Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2023.

Wikipedia and public opinion[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 Criticism of Wikipedia. ✗plicit 00:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty torn on if this should be deleted or if this should go to either Criticism of Wikipedia or Wikipedia#Reception. The article originally went to the former before a bot redirected it to just Wikipedia. (see diff 442636605) Dawnbails (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Criticism of Wikipedia since that was the original target and it seems cromulent enough. First, although I haven't delved into the revision history firsthand, the discussion at Talk:Wikipedia and public opinion indicates that this was substantially a duplicate of Criticism of Wikipedia at the time of redirection. So any historical value this redirect might have is best preserved by retaining that target. Second, the bot action was triggered by some long-forgotten edit war over whether Criticism of Wikipedia should be allowed to exist -- which seems in the end to have been settled in the affirmative. As you say the best present-day target is pretty much a tossup, so I would give the benefit of the doubt to the target that the redirect would have if it had never been disturbed. (This phenomenon of bot-retargetings representing the wreckage of ancient edit wars seems to be not uncommon. Is there a bot that un-fixes no-longer-double redirects in these kinds of situations? Or a script that lists them for human review somewhere?) -- Visviva (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think bot targeting issues are a combination of both redirects to redirects getting retargeted and people changing the locations of redirects which could screw with a bot.
    Wikipedi, for example, redirected to Wikipedia, before an IP editor retargeted it to Wikipedio. A bot then saw this and retargeted it to List of Wikipedias before the redirect was reverted back to Wikipedia. I suppose a lot of bot-triggered redirects are due to human error. Dawnbails (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the notion of retargeting this to "Criticism of Wikipedia." Beyond the historical aspects already mentioned, it's worth noting that "Wikipedia and public opinion" inherently implies a level of critique or judgment. Public opinion is a measure of public perception, sentiment, and often criticism about an entity or concept. Therefore, it naturally encompasses critical perspectives. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 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).

Diana Eck on Noahidism[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 23:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic, we're not about to create redirects for the viewpoints of every tom dick and jane out there Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unhelpful. The Eck article contains no actual discussion of Eck's views on this topic (just a mention that she founded a project that supports the study of topics including Noahidism). Could perhaps be resurrected as a section redirect, if as & when, but no point in getting ahead of ourselves. -- Visviva (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone typed this into the search bar, clicking would get them the same thing as her name. This isn’t currently helpful. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with Diana Eck and Noahidism. Not helpful. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
added to the nom Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:33, 18 June 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).

Discover extraterrestrial life[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 00:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic/unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another imperative sentence for no reason. No better than "Experience extraterrestrial life" or "Study extraterrestrial life" or "Research extraterrestrial life". No reason to think anyone looking for information on extraterrestrial life would search for anything beyond Extraterrestrial life—and, for that matter, why wasn't that even the target? Nevertheless, not a good redirect. Largoplazo (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose this might have been created in order to make a link in running text, although I can't seem to find any evidence of that. But that's not really a plausible use case for this kind of text anyway -- given how many articles this phrase could refer to, piping will almost always be the better approach. -- Visviva (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see this as a hugely implausible search term, but then the far more likely Discovery of extraterrestrial life is a redlink, and I'm not sure what the best target would be. A7V2 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All deletes have given reasons they would not have created this. None have given a reason to delete. Don't confuse requirements for redirects with requirements for articles. Invasive Spices (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and since this is an imperative sentence. Redirect, stop telling me what to do. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 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).

Assessment of wildlife disease host density dependence[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 23:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic/unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is so unclear and overly precise on what it is meant to represent in the target article that it seems plagued with WP:XY issues, considering other articles exist which this may refer, such as Wildlife disease. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 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).

Assessing evidence on conservation interventions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic/unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussed in target. Cited with WP:RS. Requires WP:COMPETENCE to assess this. Invasive Spices (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the fact that something is discussed somewhere in an article, it doesn't follow that you can credibly back from a mishmash of words taken from that part of the article or describing what's being reported there into a search phrase that is ever going to be used. Largoplazo (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone who understands ecological field work/assessing ecological field work want to comment? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:28, 19 June 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).

