Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2023.

Three faiths[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5#Three faiths

Belarusian Home Defence (BKA)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5#Belarusian Home Defence (BKA)

Stuck in throat feeling[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, could also refer to Dysphagia and possibly Gastroesophageal reflux disease. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vague. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 〜 Askarion ✉ 00:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless evidence can be provided for it ever referring to something else. "Stuck in throat feeling" is most likely to refer to "the sensation of a lump in the throat" than anything else, particularly with the inclusion of the word "feeling", and it seems like a cheap and plausible way of phrasing the topic for someone who can't remember the proper terminology. Dysphagia seems like a reach; it's not merely a "feeling". Can it actually ever refer to Dysphagia? My understanding is that dysphagia is characterised by difficulty swallowing and things actually getting stuck in the throat/oesophagus, not a "feeling" of such (when you haven't actually swallowed anything). In-fact, the article states "dysphagia is distinguished from ... globus, which is the sensation of a lump in the throat". – Scyrme (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) is one of the possible symptoms of [Gastroesophageal reflux disease]. It can cause a sensation that food or liquid is stuck in the throat or chest." ([1]) "Some symptoms linked to dysphagia include: [...] Sensation of food stuck in throat or chest". ([2]). Not sure if these are fully RS,but it shows that some people describe dysphagia that way. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's misleading since it makes it sound like it's only a sensation. Regardless, searching around myself it seems you're right that people do describe it that way. In-fact, I found an academic case report using almost this exact phrase (differentiated only by hyphens): Patient concerns: A 55-year-old man was hospitalized with saliva-like vomitus, stuck-in-throat feeling of dysphagia, and weight loss. ([3]) Searching the exact phrase online yields other results like GERD and oesophageal spasms.
    Delete. Evidently it has been used to refer to other topics. Prefer deletion to disambiguation since this is phrased more like a search query than topic title; phrases in search-engine-ese can sometimes be helpful redirects (when they aren't ambiguous), but they aren't appropriate for disambiguation page titles. Second preference would be to turn Lump in the throat into a disambiguation page, and redirect this to that page. (It's currently a redirect to Globus pharyngis, which it treats as the primary topic.) – Scyrme (talk) 14:31, 22 July 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).

Mohammad Yousuf(cricket)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. (Redirect has no article space incoming links.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to cite WP:RDAB and suggest deletion? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward-Woodrow: Did you have an edit conflict? [4] [5] Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I was viewing this revision. My apologies. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too implausible. Silcox (talk) 15:21, 28 July 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).

Othello(board game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Othello (board game), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no incoming links to speak of. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the incorrectly punctuated redirect is useless. JIP | Talk 16:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above/WP:RDAB. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was a duplicate article which was tagged for A10 and then redirected just over an hour after being created in 2015, it should have just been deleted as A10. It doesn't seem to have any useful content and may have just been copied from the main article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:10, 25 July 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).

NS(A)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through the target article, and I don't see any information about why this redirect targets this page, such as representing constants or something of the such. My guess is that this redirect is shorthand for "Nullspace (algebra)" (which currently does not exist), but there is no evidence in the target article of that nor any reasonable expectation any readers would know that otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Here, "NS" is clearly a uncommon abbreviation of "Nullspace", and "NS(A)" seems an alternative notation for "Null(A)". Without any reliable source for this notation, it does not belong to WP. D.Lazard (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 06:11, 24 July 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).

Umrani(khosa)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Umrani (khosa), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no incoming links to speak of.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 21 July 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).

Go!(album)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title, Go! (album), is a redirect that targets the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 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).

From Hell(film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no incoming links to speak of.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 21 July 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).

Loire Valley(wine)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The properly spaced title is this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much in the way of incoming links to worry about. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 21 July 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).

