Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2023.

Lateen Sail[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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an otherwise-identical redirect with the second word lowercase, so that should make this entirely unnecessary. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneYoris, I thought {{R from miscapitalisation}} was only for the opposite situation. Regardless, typing this capitalisation into the search bar would still take you to the lowercase version if this redirect didn't exist. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
R from miscapitalisation is used for any redirect that features some type of miscapitalization in its title, as is the case with this redirect. The fact that the lowercase version exists is irrelevant, since this redirect also aids readers in finding the article they seek, which is the main purpose of creating a redirect in the first place. CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no valid reason to delete applies. "Unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what possible harm is done by a redirect that a user feels is superfluous? People will always search for things you haven't though of, hence redirects like this have a job to do. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:44, 9 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).

Cutting Ties (story)[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 Star Trek: New Frontier#Mirror Universe (2007–2009). Jay 💬 04:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Enwiki has nothing about this subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I created this redirect. I apparently did so in 2009, back when I was perhaps a bit more indiscriminate in creating redirects. Feel free to remove it. Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Cutting Ties is a DAB whose only entry is this (story) redirect. If RFD consensus is 'delete' here, that should also be deleted; otherwise, it should be converted to a redirect to the same target per MOS. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 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! 22:22, 8 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).

Disting.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 25#Disting.

List of largest land carnivores[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! 16:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created, somewhat misleading redirect, as not all carnivores are carnivorans. UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral An anonymous username, not my real name 00:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are no living land carnivores which are larger than those on this list. "Carnivores" is an alternate name for "carnovorans" so I'm not sure that this is overly misleading. Note also that List of carnivores is a redirect to List of carnivorans. A7V2 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Carnivores and carnivorans are very much not the same thing. Redirects should never be factually misleading. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The eighth edition of the Macquarie Dictionary defines "carnivore" first as "one of the Carnivora, the order of mammals, chiefly flesh-eating, that includes the cats, dogs, bears, seals, etc", with only the second definition being "any animal that feeds predominantly on other animals". Wikitionary gives similar definitions but with the first two reversed [1]. So to say that carnivores and carnivorans are not the same depends on the context since "carnivore" is an ambiguous term. A7V2 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, A7V2, but our own article on carnivores covers the broader definition. To quote Wiktionary's usage notes on the term: "Not all meat-eaters (e.g. meat-eating birds and fish) belong to Carnivora, and not all Carnivora are meat-eaters (e.g. giant panda). To avoid the confusion, a new term carnivoran has been introduced to mean 'belonging to Carnivora'." Therefore, as both you and this excerpt state, the term is ambiguous, and ambiguous redirects are generally something to be avoided. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What our article carnivore covers isn't overly relevant, and in any case it includes a hatnote at the top. I did tend to agree that this was potentially ambiguous (noting that no-one had previously raised that as an issue, instead stating it is misleading), however on consideration there is nothing this is ambiguous with. There is no list of meat-eating land animals that I'm aware of, and there is no (living) non-carnivoran land carnivores that are even close to making that list. So we have for the two possible interpretations of what someone searching this is looking for: either 1) a suboptimal, still useful page giving more or less what they are looking for, or 2) exactly what they were looking for. A7V2 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's fair enough. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. A7V2 (talk) 22:21, 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]

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).

Archangelia[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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, and a google search for the name says it is either a girl's name or an herb. I could not find any English sources relating "Archangelia" to Pteridinium. As such, recommend retargeting to angelica archangelica, as that appears to be the more common meaning in English. I could also see dabifying, given that one of the two incoming links appears to have a Russian source that would support the current target (I do not consider this source above because it does contribute to the English WP:COMMONNAME). HouseBlastertalk 20:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (unless a source can be found showing that Archangelia has been treated as a synonym of Pteridinium or Onegia). For the herb, "Archangelia" is a misspelling of "archangelica". A genus of Ediacaran organism named Archangelia has been described and is linked from List of Ediacaran genera; that link should not go to the herb or the girls name. The list claims (with two sources) that Archangelia is a synonym of Onegia, but the sources given don't mention Archangelia at all. There is a source cited at Pteridinium ([2]) that treats Onegia as a synonym of Pteridinium, but there are no sources on Wikipedia that treat Archangelia as a synonym of Onegia (or Pteridinium). Archangelia is mentioned as a valid genus in a 2012 paper (although the lead author is apparently the same person who first described the genus in 1979). With no sources for synonymy, there isn't a good target for the redirect and it should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 17:06, 9 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).

