Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2023.

Sky Kids[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 and retarget.

This redirect should be turned into a DAB page with 3 entries that are already on the hatnote of the current target. (Sky Kids (TV channel), The Flyboys (film), and also the current target and Sky Kid in See also) From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:36, 25 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).

SQUIDWARD[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! 21:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar page with the same spelling but with two exclamation marks after it was deleted per a previous deletion discussion. Nothing notable about this capitalization, other than the fact that Mr. Krabs yells Squidward's name in some episodes. WP:COSTLY redirect. Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually, it's WP:CHEAP, especially considering Squidward also targets Squidward Tentacles, which in effect means the nominated redirect is de facto not ambiguous. No harm here with this redirect. (Also, I was the nominator of the discussion for SQUIDWARD!!, and the situation with that redirect was different; the exclamation points, in addition to Squidward!! not existing, made that redirect WP:COSTLY and unlikely.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943 and mark as an {{R avoided double redirect}} of Squidward. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. I'll also note that the current target's common name is almost certainly just Squidward, and the inclusion of the "surname" in the redirect seems very much like WP:FANCRUFT (or whatever the title equivalent is). A7V2 (talk) 07:48, 30 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:Gd[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 7#Template:Gd

Wikipedia:Signpost/Quick Start[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. While there is some merit in the keep argument that there is potential for harm, the harm would be limited to an obscure part of project space, and deletion would apparently be beneficial to the organization of the Signpost, according to the EIC. If there is an issue, undeletion is always possible. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion. jp×g 00:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP WP:RHARMFUL. This nomination is a possible solution in search of a problem, especially the redirect is a {{R from move}}, doesn't qualify for {{Db-subpage}}, is in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (which is not as stringent on page titles as the article space), and has existed for nearly a decade. Deletion has the potential to create more harm than good. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed from WP:CHEAP to WP:RHARMFUL per the comments below, and since it falls more in line with my stance on this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates is a zoo which I have been trying to clean up for weeks. The reason I am doing this on my own is because there are basically no other Signpost maintainers: everyone else who's tried to make sense of how this extremely baroque system of templates works has gotten exhausted and quit. I am not psychic, so I can't say why for sure, but my guess is because it is impossible to figure out how the template system works. It is not documented anywhere. The only option is to go through about a half-dozen different PrefixIndexes for completely random variations on template prefixes. Within these prefixindexes, it is furthermore basically impossible (without opening every single one and checking WLH individually) which templates are in use by current processes, which of them are deprecated, which of them were intended to be used and never implemented, and which of them exist solely because of typos made during the process of creating the template. Here, I am trying to get rid of only the last category, redirects at error titles with no incoming links. For example, you can see a bunch of redirects listed here under Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:. This is not how any actual Signpost templates are formatted: they are either supposed to be at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/ or Template:Signpost/, and sometimes at Wikipedia:Signpost/Templates/. There are literally no pages that invoke these misnamed redirects, and they should never have existed. It is completely inconceivable to me that anyone who is writing internal Signpost templates would decide to randomly start moving them between Signpost/Template:, Signpost/Templates/, Wikipedia Signpost/Template:, and Wikipedia Signpost/Templates prefixes, which is the only situation in which these redirects would ever have incoming links. What is the envisioned use case for them? jp×g 03:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Suggestion-featured, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet/temp, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start-end all closed as delete. jp×g 05:45, 26 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 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • JPxG, Steel1943, I'm not sure what the full backstory of Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion. is, but given that these discussion all have the same copy-pasted rationale and !vote, could we at least merge them together into a single discussion? signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: By all means, go for it. (I wasn't a fan of having to copy/paste my response a bunch of times ...and change a word or two when applicable ... anyways.