Olga Vronska[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 23:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

innappropriate redirect for the sentence "In the early 2000s the most active researchers here were Olga Vronska and G. Kosilovich at the IoA." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – normally that would be helpful enough IMO but in this instance search results seem more helpful due to ambiguity. J947 † edits 01:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as barely mentioned at the target. Lviv Oblast isn't a good article for writing about a specific researcher anyhow. Glades12 (talk) 16:27, 19 June 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).

Gather relative abundance data[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 00:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barely intelligible english/unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 17 June 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).

Accuracy of analysis of emotional prosody[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic/unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is also no discussion of the accuracy of analysis/research/etc itself. A7V2 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: Accuracy of analysis by hearers. I would also be interested in accuracy of researchers' analysis if it were in the article but that's not the thrust of this redirect. Invasive Spices (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a very unusual way to word it then, so unusual that I don't think anyone would search for it in this way. A7V2 (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussed in target. Cited with WP:RS. Invasive Spices (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a sub-topic, unlike perhaps perception of emotions, which has a section. The point about accuracy is a one-line mention in the target, we don't need redirects for every detail of an article. Jay 💬 14:08, 25 June 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).

CAMERA public domain data[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 23:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, also ambiguous (see CAMERA) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 17 June 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).

Vartiter Kotcholosian[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 Richard G. Hovannisian#Background. Refined to proposed section. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses shouldn't redirect to their husbands Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 17 June 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).

Ani Hovannisian[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 Richard G. Hovannisian#Background. ✗plicit 00:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentionned/undiscussed at the target. Likely a spouse/children, but those shouldn't have redirects Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 17 June 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).

Measure beta diversity[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 00:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussed in target. Cited with WP:RS. Requires WP:COMPETENCE to assess this. Invasive Spices (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Imperative sentence ... telling me what to do ... with no clear context in the target article on how this is an alternative title for the article's subject or otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely search term. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 22 June 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).

Develop cultural relativism methodologies[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 00:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barely intelligible search term. Unlikely Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussed in target. Cited with WP:RS. Certainly intelligible without WP:COMPETENCE – I understand it. Invasive Spices (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Invasive Spices Will you stop with the personal attacks and repeated insinuations that other editors are incompetent. You are the editor who has created a mess of hundreds and hundreds of terrible redirects that now needs cleaning up. You are the editor who was unable to provide a sensible answer to the simple question what makes a good redirect? [1]. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read my comment again. Invasive Spices (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Invasive Spices Which comment? The one above where you attack Headbomb and imply they are incompetent? Or the response to the question, where you say you don't know how to answer the question, show no awareness of the redirect policy (WP:R) or the criteria for creating redirects (WP:RPURPOSE) and suggest we should redirect phrases to articles as long as they appear in sources? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and due to this being an imperative sentence. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 22 June 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).

Study ecosystem decay[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 00:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term/broken english Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange opinion but you aren't alone. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:10, 22 June 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).

Oye Owolewa's political career[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. Jay 💬 08:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As likely a search term as Bobby Orr's Ice Hockey Career, i.e. nil. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as going exactly where it should, and I think a not excessively unlikely search term. A7V2 (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could maybe garner a handful of lifetime views as the target is quite well-viewed and in general harmless. Not something we should be encouraging creation of however, except for the most prominent people who inevitably get some of every search imaginable through bulk views. J947 † edits 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused redirect. If the phrase pops up in another article, it should probably link only Oye Owolewa or could be piped. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a plausible search term and there is relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In what other pages has this been used? None of the previous office holders have a redirect like this, and all of them have more notable political careers. None of the entries for members of the DC Council, all of which are more significant, have a separate redirect. The entry already reeks of puffery, overlinking, and questionable sourcing. Why would this even be considered?, other than it has been proposed by the same author who has written the lions share of the entry, which is largely a single purpose account. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bangabandhu: I don't understand this. Who do you think I am? Invasive Spices (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i mistook your edit for the user who has made most of the additions of questionable relevance. But the rest of the comment stands. Why would this be done for this one random page? There's no redirect for other politicians who have more significant policy positions. We should all be making more meaningful contributions to the project than considering this which adds nothing to the article. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mistook That's what it seemed like.
I understand you wouldn't make this but there's nothing wrong and WP:CHEAP. — Invasive Spices (talk) 14:17, 22 June 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).