Reinaldo (given name)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. As a normal editorial action I've categorised this as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

misleading redirect as there is no article The Banner talk 19:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my nomination reason: the maintenance bots keep finding this link to a disambiguation page that needs to be solved. But it can not be solved, at lest not at this moment. The Banner talk 21:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not misleading, as the opening sentence in the DAB tells readers that Reinaldo is a "given name". Weak retarget to Reynold where multiple related names are mentioned, including the Spanish form "Reinaldo". CycloneYoris talk! 20:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target is indeed a given name. I'm not seeing the problem here. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Retargeting to Reynold is also acceptable but I think better to leave as is. A7V2 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. The target page is a given name, and that redirect is potentially helpful to anyone who's searching for that page, on top of being harmless and unambiguous (even with the unnecessary disambiguation) in the title. Regards, SONIC678 05:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Request speedy close as keep, as nominator. I think I overreacted. The Banner talk 09:00, 9 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).

Biblical literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Biblical literature

Bible and Tanach[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Bible and Tanach

User:R. fiend/Redirect test[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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an old cross-namespace redirect with no particular page views. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep by default, it does not matter either way. It can simply be left alone. J947 † edits 10:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Useless redirect created as a test. Why should it be kept if it's not serving any purpose? Deletion seems preferable in this case. CycloneYoris talk! 19:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for lack of any convincing reason to do anything else. Userspace cross-namespaces redirects do not cause any harm, and there's no reason to expect them to be well-viewed. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as completely harmless. The only reasons to delete redirects from user subpages are (1) if the user requests it, (2) it is actively causing harm in some way. Even in the latter case, which does not apply here, it is usually better to convert it to a soft redirect than to outright delete it as that maintains the link the author desired (and absent any evidence to the contrary we must assume they still do desire). Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified of the discussion at R. fiend's talk. Jay 💬 12:41, 17 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).