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And if only one of my comments are kept in tact, please leave my version of the comment that contains the word "nearly" instead of "over" so it makes sense for all of the redirects. (That version is in the discussion I'm posting this comment in [before any merges occur].) Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JPxG: As someone who has attempted to clean up redirects (as well as subpages with parent page that were never updated) in the "Wikipedia:" namespace before for weeks on end (seriously, I forget what year I did a bunch of cleanup, but I was at it for almost a month ... such as getting all pages that began with "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" moved to properly renamed WP:XFD titles), I commend your efforts to attempt to get this quest further done as you have been trying. However, this is one of those cases where these redirects have some potential historical value due to their age. My rule of thumb in all of this with everything I've discovered is if the redirect does not qualify for {{Db-subpage}} or is not the result of an editor mistakenly using the "Wikipedia:" namespace instead of the intended namespace (you may be surprised how many editors mistakenly use the "Wikipedia:" namespace instead of the "Draft:" namespace to create new article drafts), then it is probably better to remain instead of being deleted. These redirects do not fall under either one of my aforementioned situations, so I am under the belief that their deletion will cause more harm than good. (However, with all this being said, I'm in no position or have time to adequately validate that these redirects are targeting the most applicable page; there may be some rationale to retarget some of these if a more applicable page exists, but again per what I said, deletion should really not be an option here.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I agree with you on preserving historical pages. For example, I have been keeping almost all of the unused Signpost pages from 2005 in a kind of special museum, and have been fixing all the pages from 2005 to make them actually readable. For these pages, though, I don't think that any such historical record exists: the history for Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-block-end-v2 has only a single revision from 2017 when the redirect was created. The whole source text was generated automatically by a script, as well as the edit summary TheDJ moved page Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-block-end-v2 to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2: align with naming conventions. jp×g 21:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No incoming links and the group and individual that work on the group of pages, deem it to be a burden for maintenance. Since the "cheap" essay above was quoted, I'll counter with WP:COSTLY. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym: Fair enough ... changed to WP:RHARMFUL since I definitely linked the wrong essay precedent. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RDELETE points #1 and #2 are very similar to what jp×g was talking about. Gonnym (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comments above, I disagree either of them apply. Too much potential to break stuff be deleting these redirects. Retargeting to any more applicable page(s) may be an alternative, if that applies. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are unused, nothing will break, and if it somehow does break, we can fix it. But keeping these, we know for 100% that it makes life extremely harder for those that actually use this set of templates. The pros for me outweigh any theoretical cons. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these redirects are over 10 years old, most of which are {{R from move}}s, which makes the claim of calling these are "theoretical cons" less likely. Safest thing here would be to makes sure none of these redirects have incoming links (which apparently has already happened), make sure their new/current targets target pages that do not have the same parent page (which seems to have already happened), and then don't pay these redirects any more mind while retaining their historical integrity for those who may have used/needed these titles in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. No benefit comes from deleting, but there is potential harm from deleting. A7V2 (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find JPxG's arguments that no one will miss these redirects convincing, and would give them more deference as the Signpost EIC as the "leader" of this subspace, like we give users wide latitude to manage their userspace. Legoktm (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are all redirects from moves, without anything else in their history. Almost all of the target pages had spend small periods of time at the redirect's titles (between minutes and weeks), the only exception being Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end/preload (which was the title of the page from 2009 to 2015). Also, these redirects are for various gogs in a, obscure complicated backstage machinery, so compared to the reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia, there's very little need to be careful about breaking external links. So, I don't see any plausible benefit in those redirects. I don't personally see much harm either, but if the editor who's taken up maintaining the whole complicated machinery says that they get in the way, then that's a strong enough reason for me. – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 5 March 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).