FCC rulemaking[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! 23:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of this redirect. This is a normal {{R with possibilities}}{{R to section}}{{R from subtopic}}. — Invasive Spices (talk) 01:41, 19 June 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).

Federal Communications Commission rulemaking[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! 23:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 17 June 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).

CAMERA's mission[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 00:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's next, redirect for every mission statement from every organization with an acronym? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 17 June 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).

Evaluate biodiversity hotspot criteria[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 SNOW delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barely intelligible redirect Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't tell what it means. It's an imperative sentence. Is there something called "biodiversity hotspot criteria"? If so, are they criteria for determining that a hotspot is a biodiversity hotspot instead of some other kind? Or for determining that something is a hotspot in the context of biodiversity and, if that's it, what is the something? Or is it criteria for classifying the set of all biodiversity hotspots into various categories or for ranking them on some scale? Impossible to figure out who would enter this and, if they did, what specifically they'd be looking to find out. Largoplazo (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: imperative sentence that is an unlikely search term and serves no use. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 19 June 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).

Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis dataset release[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 23:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title + dataset release = Unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no reason to believe that anyone, after typing in "Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis", is going to think they need to be more specific in order to get the information they're looking for (assuming it's even on Wikipedia), as though we have many articles about different aspects of the Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis and they want to be sure the right one is pulled up. Largoplazo (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. This seems like a search for something very specific which we do not and should not have. A7V2 (talk) 00:42, 18 June 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).

Susan Scheinberg[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 Bill Kristol#Personal life. ✗plicit 23:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting spouses to their husbands is ... just no Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Bill Kristol#Personal life where there is some information about her (since she is presumably not notable). "Just no" is not a reason to delete, nor is being a redirect from a spouse, of which there are thousands on wikipedia. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Bill Kristol#Personal life per A7V2: a perfectly fine redirect. Given she's cited on the site she could well be notable but given she isn't linked in mainspace that mystical redlink potential is minimal in this instance. Even in the absence of an article, the current section is fairly helpful as to information about her anyway. J947 † edits 01:14, 18 June 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).

Anne Kristol[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 24#Anne Kristol

Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis public domain[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 23:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

adding "public domain" to such a long title is not a likely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have no idea what someone would have in mind to run a search that looks like this. I don't know what it means. Name of an organization + the name of a legal concept. Like "Microsoft reasonable person" or "Samsung emancipated minor". Largoplazo (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an implausible and extremely lengthy search term that serves no use. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:34, 19 June 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).

Analyze game theoretical spite[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 23:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nonsensical phrase with no obvious destination that a user could have in mind that would lead them to search for it. Largoplazo (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:51, 18 June 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).

Catholic Church transfers credibly accused clergy from United States of America to other countries[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 23:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something you'd expect to find as a news headline, not a search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reasons as all my other delete !votes for these long phrases and sentences. This isn't a reasonable search phrase to expect, and how does the target stand out as the unique place where a hypothetical user who might type in this whole sentence would expect to be taken? Largoplazo (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it can also be seen as unsourced Original Research WP:OR, which we don't allow. (Though it likely is true.) It is a statement rather than an article title. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: Redirects aren't required to be WP:V. Some are typoes. Some are lies. Invasive Spices (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Headbomb. I can't credibly see this as a search phrase. If that entire phrase were wikilinked in an article it'd be a better candidate for piping than a redirect since it wouldn't stand as an article title. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:03, 22 June 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).

Study effects of mixed-species feeding flocking[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 23:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does "study effects" mean the effects caused by studies? Or is this an imperative sentence: "You! Study the effects of mixed-species feeding flocking!" It doesn't lead to a section titled "Study effects", it points to one titled "Benefits". The connection between this title and the target is too contorted and it's fantastical that it would be a search phrase. Largoplazo (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imperative. I've been surprised by the imperative objection. This can be resolved at WP:REDIRECT noy here. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing, mixed up statement that almost comes off as having WP:XY issues due to the use of the words "feeding" and "flocking". Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 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).

Gun laws in the United States (by district)[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 23:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd redirect, given that technically the U.S. only has one district. Not sure if this should be deleted, or retargeted to Gun laws in the United States by state, or if the D.C. topic is really the best target, then retargeted to the main article at Gun laws in the District of Columbia. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 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).