Belarusian mythology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30#Belarusian mythology

HTML padding[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 HTML padding and no consensus for Padding (computing). For Padding (computing), retarget, disambiguate and delete were proposed. No one favoured keeping it at the current target, hence retargetting to the proposed Data structure alignment as an improvement. Jay 💬 06:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target - this is a distinct concept that should not redirect here. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed target for the second redirect is not entirely clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear - there could also be padding of data in a record in a file, which isn't necessarily done for the exact same reasons as alignment of elements in data structures. Maybe Padding (computing) should be a disambiguation page? Or maybe we should use padding (disambiguation) for that? Guy Harris (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for the second redirect. Notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target Data structure alignment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:23, 21 July 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).

Instrumental version[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 29#Instrumental version

Sarah Joe Chamoun[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Without a mention with a reference, this redirect's existence is most likely a WP:BLP violation of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, this one should be deleted indeed. When I created it, that name was mentioned and referenced in the article, but for some reason it is not anymore. I probably should have checked the source. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I'll get this one marked {{Db-g7}} then. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 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).

Titanic Five[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30#Titanic Five

Wikipedia:NOREFLIST[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 28#Wikipedia:NOREFLIST

Old style pen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 3#Old style pen

Avatar (2009-10 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible that anyone would search for the film in this way. ★Trekker (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:CESSPIT[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. The 'delete' commenters have generally expressed the view that these redirects have an unnecessarily negative POV and are potentially discouraging for new users going to ANI in good faith. Conversely, those on the 'keep' side argue that the shortcuts are just harmless humour and are not used as a personal attack. Neither side has sufficient support for me to close this discussion as anything other than "no consensus", though the 'keep' !votes (I really hate that word!) are slighly more numerous. A relisting seems unlikely to change the outcome, and will most likely contribute to the deteriorating tone of some comments. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Ok, so we can call AN/I all sorts of things: A swamp, a happy place, a time sink, whatever. But calling it a Cesspit (and if you don't know what one is, please check the link), is well nigh starting to get into civility territory. And honestly could be seen as a personal attack. Telling people that they are constituent parts of a cesspool, or even merely that they are in a cesspool? Not good. This just isn't what we should be doing. Delete all. jc37 13:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Added {{Old RfD list}} with the previous nominations for the redirect. Randi🦋TalkContribs 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with WJBscribe who said (in part) in a previous RfD: It's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously...We should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect is clearly not going to be deleted, and this discussion has taken a turn, so I'm bowing out. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for two reasons. One, I've seen no actual evidence that this redirect confuses or demoralizes new users. I do not believe this to be true, and would want to see some evidence before accepting it. In the absence of that evidence, I'd like to err on the side of not policing this kind of dry humor. Two, can we please stop expanding the use of "civility" and (especially) "personal attacks" to include situations like this? It just normalizes actual incivility and personal attacks when we use those labels so frivolously. Kind of like how we've made the terms harassment, stalking, trolling, and gaslighting so meaningless. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "expandng" anything. To call a place where we want people to come together to discuss in good faith, a Cesspit, is not Civil, is not AGF, and yes, it's a personal attack on anyone who does contribute there. I can understand that you don't mind this, but I think it's fair to say that that has not been what we've seen concerning repeated uncivil things said by editors. You're fairly active there, have you not seen editors banned for repeatedly saying such things to, or about, others? My intent isn't to spoil fun, it's to try to add more light to a place that can already get dark. And as I said, this really isn't something we should be doing, or showing as an example of what we should be doing. - jc37 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that I personally don't mind it; it's that it is simply stretching the definition of "incivility" past the breaking point to say that referring to ANI as a cesspit is uncivil to the people who post there. And it is even more fundamentally wrong to say doing so is a "personal attack", which by definition has to be directed at a specific person. You might as well say it's gaslighting. Or harassment.