Sexual activity[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 04:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a large literature relating to non-human sexual activity, to such an extent that I don't think that Human sexual activity is going to be the primary topic here. I'm unsure if this would be better served as a dab page or with some other resolution, but I don't think the current status makes sense in light of WP:PTOPIC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I don't think article titles need to be "human-centric." The articles about the human brain, human digestive system and human anatomy are specifically about humans, so they include human in the title to avoid confusion. Jarble (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an article on Animal sexual activity at all (we do have Animal sexual behaviour), so perhaps humans are more inclined to assume that sexual activity is more of a human function, and sexual behavior is more of an animal function. BD2412 T 16:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm increasingly thinking this should be a dab between Animal sexual behaviour and human sexual activity, though I'm not wedded to the idea. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main thing that comes to mind here is to retarget to Sex (disambiguation), whose first section (§ Biology and behaviour) disambiguates these two terms and others like Sexual intercourse. As an aside, I've been thinking for a while now that that DAB page should be moved to the base title, and the current article at Sex moved to something like Sex (trait). The vast majority of uses of the word "sex" in common parlance are in reference to some sort of sexual activity, to the extent that the trait called sex is often disambiguated as "biological sex" (a misnomer but oh well). Academic sources meanwhile are decidedly equivocal in their usage of the word. But again, that would need an RM. (Oh also, oppose any move of Human sexual activity to Sexual activity without an RM, since such a proposal failed at RM in 2017. If there's a desire for such a move here, this should be closed as "Refer to RM" rather than "Move".) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting to Sex (disambiguation). We are an encyclopedia for humans, but about everything. Clearly humans are not the only species to have sexual activity. Libcub (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the current target is of interest in many subjects, while the other possible target is mostly only of interest in biology. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current target is clearly the primary topic. Mast303 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards keep in the last few !votes, but still a bit short of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Kusma, the hatnotes are perfect. And also per BD2412 who has differentiated activity and behavior. Sexual behavior also redirects to Human sexual activity, and if we have a separate RfD on that, I'll be willing for a retarget vote. Jay 💬 08:15, 5 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).

List of Jedi survivors of Order 66[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. Legoktm (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list. It would run afoul of our current policies on fancruft. Neither targeted section still exists. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of List of Jedi survivors of Order 66?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert. The content originally here was boldly merged to Great Jedi Purge in 2009, part that article was in turn boldly merged to Clone Wars (Star Wars) by TenTonParasol in 2016, however despite the edit summaries suggesting a full merge only the further reading section seems to have been copied (and that is still present). I recommend reverting to the article content and having a discussion about what, if anything, should be merged and if so what the best place to merge it to should be as I can find no evidence this has happened at any point. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ah, 2016, when I did things less carefully. As far as I can tell, the content is housed between Jedi, Clone Wars (Star Wars) at a more high level summary level, and various The Clone Wars 2008 articles because, well, as the nominator remarks, all this was fancruft and related fannish bloat. I have no opinions either way as to whether a formal discussion should take place. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Another pair of old Star Wars redirects with a complex history, which appears to partly have been due to one of the old Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) policies. The second redirect should be deleted at a minimum due to the capitalization, but I otherwise agree with Thryduulf's opinion on reverting. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, no such list exists. Delete the 2nd due to the capitalization per Super Goku. On the page history of the first, there is nothing to retain, as the content that was moved as Great Jedi Purge#List of survivors in 2009 was unsourced, and was reverted within 30 minutes by EEMIV with comment rm good-faith addition - -this is uncited, and lists of survivors/deaths have been points of dispute on this page. with refs, this (still-trivia) might be okay to include. The merge of Great Jedi Purge to Clone Wars (Star Wars) by TenTonParasol in 2016 is not relevant to this RfD, however a new RfD may be started for that redirect. Jay 💬 20:27, 22 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 16:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Jay. signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any value in preserving the history, as it is a simple list of names (meaning there is no creative work here) and you can easily find other copies of this list via a Google search. If we want to have a conversation about whether this content belongs somewhere, that's fine, but we don't need the page history to do that, and restoring this to a list just to have it deleted at AfD (as it inevitably would be) is pointless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:09, 2 March 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).

