivial places, events, and things that appeared in one or two scenes of a movie. The sole purpose of the redirects was so we could bluelink to their sections on the Features list article, but that is no longer a fuctionality. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were initially used to link to their section titles, but now they have to be discussed on the the merits of their own titles. I agree [1] is trivial. In [5], I'm not sure who "actors" refer to. Jay 💬 05:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is the name of the fictional place where Iron Man and Captain America fought for about ten minutes in Captain America: Civil War. [2] is a fictional planet that appeared in two episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. [3] and [4] refer to a fictional Smithsonian exhibit that was in ten minutes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier and five minutes of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. [5] refers to a group of fictional actors who have three-minute cameos in Thor: Ragnarok and Thor: Love and Thunder. [6] is a winged horse that shows up for 30 seconds in Avengers: Endgame and a couple minutes of Thor: Love and Thunder. As you can see, all trivial and minor objects whose redirects' sole purpose was for linking. We don't go around creating redirects to every item and place that pops up in a movie for no reason. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggested target for [2] is the title of the episode that takes its name from the planet. The planet may be fictional, but filming for for the planet was real as mentioned at Maveth#Filming. [3] and [4] wee also the actual booths during the Comic Con as mentioned in my suggested target. Thanks for clarifying [5], I have struck off the earlier, but am fine with delete also for that. Jay 💬 07:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to reiterate: What purpose would these redirects serve? How would they be helpful to readers or benefit them in any way? To aid searching? No, not likely. To be used as bluelinks? Probably not. For accidental linking? No, these aren't plausible alternate names of any article. To avoid leaving behind redlinks? All incoming links have been removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for searching. These used to be sections once and are now reduced to mentions. Why do you think readers will stop looking these up? Jay 💬 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're trivial, which was the whole reason they were taken off the list in the first place. Readers will not be looking for these terms on Wikipedia, there's an MCU fan wiki on Fandom for that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a favourable outcome of this RfD, you may have to rephrase the nomination, which is all about the targets - deleted sections, no mentions (which I showed is incorrect for one), WP:RD#8, and which is why I brought up alternate targets. Now that you looking back at the redirect titles - triviality and searchability, the discussion will change to page views, what readers are looking for etc., not just for me, but also other participants of this discussion. Jay 💬 06:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews would be misleading, because these redirects used to be linked on several articles for navigation to the list article (until Cewbot notified us of the broken anchors). But even in the unlikely event that readers continue to search for these terms, they wouldn't find the information that they would be looking for. For instance, if they were looking for the fictional Smithsonian exhibit about Captain America, they end up with ... In addition, Marvel had booths depicting a Smithsonian-type exhibit showing Captain America and the Howling Commandos from Captain America: The First Avenger. That tells them nothing about the fictional exhibit, just something about a promotional booth at Comic-Con, so a redirect would not be helpful. Maveth (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. planet) is just as unhelpful, (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) is an unnecessary and nonstandard disambiguation that readers are unlikely to type into the search bar. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lengthy argument has not received follow-up commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. All are trivial redirects with not much importance or room worth of expansion in any of the articles they are discussed, especially since we want to avoid filling Wikipedia with in-universe details. To note: I did create the Asgardian actors redirect. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Hydra Siberian Facility to Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Civil War. If someone is searching for this they would be directed to the film that has this as a setting and can learn a little bit more about the facility in the context of the film. I agree it's not much, but do feel it's better than not having a redirect at all. Delete the rest. I also couldn't find anything for Warsong in the context of the MCU, Asgardian actors is too vague, the Captain America exhibit redirects are ambiguous—there is also an in-universe museum exhibit as mentioned at Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Legacy and this is not significant enough to disambiguate. Finally, I do not think Maveth (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. planet) is a plausible search term. Anyone looking for the planet would simply type Maveth and get the information at the episode page. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wanderlust (Bjoerk)[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 23:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this recent discussion: [2]. "Bjoerk" has been determined to be an unlikely misspelling of the musician's name, and according to the participants in that discussion, many old redirects assuming this misspelling need to be cleaned up. Several have been bundled into this nomination. Also note that several of these, such as "Debut (Bjoerk)", don't follow article naming conventions even if the misspelling were valid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, unlikely misspelling. What about Bjoerk itself? It is just as unlikely. Muhandes (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also in that previous discussion at [3], you will see that the simple "Bjoerk" pointing to the musician's article has a much more complex redirect history. I'm in favor of whacking that one too, but will let this present conversation run its course. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I do not see how this is an unlikely misspelling. It is plausible based on the phonetic pronunciation of the artist's name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all consistent with the previous RfD, as unlikely search terms. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