Subsequently[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Subsequently

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA[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! 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005 all-capital redirects probably did not matter much and the country was indeed known as "Republic of Macedonia", but situation has changed since then and this WP:ALLCAPS redirect, most likely unintentionally, looks as if it is making a WP:POINT (that the country is called Macedonia and not North Macedonia). We don't have all-capital redirects for aritcles (or specifically, countries), but if someone needed them, typing in all-caps already works without actual redirect pages. Vipz (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as plausible all-caps version. There are many good all-caps versions of country redirects, such as the "UNITED STATES" with tons of hits. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RHARMFUL; redirects are cheap. Furthermore – this is linked a few places on the site; from a perusal of various edits concerning this area it seems that a term being stylistically or emphasisingly capitalised is common in North Macedonia. J947 † edits 10:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MusiBedrock, @J947 should this make a precedent for creating all-caps redirects for all countries? It is inevitable that all countries have (had) their state names (commonly) stylistically or emphasisingly capitalised. Should there be a redirect NORTH MACEDONIA? Two pages (both in talk), unrelated to this RfD currently link to this redirect: one uses a pipe link with Republic of Macedonia as its text for whatever reason, and the second uses it to to illustrate their WP:FORUM-esque WP:POV regarding the Macedonia naming dispute. How many hits does this RfD reach? -Vipz (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the redirect is kept based on its age, then the precedent for new redirects is not necessarily set. This redirect is reasonably old and, as within RHARMFUL, may be the target of plenty outgoing links, more than just those that are visible in Special:WhatLinksHere. J947 has brought up edits as what links to REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA not that uncommonly, and WhatLinksHere is unable to check edits and their summaries. External sites may also link there.
    I'm not entirely decided on whether new all-caps redirects would be fine to create (as they're not actively harmful and aren't an unplausible search term), but this one should stay based on its age and the fact that it's not actively harmful. Randi Moth (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just researched with various search filters on multiple search engines for links to this exact page on the Internet (Google unfortunately deprecated the "link:" filter in 2017, "case:" doesn't seem to work) trying to find any evidence that external pages link to it. If we were keeping all arbitrarily old redirects based on WP:RHARMFUL we wouldn't have had so many redirects deleted, TFYR included. "REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" gets a daily average of zero and monthly average of 14 views. Reason why even that many could be because it appears as a top result when typing "Republic of Mac[edonia]" into Wikipedia's dynamic search bar, the way I found this redirect. I definitely think it is an unplausible search term in all-caps and redundant in the same way e.g. "CROATIA" does not exist as a redirect but typing it and pressing enter still leads to the correct article. On the top of that, this country is no longer called "Republic of Macedonia". -Vipz (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Touching on few things with this comment, so bear with me. Just because the guideline isn't followed doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Re precedent for all country all caps redirects: redirects currently work on a very case-by-case basis, one which is okay but not ideal. Classes of redirects should really be handled through some complex MediaWiki thingamajig or by bot. As for now, all caps redirects are a long long way down the list of redirects that should be created. Therefore while they might eventually be worth creation, it kind of doesn't matter at the moment. IMO however, deleting such redirects is a backwards step.
    The search result is plain odd in that this redirect shows up and Republic of Macedonia doesn't. That accounts for most but not all of the uses I reckon. Case variations are only partially redundant – URLs and links are case-sensitive, unlike the internal search engine.
    Re WhatLinksHere: well there were two more links (1 2) before you deleted them! Anyway my main point referring to the links is not to ensure they aren't broken, but rather pointing at them as examples of usage – my question is, why do people do stuff like this? It seems to indicate the all caps version is genuinely important in this case. J947 † edits 22:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947: Here's one way they might have ended up linking to the all-caps version: 1) Use VisualEditor 2) Enter two [[ 3) Start typing "Republic of Mac" 4) Click the first result to add it 5) Change link text to use regular capitalization. There is no practical use for this redirect outside of shouting or illustrating points. Like you pointed out, dynamic search results including those when using VisualEditor for linking show only the all-caps version instead of the proper "Republic of Macedonia" until it is fully typed in. More negative effect than positive, in my opinion. -Vipz (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining. Anyway that minor search results thing will hopefully be fixed soon – there be something added as to use a magic word to make misnomer redirects be assigned lower priority in search results, or something like that. J947 † edits 00:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean to ask how many hits does this redirect reach? That can be seen by clicking on the stats link above. It's possible they are coming from http://d33j9og3btpwwc.cloudfront.net/people/kiro-gligorov.html but I don't know what website that is or who uses it. Jay 💬 14:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: How did you find that page? Anyway, are we going to keep this redirect because a sketchy bot-created non-secure and super obscure website did not care enough to update its links? -Vipz (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://ahrefs.com/backlink-checker Jay 💬 15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: Thank you so much! Should this be added on Wikipedia:Link rot#External links? I didn't know these were called "backlinks", so I've also learned something today. -Vipz (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh thanks for showing us that tool Jay; it will definitely be useful in other RfDs. J947 † edits 22:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't vouch for it though. I used it because Headbomb used it at another RfD. Jay 💬 10:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo and redirects are cheap. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no real reason to delete has been advanced. Helpful and harmless. A7V2 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Consider that the all-lowercase version "republic of macedonia" and "north macedonia" both redirect to the same page as a plausible capitalization. Most of the all-lowercase names redirect to the corresponding capitalization of the target page. MusiBedrock (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this wasn't there, the search engine would still find the right pages - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=REPUBLIC%20OF%20MACEDONIA&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 - so I don't quite see why we need this cruft. --Joy (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - helpful and harmless. @Joy: the internal search engine is only one of many ways people use to find Wikipedia content they are looking for, some of the other methods, including links from external pages, are case sensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf sure, but why would we feel compelled to support that sort of a weird use case? WP:R says "likely alternative capitalizations", and I can't imagine these links to be very likely or common, even on a global scale. The most likely scenario seems to be someone reading a PDF and then selecting this string of words from a heading, but even then, that is more likely to go to a search engine like Google, than directly to Wikipedia as part of the URL. --Joy (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All-caps is a reasonably common alternative to sentence case for country names, it seems to be used quite a bit to distinguish them in long strings of region/state/province/etc names. Anyway, when a redirect is unambiguous it doesn't matter why people use it, only whether they do, and as this got 246 hits last year it's very clear they do so we need a compelling reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that still glosses over what seems to have caused most of those 246 hits - some person on the internet made a random website that linked to an otherwise barely used redirect, and now we get to maintain backwards compatibility forever, or at least until a random point in time when their website goes away. I'm not sure how this benefits the mission of creating an encyclopedia for the general public, as opposed to one guy's helpless readers :) --Joy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly we don't know that - we know that one backlink checker knows about one website that has (probably) generated a proportion of those 246 hits, we don't know what proportion have come from there and what proportion have come from other places. Secondly, even if your guess is correct, how does deleting this redirect benefit the mission of creating an encyclopaedia? It will cause harm to those people using the redirect, and will not benefit anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit should be in keeping things in some semblance of order, as opposed to supporting all sorts of oddities that happen to come up and then having to maintain that in perpetuity. Not sure I would say it's causing harm to people to not short-circuit everything... sending them to the search engine shouldn't be like sending them to a harmful place :) --Joy (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sending someone to the search engine is always going to be harmful relative to taking them directly to the content they were looking for - even if they are immediately presented with search results (depending on multiple factors it sometimes requires several clicks/taps) and the search engine is 100% reliable (it isn't) and the relevant page is always the top result (impossible to guarantee).
    What does "some semblance of order" mean in this context? What is the benefit of it to readers vs the cost described above? The cost to maintain "all sorts of oddities ... in perpetuity" is (on average) about one human edit per redirect per decade to deal with changes to the redirect (in good and bad faith) that bots can't deal with (or get wrong) - is does this really outweigh the benefits to readers of finding the information they were looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think it's a slippery slope from saying that oh this one is just sitting there in perpetuity, it's cheap, it helps a few people, and nobody else cares -- and the project accumulating such huge amounts of this kind of cruft that it escalates and becomes a drain on collective resources. Hopefully we'd notice it before it got out of hand, but I don't see why we'd want to test that just because of something so minor. --Joy (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Slippy slope arguments are always incredibly weak, and that is even more the case when what is being objected to is neither slippery nor on a slope. We regularly and routinely delete those redirects that have costs which outweigh their benefits - just look at this very page - but this redirect is not one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The slippery slope argument is never going to be about a single particular case, but about a pattern. It is weak if it is fallacious, e.g. if there's insufficient evidence that accumulation of cruft is harmful. In any event, it certainly seems it doesn't make sense to continue this generic discussion here. --Joy (talk) 19:18, 14 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).