WikiVandal[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 Wiki#Security. ✗plicit 23:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this page while seeing what redirects to certain areas of Wikipedia. A wikivandal could be for other wikis not related to the Wikipedia project, so is this redirect okay to stay or to be redirected somewhere else or to be removed? Voxl (talk) 20:59, 17 June 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).

Lеlаng Соmmаndеry[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 💬 19:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed script redirect - some of the letters in this title have been substituted with their Cyrillic equivalents, e.g. the "a"s are actually cyrillic "а"s. The content in the page history is a duplicate of the English Wikipedia article from that time with some minor modifications [2] and so does not need to be kept for copyright reasons. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 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).

Richard Pinheiro (police misconduct)[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 💬 19:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very weird disambiguator, the only use of this on the site [3]. We normally disambiguate people by career, date of birth etc, not like this. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anything, "Richard Pinheiro police" would suffice. Largoplazo (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need disambiguating at all since Richard Pinheiro is a red link, but if a disambiguator was needed "Richard Pinheiro (police officer)" or "Richard Pinheiro (former police officer)" would both be much more in keeping with disambiguation norms. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that the base name doesn't exist and the odd disambiguator. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 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).

Document current seagrass area[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 SNOW delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled English phrasing, implausible search term, unclear what this is supposed to refer to (the amount of documented seagrass area? How to document seagrass area?) 192.76.8.65 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If I were to type "Document current seagrass area" into my computer, it would have to be an AI application to which I'm issuing such an instruction. It wouldn't be a search string—people don't search for "Cook in oven for 30 minutes", they search for "Cooking". Also, why "current"? If someone's interested in seagrass distribution, they'd probably expect that information about its current state would be the primary search result anyway, certainly not that if they didn't type "current" they'd be taken to information in seagrass distribution in 1769. Largoplazo (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 20 June 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).

3G shutdown in Maryland[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 💬 19:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target contains no information on Maryland. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why Maryland in particular but not other US states or other countries, and especially when the word "Maryland" doesn't appear in the target article? Waste of time for the Wikipedia user. Largoplazo (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Plausible search term with no mention now or when this was created [4]. A7V2 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Largoplazo. There's nothing unique about Maryland and 3G shutdown and there aren't similar redirects for any other state or nation. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the fact that Maryland is not mentioned, if "Maryland" was not part of this redirect, this redirect is then one of the most unhelpful {{R from antonym}}s I've ever seen. (Was this redirect meant to target 3G#Decline and decommissions?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 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).

Hylid[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 Hylidae per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 04:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hylid currently redirects to Tree Frog, a page discussing it as a generic term for any largely arboreal frogs. However, it's should redirect to Hylidae, a specific family of frogs commonly called "tree frogs and their allies", as not all are arboreal.

Relevant to that, I noticed this on the in page link to Hylids on the page for the paradoxical frog which is a non-arboreal Hylid frog, meaning a link to the tree frogs page doesn't make sense.

Hedge89 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. (Which would actually restore the original target. Apparently Hylidae was receiving heavy vandalism in the summer of 2007 for some reason and at one point was redirected to Tree Frog, which caused a helpful bot to come along and "fix" the double redirect.) -- Visviva (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget as a technical error per Visviva. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hylidae per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 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).

Battery recycling cost in USA[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 💬 19:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target article doesn't contain any content on the cost of recycling batteries in the USA. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete only, as with A November 2011 The New York Times article reported that batteries collected in the United States are increasingly being transported to Mexico for recycling as a result of a widening gap between the strictness of environmental and labor regulations between the two countries the article comes close to doing so. Overall slightly unhelpful. J947 † edits 05:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947: Does this also help? In some jurisdictions, including U.S. states…a refundable deposit is paid on batteries. This encourages recycling of old batteries instead of abandonment or disposal with household waste. — Invasive Spices (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not really talking about the title of this redirect. J947 † edits 21:33, 22 June 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).

Bnei Anusim concept popularity in American South West Hispanics[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 SNOW delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Half a sentence/fact from the target article, implausible search term. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm just not imagining someone reading about Bnei Anushim and wondering, "I wonder if Wikipedia can tell me how popular this concept is". Largoplazo (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a search term that straddles the line between implausible and impossible. Created due to the article sentence The Bnei Anusim concept has gained some popularity in the Hispanic community in the American South West as well as in countries in Latin America, as it happens. J947 † edits 06:00, 18 June 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).