3D art[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. Numerically, the split between disambiguate and delete votes is about equal (one more disambiguate than delete). However, most delete votes favored this outcome because the redirects are considered ambiguous, for which disambiguation is a reasonable alternative (and the favored outcome of one person who voted delete). Importantly, votes in favor of disambiguation increased over the course of the discussion, with everyone voting after the creation of a draft disambiguation page favoring that outcome. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not the only subject which could be considered "3D art". For example, "3D art" can also be created as a result of 3D printing, or even forms of art that do not require the use of technology. Steel1943 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify this can refer to many things like 3D painting, 3D modelling, and even sculptures. It is very ambigous right now RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 12:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate this term and retarget Three dimensional art (which currently redirects to Sculpture) to the disambiguation page. It doesn't make sense to WP:ASTONISH readers looking for 3-D art by redirecting them to a specific form. I'll also be adding the fully worded term to the discussion. Seed of コスモ (alternative account of Sonic678) 20:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both unless someone can come up with an acceptable dab draft. This should be a broad concept article. There is also Three-dimensional art which redirects to Sculpture which may be bundled here. Note that 3D artist and 3D Artist redirect to 3D modeling. Jay 💬 11:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'd forgotten to tag the "Three dimensional art" when I tagged it, so I'm tagging it here. I hope that'll help. Regards, SONIC678 03:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm Don't let's forget folks that 3D computer graphics only look 3D; they normally just appear on a screen in 2D. In art history any art that actually is physically 3D falls under sculpture, whether from a 3D printer etc or not. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sculpture I am convinced by Johnbod's argument that sculpture is broad enough to encompass all physically three-dimensional artwork, and that 3D computer graphics are actually 2D. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if these things are technically true, that doesn't make redirects based on such considerations helpful helpful for casual readers who aren't necessarily thinking about strict definitions. Many things are commonly called "3d" even if they don't physically have 3 dimensions, such as 3D films. – Scyrme (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - while Johnbod is technically correct, I expect that the average reader will not be searching Sculpture in this way, and would much more likely be looking for one of the several other meanings identified in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The world around us is 3D, but we don't use the term to retrofit our world. Physicists may describe the world in dimensions, but do classical sculptors refer to their work as 3D, or does anyone? Jay 💬 07:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify? Deletion of 3D art should be off the table, as that term is a widely used term for art created using 3D computer graphics (examples: [4] [5]). The argument that this sort of art is not 3D and that sculpture is actually really 3D has the same technical truthiness and pragmatic irrelevance as the argument that tomatoes, being botanically fruits, shouldn't be found in the vegetable aisle. However, there is another usage of this term (and especially of the spelled-out variant) to refer to any art that's not a flat painting. That usage is not restricted to sculpture though, and may apply to architecture, installation art, origami, and many of the various decorative arts. I can't see a good target for this meaning, so this would most easily be resolved with a dab page at Three-dimensional art (with one entry for that definition and another for the computer graphics). I'd retarget 3D art there, mostly to avoid the need for a clumsy hatnote. There's a third meaning of the term as well: for drawing/painting in way that's photorealistic (examples [6] examples), but I'm not sure if we should be creating navigation for that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that drawings/paintings that appear 3d don't necessarily have to be photorealistic. Stereoscopy and anamorphosis can be used to create an illusion of "3-dimensional" depth. – Scyrme (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few people have suggested disambiguation now. It might help to draft a disambiguation page at one of the redirects; it would make it clearer as to what exactly is being proposed, and allow editors to amend the draft to improve the proposal if needed. – Scyrme (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thrown together a tentative dab page at Three-dimensional art. It could do with more eyes to make sure the language is precise. – Uanfala (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. I took a look at this last week and was leaning towards disambiguate for the same reasons that Uanfala lays out, but was struggling with how to go about that without simply listing examples of 3D art. Uanfala's draft overcomes my worry (along with being a great example of an exception to the MOS:DABBLUE rule!) -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. I would also suggest adding autostereogram to the dab page. A7V2 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pragmatic atheism[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, nor does the targeted section exist, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Also, when this redirect was originally created in 2008, it targeted Apatheism, but the redirect doesn't seem to be mentioned there either. In addition, in 2016, the redirect was overwritten with an article, but existed for only a day before the article was subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This only mentions of this on Wikipedia are Practical atheism and List of converts to Christianity from nontheism. Neither defines the term. The latter is a brief entry on Giovanni Papini, apparently referring his philosophical pragmatism; it could be editorial synthesis (perhaps an attempt at concisely summarising his views), as it's not clear that Papini's pragmatism and atheism were necessarily connected (many notable pragmatists, such as C.S. Pierce, believed in God; similarly, atheists don't necessarily espouse pragmatism in a formal philosophical sense). It's not clear if the former is also simply a reference to pragmatism. This seems like a case of WP:REDYES.