Disting.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors remain divided between keep and delete, with keep !voters arguing that it is a valid abbreviation, and delete !voters arguing that it is of questionable utility and could cause confusion, with neither side getting a definitive upper hand. signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as its purpose is unclear (as it happens, we have an article on Disting). An anonymous username, not my real name 19:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless redirect with the full stop and, legally speaking, I've never heard or seen it ever shortened to that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is apparently here for the usage in law textbooks and case reports. Someone with access to Raistrick's Index to Legal Citations and Abbreviations might find it documented there. But delete, we do not need it in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: assuming this is an actual, unambiguous abbreviation then this redirect helps the reader seeking to find out what the abbr. stands for. J947 † edits 21:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J947; I'm seeing no good reason to delete here. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. No reason to delete an unambiguous abbreviation that is apparently used in reliable sources. A7V2 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to weak keep due to potential ambiguity with Disting (I should have more carefully read the nomination!). Certainly a hatnote would be a good idea. A7V2 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 as a plausible abbreviation. MusiBedrock (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though this may be an abbreviation for "distinguishing", there is a good chance that a new-ish editor could be trying to link Disting at the end of the sentence, but accidentally include the period their link ... Which would then obviously go to the wrong article. However, in most cases, consensus results in the deleting redirects that end with a period. (For a recent related example, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16#Catholicism..) Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a normal full stop misnomer – abbrvs. end as such. J947 † edits 21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You are correct, but in this case, since Distinguishing seems to define the use of a word in certain contexts and not as a proper subject (such as a person [link the shorthand abbreviations used for several botanists and zoologists] or entity's proper, capitalized name), the amount of harm this redirect creates seems to outweigh its usefulness. We can place a hatnote on Disting if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct uses trump incorrect uses, and I doubt that incorrect use would be much used. Moreover, a reader aiming for disting will likely end up finding that article anyway, whereas one searching for the abbreviation is very unlikely to. J947 † edits 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going by the redirect creator's name, this appears to be law-related, but as the target doesn't talk about this abbreviation, delete as not helpful and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It didn't help me, I don't have a copy of Raistrick's Index to Legal Citations and Abbreviations, we don't have anything at wiktionary, and I couldn't get anything from an external search either. Page xvi of the Preface of this book says "disting." stands for "distinguished". If this is going to be an avoided redirect, the reader will wonder what the word has to do with the target. Hence delete as confusing, and as having a period at the end, if we're looking at non-abbreviation usage. Jay 💬 03:46, 17 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 16:16, 25 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).