Reviews in Agricultural Science[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 19:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not mention this journal and does not contain any relevant information, doesn't make sense to redirect a journal to a course. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:57, 17 June 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).

Lithium polymer battery market in United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target article contains no information on the battery market in the United States. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The target contains only two specific pieces of information about one thing or another that have been produced by specific US companies. There's nothing about the battery market in the United States in general. Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. This is a plausible search term but there is nothing about this at the target or anywhere else I can find. A7V2 (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ref #24 https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-34445-4 supports this. For example page 5. Largoplazo A7V2? — Invasive Spices (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in the article is the lithium polymer battery market in the United States discussed? I have no doubt at all that this exact phrase is used in numerous sources, and I said above this is a perfectly fine redirect, if only we had an article discussing it specifically. If you are arguing that this is a synonym, then I will point you to WP:COMPETENCE which you so quickly cite in your own replies. A7V2 (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
commercialisation of the liquid-electrolyte lithium-ion cell in 1991.[24] and Eventually, this type of cell went into the market in 1998.[24] give US specific dates for market entry. They don't say so because they are examples of {{Globalize}}.
If you are arguing that this is a synonym That would be insane.
then I will point you to WP:COMPETENCE which you so quickly cite in your own replies When relevant. Scientific terminology requires competence. This does not but does require more reading sources than most will do. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:11, 21 June 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).

Abolish screen quota under pressure from the US[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled English sentence structure, implausible search term 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Two more weird imperative sentences that aren't likely search phrases. Largoplazo (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Probably Screen quotas or Screen quotas#Analysis would be a better target but not by much. A7V2 (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: these sentence redirects are unlikely search terms. I am not completely opposed to the retarget suggestions from A7V2. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection to lack of complete English sentence structure is strange in light of all the objections to sentence redirects. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A complete sentence is not a good redirect as it is too long to be useful and it would be deleted on that basis - the chance of someone entering a sentence into the search bar having the exact form as a redirect is basically nil. It is even more unlikely that someone would search with the exact same incomplete sentence structure as this redirect, and so it is an even worse redirect. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another one that sounds more like a SEO phrase than an article title or search term. If used as a wikilinked phrase anywhere, would be a better candidate for piping. ‐Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet more imperative sentences, which are unlikely as search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 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).

United Nations headquarters alternatives[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 24#United Nations headquarters alternatives

Rachel Marsden position on Timber Sycamore[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 24#Rachel Marsden position on Timber Sycamore

Michael Shanks' design thinking methods[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, doesn't make sense. The article doesn't discuss "Michael Shanks' design thinking methods", it mentions that he teaches a course on design thinking methods - the methods aren't his. We also don't need to redirect every single topic an academic has ever worked on to their article. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Regardless of the likelihood of it being searched for in this way, the article has just a single uncited sentence about the course he teaches. A7V2 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 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 hostages were released just minutes after Reagan was sworn into office[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 SNOW delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A random sentence from the section this targets. This is a completley implausible search term and is never going to be linked to. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No idea why anybody would search for this sentence. If they came across that sentence somewhere, with its reference to the hostages, their source would already have explained that it was talking about the Iran hostage crisis, and the reader would vastly more likely look for "Iran hostage crisis" or "Reagan hostages". Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can find nothing on google for this specific sentence and as mentioned above it is oddly specific and requires a very in depth knowledge of the hostage crisis for one who does not know the name and is thus an unlikely for this search term to be used. TartarTorte 21:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tom Radulovich (talk) 05:53, 18 June 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).

Knife rehearsal in the US[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrammatical, doesn't make sense. What is a "knife rehearsal"? Why does it make sense to redirect a term about rehearsals to a list of accidents? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The target is barely relevant to the redirect title. The implication of the title is that "knife rehearsal" is a thing and that there's going to be information on it, specifically in the US, as a focus in the target article. There isn't. And, in addition, why assume that a person entering such a weird phrase is looking for the information at that target? They could just as easily be looking for information on rehearsals by professional knife throwers before their performances, or information on rehearsals for the program Forged in Fire. Largoplazo (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total surprise target. Huh??? Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 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).