It could also be a case of WP:NEO; a brief search gives largely social media and forums like Quora (the snippet of which actually reads: "there is no such thing as “pragmatic” atheism".). RationalWiki states that "pragmatic atheism" is "sometimes equated" with weak atheism, suggesting that one is a synonym for the other preferred by some people, although even this is unclear - the phrasing suggests that some people use it differently, but doesn't specify how.
The former, Practical atheism explicitly distinguishes "pragmatic" and "practical" atheism, stating that it is a mistake to equate them, but this is unreferenced. I found an online source that actually contradicts this. If this redirect is not deleted my second preference is retarget to practical atheism.
tl;dr: WP:REDYES applies here; WP:NEO may also apply. – Scyrme (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is mentioned at List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater, where it quotes The Daily Telegraph but only in a footnote; the quote doesn't define the term, but it may plausibly have been used as a synonym for "practical atheism". I'd recommend the same: delete with second preference for retargeting to practical atheism. – Scyrme (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both, to Practical atheism. Reasonable alternative search terms (regardless of unsourced claim at new target that they can be distinguished). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mention of pragmatic atheism was added to the lead of Practical atheism by an editor who wrote the same one-day pre-BLAR stub at Pragmatic atheism mentioned in the nomination. At the stub however, he had used the word "related" and not "mistaken", and sourced it to an about.com (now thoughtco.com) freelance writng piece which said .. there is a lot of overlap with apatheists and practical atheists. It is the same writing piece (now enhanced) that is now referenced at the lead of Practical atheism. So I have just moved the citation across, and replaced "mistaken" with "overlap". Just for reference, the piece now says The main difference between pragmatic atheists and practical atheists is that a pragmatic atheist has considered their position and adopted it philosophical reasons; the practical atheist seems to adopt it simply because it's easiest. Jay 💬 06:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for doing that. Even with that change, I still think that retargeting both redirects to Practical atheism is the correct outcome here, for the same reason as before: they are both plausible navigation terms, regardless of whether one gets to the target via a synonym or an antonym. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Recent change since previous relist needs new fresh assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Scyrme. If the reader wants to know about practical atheism, he'll search for that. A reader looking for pragmatic atheism will want to know the specifics, or at the least how it differs from other types, and the practical atheism page doesn't help provide any information. Jay 💬 10:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Misc Christianity redirects[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 Impact Of Christianity On Civilization to Role of Christianity in civilization. Not much of a consensus due to improper capitalization concerns, but I do not see consensus for deletion of this one. Delete Christianty Impact On Civilization due to the misspelling + miscapitalization. No consensus for Militant Christianity, plenty of options have been suggested but there has not been settlement on one of the options (yet). This is with no prejudice against individual renomination so that discussion can resume. -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget, but having these point directly to Christianity is not helpful. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a redirect to Role of Christianity in civilization instead? Same info. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are three suggested targets for Militant Christianity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split discussion for Militant Christianity; it doesn't have much in common with the other two, so it's odd to lump them together. I think a separate discussion is warranted. (If it is split off, I'd appreciate if someone would post a link to it here.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Impact redirects and table Militant Christianity for further discussion per Scyrme. signed, Rosguill talk 03:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Christian church directory of the United States[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 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a "directory" of any sort in the target article. In addition, this title was an article for about a week in 2008 prior to being subject to a WP:BLAR that resulted in this title targeting List of Christian denominations ... then three months later (in 2008), the redirect was retargeted to its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the present page that seems closest to both the title and apparent intent is Template:Christian denominations in the United States. As a reader-facing template (it's a sidebar template) there wouldn't be any issues with a mainspace redirect targetting it if there is no better target in mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Freddy Silva & Lucy Pringle[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 💬 11:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names not mentioned at target article, nor do they have any apparent connection whatsoever to their target. CycloneYoris talk! 01:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned and the creating editor's talk page shows they were blocked, in part, due to their tendency to create pages that made sense to them alone. Slywriter (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These two individuals are authors who have written on crop circles. They aren't mentioned at the target and could possibly be notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pogram[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 💬 12:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an obvious misspelling. Hildeoc (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ambiguous, could also be a misspelling for Program. CycloneYoris talk! 01:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. It can be a misspelling of at least two articles --Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an ambiguous misspelling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: too vague. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The way the word is pronounced by some leads to this being a reasonable redirect. It gets quite a bit of usage with ~3 hits/day over 2022. It sees like if there is ambiguity that could be handled with a hatnote at Pogrom. TartarTorte 15:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think mistakes warrant disambiguation and a hatnote for a misspelling seems like an odd solution. While this is a plausible mistake, it could just as easily be a misspelling for "program" and is actually (intentionally) used as such at The Micallef P(r)ogram(me). – Scyrme (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ambiguous misspelling = delete to allow search results to be more helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_24&oldid=1142128919"