Twittergate[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. This is without prejudice against recreating as a disambiguation page, or better yet, as a redirect to a Twitter controversies (or similar) article or list. There was plenty of support for doing something with the redirect, but not much clarity of what specifically to do with it. With no support of the status quo, I'm deleting it to offer a blank canvas should someone want to assume that mantle. However, if one wants to write a disambiguation, note that per WP:DABMENTION it would be best to first add a sourced mention to the article which will show attestation of the term. -- Tavix (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently been used to refer to Twitter Files Investigation (which is currently up for deletion, but the topic is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia) ([1]). So I can imagine users searching for the term for that topic. Perhaps at least a hatnote if not a dab page? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is far more important because it's a detailed case of a conspiracy-like outcome from a non-conspiracy juxtaposition of events.
"#twittergate" very clearly shows how the statistical leaning of tech workers and age groups towards one or the other political party can lead to real-world impacts like moderation imbalance that snowball into $44Bn philanthropic grand gestures. Unfairness accusations like this come up all the time on all social media platforms and very few of these accusations have this level of investigation (or impact) to shine light on what is happening. Losing this from wikipedia would be beyond merely tragic.
Objectively, tech workers are pro-liberal and High-earning positions like executives are pro-GOP due to economic special interest. (One quick-glance visualized data set but I could, of course, flood you with research supporting this key statement: http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ ).
I think this page needs to be kept and heavily edited and expanded because the IQ/Education impact in employment on politics is historically impactful and culturally highly relevant. If I felt I was worthy of the task, I'd take it on myself. Unfortunately I do data science, not writing so I'd be starting from no experience. Skyleach (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DABIFY It can easily refer to both now. RoostTC(ping me!) 06:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I doubt if it can be converted to a dab. There is no mention of twittergate in any article of enwiki. External search also brings up a 2009 German election incident. Jay 💬 02:36, 20 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 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steel, except that search results won't help now because we currently don't have a mention on enwiki. Wait for mentions. Jay 💬 03:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was last relisted and voted on 17 days back, there are still no mentions on enwiki. Jay 💬 15:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay. Let Wikipedia's search results help readers find what they are looking for, considering a dab would not make sense in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: late rally for delete means this one's going to a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Dabification, the Musk scandal is the main topic in searches at the moment, but it's too soon to declare it the primary topic. Rusalkii (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Twitter Files. This page had no activity prior to December 2, it had 7 hits all year up to that date, and while there have been a few spikes in readership on Anthony Weiner sexting scandals in that time there has been no corresponding spike on the redirect. This suggests that its use to refer to that subject has been long forgotten. However, on December 3, views on the redirect spiked to 35, then over 100 within a few days (it's settled to about 10/day now), more than an RFD typically generates. What happened on December 3? The first installment of what we now call the Twitter Files was published late in the day before, but in time for evening interest in the Western hemisphere which lags a few hours behind UTC. We can make a reasonable assumption, then, that readers searching for "Twittergate" are currently looking for information on the Twitter Files, and that's where the redirect should point. We could add a hatnote to the Anthony Weiner scandals, or better would be to add a hatnote to a main article for Category:Twitter controversies but there doesn't seem to be one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The German election incident referred to as Twittergate in external searches is Julia Klöckner#2009 presidential election tweet. Jay 💬 09:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has only one peripheral mention of this word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. signed, Rosguill talk 04:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too bad we don't have a Twitter controversies to match the category of the same name, since that would be a good target. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 14 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).

Loophole (1981 film)/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 move back to Loophole (film), then restore the redirect at that title to Loophole (disambiguation) and tag {{R with history}}. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was merged into the target in 2010. I don't see any obvious redlinks to move this to, so would suggest move without redirect to Talk:Loophole (1981 film)/Attribution/1 or suchlike, and tag with {{parallel version}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:00, 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) 03:07, 11 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) 06:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion of Jay's suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck off my suggested targets in favour of Ivan's. Jay 💬 09:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a mainspace title per Jay. Pages that are {{R with history}} for article content should be in the article space, not talk page space ... which obfuscates what the history of the page is supposed to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 25 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).

Suzmites[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 22:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reference in target article and a Google search didn't turn this up as an alternative name. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzmites is noted as a junior synonym of Onegia in The list of Ediacaran genera. Onegia is a synonym of Pteridinium, so if I were to redirect it to Suzmites it would have a double redirect. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus It would help considerably if you could cite some reliable external sources which support your assertion. The Wikipedia page you named does not exist either. I would expect any page which is the subject of a WP:REDIRECT to mention any synonym and to cite a good, up-to-date source to substantiate that synonymy. None of us are mind-readers, nor experts in Ediacaran synonymy. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of Ediacaran genera is what I wanted to say. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're looking to know why I made those redirects check the page. Multiple taxa are listed as synonyms of already existing taxa (or synonyms of synonyms of already existing taxa in the case of Suzmites). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm well outside my area of expertise here, but do either of these sources help? [2] [3] Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source doesn't display for me. The second source accepts the genus (i.e., it isn't a synonym of anything else). Plantdrew (talk) 19:50, 30 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).