Lineworker work between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense as a redirect. This is basically the first sentence of the article, discussing the beginning of the occupation, mangled into wording that sounds like a job advert. This is a completely implausible way of searching for "Lineworker". 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's zero information at the target about lineworker work between Washington and Baltimore. There's merely a mention that the first lines were laid between those two cities. There's no mention of the work involved, let alone any encyclopedic information about it. Largoplazo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This (and a number of the other strange sentence-ish redirects currently up for deletion) come across as being either part of an odd SEO strategy or violations of WP:EasterEgg. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a piped link so I don't understand WP:EasterEgg. Perhaps WP:EGG but that is also about piped links. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that should have been to MOS:EGG, but the same principle applies: A link (piped or a redirect) should inform the reader where they're headed if they click on it. This particular one is less of an easter egg than some of the others up for deletion, but if "Lineworker work between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore" is linked in an article there's nothing gained for the reader compared to "Lineworker work between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore". It doesn't seem a likely standalone article would be created with that title, so there's no reason to keep it. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:48, 22 June 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).

American English is more common than British English in the European Union[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 SNOW delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A random sentence from the section this targets. This is far too long to be a plausible search term or to be useful for linking to, and I don't think it's a plausible way of searching for Americanization, I would expect to end up at an article on the relative usages of languages. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The idea behind redirects isn't to take arbitrary sentences that appears in an article and make redirects from them. If this became accepted grounds for a redirect, we'd have a hundred million new redirects. Largoplazo (talk) 20:32, 17 June 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 monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya![edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 24#List of monsters in Kirby: Right Back at Ya!

Dedede Doll[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 12:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:43, 17 June 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).

Lowari language[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 Lovari. Jay 💬 08:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

??? Hildeoc (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. 162.83.141.156 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article discusses the language spoken in Lowari Pass, so I don't think this can be called a blatant hoax for the purposes of CSD G3. No opinion at this time as to whether to keep or delete slowly, though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The target article says the people speak the Palula language. So, (a) if the redirect is to exist at all, that's where it should lead, but (b) that would be like having a redirect for "Connecticut language" leading to English language, and redirects likewise for every area in the world where English is spoken—and then finding no information about Connecticut or most of the other sub-national regions where English is spoken. Largoplazo (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lovari, which is sometimes spelled this way (especially in Polish contexts). The Lovari speak a distinct dialect of the Romani language, which gets some discussion on Lovari. (Vlax Romani could be an alternative target.) "Lowari language" has been at least occasionally used to describe the Lovari dialect, which is also often called the "Lovari language". In contrast, it doesn't look like "Lowari language" is ever used to describe any of the language(s) spoken around Lowari Pass. Based on the page histories my guess is that someone blind-linked to Lowari, assuming incorrectly that it would be about the Roma people rather than the Pakistani landmark, and this mistake was then compounded by that article being moved to Lowari Pass. -- Visviva (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a reasonable solution. Retarget. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lovari: suitable target and possible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 19 June 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).

Transformers theme 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 retarget to List of Transformers audio releases. Nominally no consensus between delete and retarget, defaulting to retarget in the absence of support for the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 02:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the target article, it seems that any reader looking up this phrase will be disappointed to find essentially nothing in the target article about the subject. In the article, there is a brief sentence mentioned about a "theme tune" of some sort, but nothing else is mentioned afterwards or before in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also fine with this refined retarget as alternative to deletion. --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no discussion of the theme song either at the target, or the proposed alternative target. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2: Why do you say there is no theme song discussion at the proposed alternative target? Jay 💬 06:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Because there is no discussion of the theme song(s) at the proposed alternative target List of Transformers audio releases. A7V2 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so that is what's confusing. Can you clarify, when you say there is no discussion? Like Waldyrious above, I see plenty of mention of theme song(s) at the list page. Jay 💬 07:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions are not discussion. The only mentions are in which albums/CDs/etc the songs appear. That is not discussion, and I find it Highly unlikely that that is what someone searching this is looking for (and if they were it will appear in search anyway). The original target (which requires some digging through the history due to moves etc) was a section [5] which at least listed the theme songs of the US and Japanese versions of the show, but no such section exists any more I don't think. A7V2 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A7V2. Based on the helpful discussion above, it seems very unlikely that the proposed target would be helpful to the reader. Better to just be honest that we do not currently cover this topic. -- Visviva (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Transformers audio releases, where theme songs are discussed: This set features the Japanese theme songs, Including theme songs with corresponding karaoke versions, the first two versions of the US opening theme song by Anne Bryant, exclusive to each theme song's single release, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Sufficient material to justify a redirect. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:52, 26 June 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).