    I also disagree that we want people to come together at ANI to discuss in good faith. It is a horrible place to try to resolve disagreements. Especially for new editors, who often get absolutely stomped on. It is not fit for purpose. It is dysfunctional. A better way to keep people from calling it a cesspit is not to worry about a few redirects (which have been around for 14 years, and have survived 2 previous RFD's very convincingly), but to do something useful to stop it from being a ... well, a cesspit. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if you have ideas on how to change the tone there, I think people would be happy to listen to your ideas. But calling the place a cesspit, does not sound liike a positive solution to anything, but, based upon what you are saying, honestly just becomes another contributory example... - jc37 19:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very difficult to effect change at AN/I. Recently I opened a discussion on the talk page about adding an explanation of how the board should function for the benefit of editors who haven't posted there before. It was ignored except to state that it would be impossible to add an explanation and that the board should be avoided.
    AN/I is Wikipedia's main forum for resolving behavioural disputes, so it's very disappointing that the level of apathy there has reached the point where even explaining what the forum is for is too difficult. On that basis I fully support even seemingly small attempts to improve its culture, including this one. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi A.D.Hope. You've made this main forum comment a couple times now and I don't understand what you're talking about. The main forum for resolving behavioral disputes is user and article talk pages, surely. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is for exceptional cases, which is why it opens by stating "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." This does not sound like the main forum for resolving behavioral disputes to me and as far as I know we actively discourage anyone from treating it as such. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that AN/I is the main dedicated forum for conduct disputes. If talk page discussion fails, which it often does, it's the next place many editors will turn to. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone who was involved in the recent big drama, ANI is unquestionably a cesspit. Why would a redirect that describes perfectly the project page it leads to be deleted? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based off of your comments, it's therefore ok to call you a "cesspit contributor"? I'm not being hyperbolic. You're saying that "ANI is unquestionably a cesspit", when it's not. It's not a place of excrement. It's a virtual place for typing text, amongst many others on Wikipedia. What you are saying that what you find there is "like" that. And really, is that what we should be saying? Experienced editors set the tone. Is this the tone that you want to agree that we all should be setting? - jc37 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo Floq above me, deleting the redirect won't do anything to the attitude at ANI. Trust me, it's been this way for a while (for years and years before I was even on enwiki), so it's unlikely to change anytime soon. Now, WP:HAPPYPLACE, on the other hand... LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had an account since 2006, and was a reader before that (as have many other editors). I don't have to "trust you" to know what AN/I can be like. But we can identify problems in a better way, one would think. - jc37 20:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The first step in changing the culture of an institution is changing the language used. If no one calls ANI a cesspit, people will be less likely to treat it like one. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Removing the redirects won't magically make AN/I a bastion of civility, but in a small way it well help shift attitudes. Wikipedia shouldn't in any way encourage its main forum for the discussion of editors' behaviour to be considered a cesspit. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Floquenbeam. Let people think what they want. I have not experience at ANI, and can't comment on its civility levels, but I really can't see how this redirect could in any way constitute a personal attack. Saying "You do work at ANI, what do you know about civility?" is a personal attack. This is not. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the idea that this redirect somehow has a negative effect on ANI itself. In the eight years these redirects have existed, they've gotten less than 3,000 pageviews combined. If anything, the redirects are a positive–they point out an opinion that a lot of editors share about ANI, and one that needs to be acknowledged if anything is to improve at the venue. That it is done with dry humor is typical of the project, we don't have to take everything so seriously. Deleting this based on a "incivility" would be enforcing rules for rules' sake. I know those supporting deletion mean well, but trying to impose order on this back area of Wikipedia that is invisible to readers and rarely seen or used by editors seems pointless to me. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no evidence that these are confusing, and they align well with WP:SPADE. Characterizing a redirect to a project page a "personal attack" is a stretch that is so unrealistic it boggles the mind (and yes, if this comment is a personal attack, again see WP:SPADE). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't understand why anyone would think having this kind of POV redirect would be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Floquenbeam, who raises some excellent points on both the fact that without evidence of this discouraging users I do not think raising the possibility that some future hypothetical user might be demoralized by this redirect is enough to merit deletion, as well as their excellent point on stretching the term civility ever further out -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see this as a glass half-full or half-empty situation. If you look at the storage pool or the ANI board as an entirely negative experience, then it will engender those feelings. But I like the idea that the pool collects all the negative feelings while removing them from the wider body of Wikipedia, enabling everyone to keep trying to work together in a cleaner and more positive environment. Without the recourse to treat or remove to a different environment, the "excrement" would build in pockets in Wikipedia and make more of a mess. There is no reason why we as users can't assume that this is a positive association versus a negative one. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is wild. jc37, why was I not notified of this discussion as the WP:CESSPIT redirect creator? And why have you re-nominated this redirect for deletion within a year since the previous discussion in October 2022, making no mention of it or providing any new arguments? How is this acceptable behavior from you? I'm inclined to say that this deletion discussion should be closed as invalid given the circumstances, but I'll wait to hear from jc37, who I've pinged here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Good practice" is not equal to "required". Anyway, you're here now - welcome to the discussion. - jc37 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This reply makes it incredibly clear that you're not operating in good faith. I'm going to request that this discussion be closed early as invalid. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - pinging everyone - MZMcBride, Inomyabcs, Asartea, StarTrekker, Anachronist, FormalDude, Edward-Woodrow, A.D.Hope, Tavix, LilianaUwU, Floquenbeam, Randi Moth - Ok so, I'm going to WP:AGF here and presume that none of you willingly engage in Bullying or even in Hazing. The key things about those activities is that those engaged in them often see no harm in it, or even find fun and humour in it. Needless to say, that is not often the case for the Target. Read both of those articles. They both make it clear the keyword is abuse. This isn't about being all "nicey-nicey", it's simply about not attacking others merely for participating. When was the last time any of you read WP:BITE? I just did, and I think everyone here might want to take a look and re-read. I also found User:Dreamy Jazz/Please do not bite the regulars (pinging Dreamy Jazz), which, I think fairly, extends that sentiment to all of us. Longstanding these redirects may be, but that doesn't mean it's correct to continue to stand. Hazing has been a long standing practice that is being changed throughout the world (slowly). And while there have been arguments for keeping that practice, I don't see anyone arguing keeping these redirects due to that, but merely, essentially: "We think it's an awful place and so we want to say so". The thing is - you can say that you feel that way in different terms and verbiage. And if you don't think that that's important, I suggest you look at some arbcom cases which, I think may disagree with you. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Final_decision, and the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong#Final_decision. So explain it, I want to hear it - How does this foster a collegiate, civil environment?. Is calling AN/I a cesspit something you all can say that you are proud of doing? Anyway, I've now presented the closer with a choice: Do they "count votes" (WP:NOTAVOTE), or do they assess this based upon Wikipedia policy and practice, and Arbcom assessments? (See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting point #3.) I leave it all to you to decide: What environment do you want to edit in? And how have you helped make it better? We're all in this together. I wish you all happy editing. - jc37 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, here's an answer. You're an ass. I welcome your block since I was incivil and made a valid personal attack. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. jc37, you need to cut it out now. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to be lectured on incivility and bullying by someone who thinks it's OK to insult multiple editors. Thanks for the reminder of why I avoid most XFD discussions; it's because people like you can smugly insult other editors with no consequence. Comments like that honestly do more damage to the encyclopedia than this redirect will ever do. Shame on you. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're bludgeoning us, and then you try to lecture us about incivility? Come on, jc37, you're better than that. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLUDGEONING is repeating the same thing again and again and again repeatedly. I said several new things in that post, including quoting past cases, and policy and guidelines. That's not bludgeonong. - jc37 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What a load of non-sequiturs. And yes, since you asked, I am proud of calling ANI a cesspool. I call it like I see it. The redirects in question aren't used (as far as I know) to inform people that they are being targeted. Rather, the redirects are used to make rhetorical points in discussion. For that, they are useful. Even if I was informed that I'm being discussed in the cesspool, I would not be insulted or offended in the least. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a redirect to ANI is not a personal attack. Editors can say whatever they like about ANI, if they say something about an editor that's a different matter and won't be improved by deleting a redirect. Add to that all the points that where raised the last time this came up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, derogatory and POV, even reading the arguments above I cannot understand what purpose they serve other than childlishly ridiculing ANI. Humor redirect should redirect to humorous places (eg. WP:BULLSHIT). Arguments such as "Editors can say whatever they like" or "Let people think what they want" do not really convince me such redirect names are appropriate. Cavarrone 06:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Cavarrone 06:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per the interaction between the nominator and the creator above. I'm not sure were having a civil conversation here. --Lenticel (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a plausible search term, not useful to editors or readers, and inappropriate in tone. Redirects are not meant to be used as a vehicle for editorial comments about aspects of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a strange attempt to rewrite history? Project-space redirects such as WP:MEATGRINDER, which has existed since 2008, are an editorial comment about an aspect of Wikipedia. That's fifteen years ago now. And unlike that redirect, this particular one has many actual uses from editors, so claiming it's not useful is a pretty unusual position to stake. Your vote feels both ahistorical and unsupported by the evidence.
    It's darkly amusing to me that you and jc37 and some others seem to look at the rotting culture of this place and the easiest and quickest solution is to call for the deletion of some redirects. Perhaps the cultural rot itself should be addressed? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is suggesting deleting these redirects is going to be a magic fix; they seem entirely aware that it isn't. In-fact A.D.Hope has explicitly said as much. – Scyrme (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't provide conclusive evidence for any pattern of demoralising new users, but I can speak for my own experience. Although not "new", I am a relatively less experienced editor than some of the others here evidently are. Personally, having seen these redirects mentioned before and now seeing the messy discusion above wherein it has been framed as a sincere description, I find it very off-putting and I would certainly hesitate to use AN/I in future. In-fact, I hesitated when I first had to report a sockpuppeter, although that's a different process, because I hadn't heard good things about the processes of moderation/administration/arbitration on this site, including having seen these redirects before. Fortunately, my experience with that process has positive, but worries about other processes remain.
    I would sincerely be surprised if no-one else finds things like these redirects off-putting. If few have said anything about it, is that surprising? Where are we supposed to say something? How are we even meant to know where if our experience of Wikipedia is limited? And why would we bother even if we know, given we are lead to believe that Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes operations are toxic (ie., a "cesspit")? That the shortcuts to the page are used to make snide remarks in itself seems like an extension of the toxicity they describe. If these redirects are intended as humour, then I agree with Cavarrone that such redirects are better reserved for humourous targets. If humour is the intent, clearly that's not coming across to everyone as even many arguing to keep seem to think it's sincere; seems like evidence enough of these redirects being confusing. – Scyrme (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    Can't be a personal attack ‒ not a person.
    Accurate.
Invasive Spices (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oh boy, this brings back memories (The 2022 nom was my first RfD close), but ANI isn't a person, you can't personally attack it. (And if it was, [really dark joke I decided to not put here].) Call a spade a spade and light-hearted humor like this is OK in projectspace. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 07:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV isn't something we should be having here, even Wikipedia space redirects. If it's shooting for humorous, it misses IMO. And if it's shooting for being "edgy" I think it misses that mark too. It doesn't help anything and I don't think it's amusing enough to keep around. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 26 July 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).

Amelia Bolanos[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 22:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amelia Bolanos does not and should not appear anywhere in the Football War article, per this 2012 discussion --Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here is a Sports Illustrated article on the Football War that clearly states, "The Amelia Bolaños story, shared in Kapuscinski's 1991 book The Soccer War, has since been debunked." Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 23 July 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).

Ranch water[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5#Ranch water

Pontic Greek Genocide[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 Pontic Greek genocide. ✗plicit 14:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A page exists at Pontic Greek genocide (note the lower case g, and this redirect causes confusion D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pontic Greek genocide. Even though it's not our style, a reader could certainly assume we use title-case capitalization for a specific event. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CHEAP. If it were me, I would not have created the redirect in the first place, but since the redirect has been created, we can let it stand. Silcox (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, read the first part of the nomination wrong. In this case, definitely retarget per BDD. Silcox (talk) 15:25, 21 July 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).

Blackfly" (song)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quotation mark at the end make it an unlikely search term. Possibly created in error. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 10:48, 21 July 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_July_21&oldid=1168821909"