Solangi[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. Just about everyone in this discussion has proposed an entirely different solution (take to AfD, retarget to Solanki, retarget to Solange (disambiguation), anthroponymize, and delete). Legoktm (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared out an article here that was a duplicate of Solanki (clan), but I am not sure is this should instead redirect to the surname Solanki. There are notable people with the name, but they are currently not listed at that SIA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This RfD is also linked to the outcome of Talk:Solanki#Requested move 17 December 2022. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: LaundryPizza03, please propose a specific action to be taken.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: Retarget to Solanki or disambiguate, depending on the outcome of the RM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the RM has been closed and the following changes have happened. The "Solanki" mentioned elsewhere at this RfD is now Solanki (name) and the RM discussion link is now Talk:Solanki (name)#Requested move 17 December 2022. What we now have at Solanki is a dab created today by ModernDayTrilobite. No change in my vote though. Jay 💬 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Solangi is a historical name for Solanki, then this should be mentioned at some article. The pre-BLAR content says they are Muslim, whereas the current target suggests they are Hindus. Solanki has no mention of a name as Solangi, so that would be an incorrect target. External searches come up with "Solangi are not Solanki" suggesting this is controversial, probably because of caste or religion representations. Restore and discuss at AfD if there is no clarity. Jay 💬 07:13, 1 January 2023 (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]

  • Comment: "Solangi" seems like a plausible alternative spelling or misspelling of Solange. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Solange (disambiguation) as a plausible misspelling. I'm not sure that restoring and sending to AfD would be appropriate, as there's no content worth restoring IMO, and it would likely end up being deleted (or possibly redirected) there anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearing the Jan 2 page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anthroponymize (convert to WP:ANTHRO surname page) if there are notable people with this exact surname, otherwise keep/retarget to Solanki (clan) as an {{R with history}}. Note that the only source referenced in the former Solangi article is titled "Solanki" and only uses that spelling, and is also a WordPress blog. I don't support treating this as a misspelling of "Solange" - E and I are very far apart on a QWERTY keyboard, and there is already an attestation that this is a valid (if possibly controversial) alternate spelling to "Solanki". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since this is evidently ambiguous, and there are 66 mentions of one sort or another that Search would find. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 5 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).

Four on the floor (transmission)[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 Gear stick#Gear knobs and switches. This solution has become viable after the last relist, and is evidently uncontested. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section this targets was removed, and this is no-longer discussed anywhere in the article or anywhere else I could find except for on the disambiguation page Four on the floor. I think this should be deleted unless mention can be re-added (or if there's a better target I missed). A7V2 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to gear stick. The four-on-floor material was deleted from the manual transmission article with the rationale of "trimming to avoid WP:FORK- this level of detail is appropriate for the dedicated article". The rationale was sound but that material was never moved to the dedicated article. —  AjaxSmack  03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if retargeted, mention would need to be added, and I'm not sure where in the article that could be done? A7V2 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses, where this term is mentioned and briefly described. Also remove the circular redirect that links there. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CycloneYoris: Your suggested target is a disambiguation page, and if the link is removed there, the entry will be deleted anyway. Jay 💬 06:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: A reference needs to be added there as to prevent the entry from being deleted. Although it's not the most suitable target, it will inform readers about this term and its meaning. CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DABREF says not to do that. Jay 💬 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then rewrite the entry as suggested by Rosguill below, providing a link to the Manual transmission article. CycloneYoris talk! 10:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses, where the entry could be rewritten as Four on the floor, a type of four-speed manual transmission with a floor-mounted shifter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to gear stick per Ajax and tag as {{R without mention}}. Jay 💬 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses and rewrite per Rosguill to Gear stick#Gear knobs and switches, with thanks to Jay for that addition. (Edited 18:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC), though I stand by the following sentence as a general principle.) {{R without mention}}s should be self explanatory; this is not. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: Why do you say {{R without mention}}s should be self explanatory? Jay 💬 03:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: Because otherwise, they're likely to confuse readers. I often think of searches like a reference desk encounter. Suppose a user asks for works on "Barrack Obama". The librarian says, "Sure, we have works about Barack Obama." Most likely the user understands what happened, i.e., that they made a slight error. Now imagine the user is asking for "four on the floor", and the response is "Here's what we have about manual transmission." The user may wonder what the relationship is, or (erroneously in this case) assume it's a synonym. Much more so if their search term is not in any way used in the page they arrive at. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: If the redirect is a synonym there would (or should) be an Rcat that says the redirect is a synonym. We really cannot control what the reader assumes. But how does that mandate that {{R without mention}}s should be self-explanatory. I see the tag just as what it is - a redirect term that is not mentioned, and once it is targged as such, someone needs to add it to the target, or remove the Rcat if they find it not possible. Jay 💬 07:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can more concisely state my position here as "a user should understand why they end up where they do and/or be happy with the results". For this redirect, I think that will only apply for users who remember this rhyming phrase but not what it refers to—not zero, but probably a small portion of searchers. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: Although your vote was not written as a reply to mine, I believe you were referring to mine when you said {{R without mention}}s should be self explanatory. Any by this is not were you referring to my suggested target of gear stick, or to the current target of this redirect? Jay 💬 10:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose so, since you mentioned the template. Unless I've overlooked something, the phrase isn't used or explained at either the current target or your suggested alternative.
    I admit this discussion is getting away from me, though. Retargeting to a disambiguation page and explaining there is unusual, rather than explaining a term in an actual article. Perhaps deletion is better. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to whatever page has a definition of the term (or any sort of relevant content): at the moment, that's Four on the floor#Other uses (to be rewritten as Rosguill suggested). – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Four on the floor#Other uses per BDD and Uanfala.MusiBedrock (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no logical reason to redirect to a disambiguation page entry that fails WP:DABMENTION. Nobody has attempted to restore the article content about theis term, either. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural involved relist to clear the old RfD page from December 19.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:38, 25 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).