TIM Participacoes[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. ✗plicit 12:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, wrong capitalization and redirect not in use.--Epicamused (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The title of this article was TIM Participações for around a year, and seems to be a name which is used (see [6], [7]). So then this variant without accents should be kept, as well as the similar Tim Participações S.A.. A7V2 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    same reasoning I used below Epicamused (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having a hard time understanding how your reasoning below applies here given this is a sort of misspelling (but always acceptable as a redirect since many English speakers don't know how to put in accents), but below it is a mis-capitalisation. A7V2 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2 and WP:R#KEEP 3. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP 3 and the above arguments. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on A7V2's pointing out that the properly accented version, TIM Participações, redirects to TIM Brasil, and redirecting from an unaccented version of a title to the accent version is a common and valid purpose. In this case, it's a double-redirect, so the intermediate title is being skipped. Largoplazo (talk) 02:43, 20 June 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).

Tim Brazil[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. Jay 💬 12:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, incorrect name and redirect not in use.--Epicamused (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Epicamused: did you mix up the rationales of your two nominations? In any case, for this one definitely keep as a perfectly fine alternate capitalisation (and more common spelling of Brasil/Brazil in English). A7V2 (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alternative capitalization for the first word and a reasonably anticipated error in the second, given that English-speakers are predominately unlikely to know that Brazil is spelled with an "s" in Portuguese. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not only the "Brazil" term, but also "Tim": the correct name is "TIM Brasil" Epicamused (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of that. The purpose of a redirect is to send a reader from a title that isn't the correct one to the title that is the correct one. So telling me that this redirect is a problem because the redirect title is incorrect and its target is correct amounts to saying that this redirect should be deleted because it's exactly like every other redirect on Wikipedia. Or that a redirect should exist only when its title is the same as the target article's title, which is nonsensical. Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you if the redirect wasn't actually orphaned, and therefore used in some contexts, but it isn't. Epicamused (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The context/use case for an orphaned redirect like this is someone typing "Tim Brazil" in the search box and then being seamlessly redirected to TIM Brasil (per WP:R#KEEP 3). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems likely that the intent of the person who created the redirect was to help with the case where someone types "z" instead of "s". Who cares if that same person mistakenly wrote "Tim" instead of "TIM"? It doesn't hurt anything and it gets the person who types a "z" where they need to go. There doesn't happen to be a redirect at TIM Brazil, but this one serves the same purpose in assisting a user who types "tim brazil" or "TIM Brazil" or "tIm BrAzIl", so removing it will be a net detriment, not a benefit. Largoplazo (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Textbook example of a redirect from a likely misspelling to the proper target. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:06, 18 June 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:JX[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. Jay 💬 07:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always feel that this charging line is not very good and should be deleted. Q𝟤𝟪 04:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. J947 † edits 05:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting shortcuts is unnecessary, even if ambiguous. It can certainly be reused some place else, however. J947 † edits 01:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "charging line"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem LinguaeWhat I want to express is that the abbreviation of JX is not mentioned from the target of orientation. Q𝟤𝟪 07:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That "explanation" didn't help much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While "JAX" for "Jacksonville" has been in use for a long time (I remember it being used in the 1950s), I've never heard of or seen "JX" so used.
Donald Albury 17:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it should be using WP:WPJAX -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:MOVEREDIRECT we don't tend to move redirects because it makes a mess of the page history. If you think WP:WPJAX should be a redirect to this page it would be better to just make a new rediect, rather than moving an old one around. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That guide is completely unrelated, as there is no old history at this location to keep around for the purposes of that guide. Either way works in this cae. However, if there were contribution history on this location it would be lost if we deleted it and recreated it elsewhere, where in that case it should always be renamed -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JaxDaily wanted the redirect created as "WP:JX", not "WP:WPJAX" By moving the redirect, it perverts the authorship of the redirect. You're more than welcome to log-in/create your account and create it should you feel it useful. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and WP:WPJAX would make sense as a redir.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...then create it! -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This "charging line" only costs a few cents, and I don't see anywhere else to target this. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although a "charging line" in Jacksonville might be better handled by the Jaguars. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since "JX" does not appear to relate to Jacksonville. "SoCal" is a common shorthand for Southern California, but we should not go around creating further contractions like "SoCa" or "SCal". I don't buy the "redirs are cheap" argument when it comes to project space. We keep mainspace redirs if we think a reader might plausibly use them, but even if we did (and we don't) want to extend that reasoning to project space, "JX" isn't really a plausible abbreviation for Jacksonville.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shortening of JAX, the popular abbreviation for the city, and has been advertised as a shortcut on that page since 2007. Searching for uses of "JX" on Google is tricky, but I find that it's the ASL sign for the city!. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per Tavix's helpful research above. Doesn't seem to get much use, but it's been around for a while and has some basis as a sometime abbreviation for Jacksonville. -- Visviva (talk) 01:19, 19 June 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).