Draft:HDCYT[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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and redundant draft. HDCYT already redirects here. MusiBedrock (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Draftspace redirect was created way before the other one in mainspace. Though I don't get why anyone would create a draft for a redirect? Regardless, keeping seems best. CycloneYoris talk! 06:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SRE no need for maintenance J947 † edits 10:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. A7V2 (talk) 04:07, 9 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).

Draft:Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health[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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Draft version is a remnant, a duplicate of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health redirect, somehow left behind after a move. Grorp (talk) 02:39, 8 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).

GA nomination counterparts in article space[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 all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects look similar to good article nominations, which can be found on their respective talk subpages (just because that's the case doesn't mean similar titles should appear in article space). As stated at User:Vahurzpu/Subpage redirects for deletion, they also don't have any meaningful history that seems to be worth preserving. I'm proposing to delete these (but leave their talkpages, the actual GA nominations, intact) unless someone can provide a justification, though I'm also open to other options if necessary. Regards, SONIC678 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The Juice Wrld one was one of my old nominations. I created it because it makes for easy navigation by hitting the 'Article' button in the top left. I used to do these because I figured there was no harm in doing it, who would care? Evidently, someone does, so it's no big deal if it gets deleted, but I don't think there's any real harm to them myself. dannymusiceditor oops 02:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep as per DannyMusicEditor. People might still look at the good article nomination and this provides a link back to the article. Doesn’t appear to do any harm. If there is some harm (e.g it pollutes search) then delete them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Great Western Railway/GA1 and Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1, both of these were created by the GA reviewer within minutes of the true GA pages (Talk:Great Western Railway/GA1 and Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1 respectively). The claim this provides a link back to the article is demonstrably redundant: directly below the "GA Review" heading at the top of each true GA page we find a direct link to the article under consideration, plus some other links useful to the GA reviewer and the responders (these are generated by the {{al}} template, which is added automatically by {{subst:GAN/subst}} (via Template:GAN/preload) when a GA review is started). So the creation of the mainspace redirects was completely unnecessary, and remains so. Addendum: my previous comments also hold for Juice Wrld/GA1, Asexuality/GA2, The Battle of the Labyrinth/GA1, Georgia Tech traditions/GA1 and Alvin Kersh/GA1 without further qualification, also for Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA1 and Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA2 although for these two it is necessary to open a collapsed box in order to see them. So Delete these additional seven. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Second addendum: I feel that I should clarify. I was first alerted to this RfD by this notice and my first thought was "why would such a redirect be up for deletion - maybe the GA review page was moved in the past but even so, the redir should stay". I hadn't at that stage realised that this was a redir in main space but GA review discussion happens in Talk: space. Once I twigged that, I then assumed that the GA review had somehow been started in main space and subsequently moved to its correct location in talk space. At this stage, I was still looking at the talk page notice, I hadn't yet reached this RfD discussion. What I never expected was that the redir would link to the actual article that was up for GA. If the redir had been Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1 → Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1, as it would have been if the GA review had been started in main space in error and then moved to Talk: space, I would have !voted keep; but my delete !vote stands, because the redirect isn't intuitive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect may not be intuitive to you, however other people have described how its use as a link is intuitive to them so WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 applies. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for Polyclonal response/GA2, Celilo Falls/GA1, Salimuzzaman Siddiqui/GA1, Salimuzzaman Siddiqui/GA2, Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA1 and Akhtar Hameed Khan/GA2. In these six cases the true GA pages for these do not use {{al}}, and as far as I can tell, never did. They date from July 2008 or earlier, at a time when Template:GAN/subst did not use {{al}} (it was added in October 2008). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DannyMusicEditor. I have been annoyed in the past in this exact regard; I seem to glaze over the bolded article link. Not that it matters much either way, but to bring these redirects to RfD just nullifies the (tiny) positive efficiency they have. Again, not that it matters! J947 † edits 10:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are not meaningfully diffeent from mainspace /archive redirects, which were deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Richard E. Mayer/Archive. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per DannyMusicEditor et al. These redirects are completely harmless and some people find the useful (WP:RFD#KEEP point 5). When keeping results in a benefit and no harm, and deletion results in no benefit and some harm, there is no justification at all for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: I have to admit, I wouldn't expect to !vote "keep" for these redirects. But as DannyMusicEditor said above, they at least are serving a navigational purpose and are shortcuts to their main articles. This is not to say that we should be creating mainspace redirects for every GA nomination, to do so would be costly. But in the rare case they were, it's probably because of that very reason. And I doubt more than a handful of GA reviewers and nominators would be bothered at spending some more seconds for reaching their articles. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dsuke1998AEOS: Did you read my post of 10:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)? All GA talk pages created since 4 October 2008 have a direct link to the article below the "GA Review" heading. Therefore, in the absence of such redirects (i.e. the vast majority of GA talk pages), users are not spending some more seconds for reaching their articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: It may be the case that some reviewers don't like using the link provided by the template. These redirects offer an alternative shortcut to the articles (though I don't think they should be created by anyone other than the reviewers). It's not a big deal if they are deleted, but they are completely harmless. For example, these redirects aren't interfering in searches for GA subpages. Nor do they are going to be accidentally linked from other articles. I don't see a reason to delete this tiny class of redirects. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per DannyMusicEditor – that's a use case I haven't thought of but is useful nonetheless and I don't see why the redirects should be deleted. DecafPotato (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DecafPotato: Please see my post immediately above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did see that--but as someone who looks at a lot of GANs it's a mistake I've made more times than I'd like to admit, even with the option to click "article". WP:CHEAP may also be a factor--you haven't provided a reason as to why they should be deleted. DecafPotato (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but leave talk pages per nom. Nothing in the above discussion has convinced me otherwise. Also, these redirects are not helpful as search terms in the article space since their targets are not encyclopedic subjects named or alternatively named ".../GA1", ".../GA2•, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 18 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).

Test for alkanes[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 💬 06:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No tests mentioned at target. Redirect the result of a very old WP:BLAR of a stub that would not survive Afd. Since there does not appear to be a good redirect target, suggest soft deletion of the page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. MusiBedrock (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree restoring isn't necessary. A7V2 (talk) 04:10, 9 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).

Winter storm Goliath[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! 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted, because discussion on the talk page has determined that there should be no mention of the TWC name in the article. As a result, there also shouldn’t be a redirect of the TWC name to the article. 12.206.84.79 (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: While not mentioned in the article, it seems harmless to retarget people from this to the non TWC name for this storm. I think that this strikes a good balance of not giving too much credence to Weather Channel names by not putting them in the article, but does provide those who knows the storm by that name to find it on Wikipedia. TartarTorte 03:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think that’s problematic, because readers won’t know what the Goliath is.12.206.84.79 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that readers searching for Winter Storm Goliath would likely not be WP:SURPRISEd by a wikipedia article on a winter storm even if it does not mention the name Goliath in the article. TartarTorte 16:48, 31 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 23:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weather channel seems notable enough that people might know storms by those names. Storm names generally are something people like enough that the UK has started officially naming them in recent years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite alleged talk page consensus (I'm not able to find it; can you link it?), this is a reasonable search term for that event. Redirects can serve as navigational aids for the reader, and it will do so here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ideally with mention. To me it seems that removing a widely used term for something (or at least used by one very popular source) is intentionally unhelpful to readers, bordering on POINTy. If it's not ambiguous then what benefit comes from deletion? A7V2 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ideally with a mention, per A7V2 and Red-tailed hawk. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a mention. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:31, 12 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_8&oldid=1135586738"