A Cool Guy[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 22:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR'd article. The contents aren't merged into the main article (and don't fit within Wikipedia in general), and the target page doesn't have anything that may fall under it. Delete unless there's a better target. Randi Moth (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm fine with deletion for this one since there are no referenced info that can be challenged anyways. This ought to have been prodded back then.--Lenticel (talk) 02:37, 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).

Manar Group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Manar Group

The Sexiest Man in Jamaica[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive redirect IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 06:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)(RfD closure: nominator withdraw nomination)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not censored. There is a track on the album with a nearly identical title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:20, 25 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).

The Sexiest Zoo in America[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. Added a mention at the target with the references from this discussion. Jay 💬 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive redirect IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 04:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(nominator withdraw nomination)— Preceding unsigned comment added by IntegerSequences (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can attest to this nickname in third-party sources, such as [4], but it is not currently in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given it looks an unambiguous term. In my opinion, monikers like such don't need to be mentioned in the article to be helpful – rather, the very fact of the target normally gives the reader the information they're after. J947 † edits 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: nominator has withdrawn, but the discussion continues as a delete stands. J947 † edits 09:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Did this exist as anything else besides a redirect? (I guess I could look through the history for the answer to that.) Personally, I don't mind it being mentioned briefly as long as there's a source for it, but what would be the criteria? Does it involve the female zoo workers (wow, she's a lot hotter since she started wearing more/less makeup), the make zoo workers (that guy cleaning up the poop is such a bo-hunk. He should be a male stripper by night), or the animals themselves (man, there's nothing stopping the breeding program of all the animals at the Cincy Zoo. At this rate we'll have fewer endangered species)? Just who and what decided that the Cincinnati Zoo is the "sexiest?" ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's attested in the link provided by LaundryPizza03 that this moniker is due to the high birth rate of animals at the zoo. I just tracked down a more detailed source goes into how it got that name [5]. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my above comment, and probably due for mention at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 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:KFCBOX[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. The redirect was speedy deleted as a WP:G8 by Liz. Jay 💬 10:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KFCBOX was redirect deletion to User:UBX/KFCBOX — Navajcmer (🔔 • 📝) 04:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Userbox created in the wrong location. Existing transclusions have been updated. No transclusions of the redirect exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 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_25&oldid=1143675399"