Huhuhu[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. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

implausible, nonsensical and unnecessary redirect Dronebogus (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. That template is much better than the one I suggested. CycloneYoris talk! 03:04, 18 June 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 Transformers[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 Transformers. Jay 💬 08:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Transformers as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? (If so, this redirect's history probably needs to be moved to The Transformers (disambiguation).) Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. If it's primary for "Transformers", there's no apparent reason why it would not be primary for "The Transformers". Not sure why we would be moving the history though. -- Visviva (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: Can you clarify on moving the history? Jay 💬 08:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: See the strike through I just did. Steel1943 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 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).

Alpha-ethyl-Mescaline[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. Jay 💬 08:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct form of this is Alpha-ethylmescaline. Given that this differs both in hyphenation and has an incorrect capital letter, this is highly unlikely to be useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes I add extra hyphens where they shouldn't be when typing up derivatives of 'common named' compounds (like N-methyl-strictosidine). So, I can see this being a fair misspelling. Also, do capitals in redirects matter? I assumed they were not case sensitive in terms of their use in searches. ― Synpath 19:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I would have thought that case did matter, but I just tried searching "alpha-ethyl-mescaline" and got taken to Alpha-ethyl-Mescaline. So I guess whatever value an alpha-ethyl-mescaline redirect might have for searchers is also served by this one. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do differences in orthography make this incorrect? Although I don't work with this compound I see variations like this several times a day in academic and industry writing. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:55, 22 June 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).

Sam Edic[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, default to retarget to Lisa's Substitute#Production. Numerically it's a straight retarget, but in terms of argument the sides are more equal. Nevertheless, the retarget is the option that has the most overall support. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 05:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman used the pseudonym Sam Etic when he appeared on an early episode of The Simpsons. Sam Etic redirects to the most apt place, the production section of that episode. It's up to the community to decide whether the misspelling is a plausible search term, then whether it should redirect to the actor or the episode. I can't see it as being one, but unlike Hoffman or the Simpsons, I'm not American. I know in American English, t in the middle of words turns into a d in the spoken word, but do we need a redirect for phonetic spellings in certain dialects? If Hoffman or the Simpsons were British, would we need a redirect for "Sam E'ic"? Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget and tag per AngusWOOF. The misspelling exists on the Internet and in general plausible misspelling redirects are potentially helpful and aren't harmful. As to the general question, we don't need to systematically add all misspelling redirects that editors may think could be or find useful, are welcome to be created. Skynxnex (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't retarget this to Sam Etic, because that would create a double redirect. Lisa's Substitute#Production explains that "Sam Etic is a play on the word Semitic." Sam Edic would be pronounced differently, making it an unlikely typo. Note that Semidic doesn't exist. - Eureka Lott 18:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget (to Lisa's Substitute#Production, which is what I understand AngusWOOF to have been suggesting) and tag as misspelling. This seems really marginal, but it is an attestable misspelling and isn't otherwise problematic, so I guess it makes sense to keep it around. -- Visviva (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lisa's Substitute#Production (which is Sam Etic's target) with R from misspelling, per AngusWOOF. Fieari (talk) 04:38, 19 June 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_June_17&oldid=1162113289"