Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 17[edit]

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

Evil-speaking[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. Salvio giuliano 08:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a case of WP:REDYES; most of what I can find on this term is from Christian websites discussing it in the context of a biblical quotation. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature

More "upcoming" no longer upcoming[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of "upcoming" no longer upcoming. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Didn't know this existed until today: WP:UFILM is relevant here. I assume it was created as a result of all the previous discussions that resulted in delete. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are no longer in use and are now also misleading. Better to default to our search engine if someone actually writes one of these. Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Turkish invasion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 30#Turkish invasion

Template:Station-stub[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. While both deletion and (weak) keep were proposed, disambiguation is the only solution to sway multiple editors. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ambiguous template term. I think this template redirect should be disambiguated. From Bassie f (his talk page) 07:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated how? It points to Template:Railstation-stub which is less ambiguous. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Radio-station-stub @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Template:Tv-station-stub @Redrose64 From Bassie f (his talk page) 20:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that those exist, as do several others with "station-stub" in the name. What I mean is, exactly what is to be done in order to "disambiguate" this redirect? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nominator makes a great point that this isn't specific enough to point to just one template, but I've never seen a disambiguation page in template space and as far as I'm aware that's totally nonstandard. If, however, it turns out that's a wrong assumption and a dab page is fine, then consider me in support for that. QuietHere (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template dab pages are uncommon but they exist. MClay1 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ketchup chips[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There appears to be a consensus that the provided sources are enough to establish notability for Ketchup chips, making this a WP:REDYES deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful this redirect is. It redirects to an empty section that contains a "Main article" link to List of potato chip brands which only mentions ketchup once as a seasoning for potato chips in Canada, the specific term "ketchup chips" only appears in the source for ketchup. I'm leaning delete unless someone can think of a better place or thinks they could be mentioned more in the relevant article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ketchup chips are mentioned at Canadian cuisine#Commercially-prepared food, condiments and beverages, but I don't know if that's enough to justify a redirect. - Eureka Lott 00:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC
    I don't think so honestly. Someone who isn't familiar with Canadian cuisine (like me) would most likely be trying to figure out what the heck ketchup chips are when searching for the term. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is also not exclusive to Canada. Maybe redlink until there's a better target somewhere discussing the concept? In which case Delete. 193.37.240.154 (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait it isn't? (keep in mind that I"m American and have only heard of this term from 2 Canadians on the Wikipedia Discord server) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target section is no longer empty, however the mention of ketchup is still only once as a seasoning for potato chips in Canada. Also note there are other redirects to the same target - Ketchup potato chip and Ketchup potato chips. Jay 💬 11:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say those are relevant here as well and should also be deleted if that's what happens to this one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled. Jay 💬 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If other popular potato chip flavours are valid redirect targets, I don't see why this wouldn't be relevant. [1][2][3] This explains what ketchup chips are to people who don't understand but they're literally in every store that sells food and snacks that I've ever been to in my life. They're not some niche product. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern isn't that these are not good search terms, the issue is that we don't have suitable prose about them. Those sources are a good starting point to use to write that content, but until it has been written the redirect is confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: I can add some content later (when I'm not on my phone). But I've been under the impression for years that deletion isn't cleanup. If someone types this in, they know that ketchup potato chips exist. I frequently see redirects to related topics in NPP. Being redirected to information about regional varieties of potato chips isn't confusing, although more context could be provided. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just knowing that these exist is not helpful - someone searching for this almost certainly already knows that. They want to know more information than that, and we should not mislead people into thinking we have when we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, the reasons given in this discussion meet the "keep" rationales for redirects as outlined here and there are no valid reasons for deletion. I really don't understand how a redlink is somehow more useful to readers than some brief information about what they're looking for, even if it could be more detailed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RDEL 10 says "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Also, I'm not opposed to keeping the redirect so long as the redirect is retargeted to somewhere where one can get information as to what ketchup chips are other than that they exist. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "They're not some niche product" might be true for somewhere where ketchup chips are popular (Like Canada), however I've never seen a single store here in the US selling them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Isn't #10 used as a reason for G6 deletions? As in, delete this redirect so someone can create an article there. {{R with possibilities}} is yet another redirect category that is commonly used and the idea of deleting something because it could be better doesn't make sense at all to me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't do G6 deletions enough to know. But there's WP:REDYES as well. To me, a redirect is practically useless if it simply confirms that such a thing exists and doesn't provide information on said thing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's where I've seen R10 used. As for REDYES, the reason for keeping the redirect is similar. We could have stubs for every regional variety of potato chips that meets GNG or we could have some detailed content about it at the main potato chip article. Both are valid options. But to me the redirect encourages someone to improve the prexisting content. Until someone actually creates an article about it, the redirect is useful and makes sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:REDYES. There's been enough written about ketchup chips that would put them past WP:GNG. It seems that deletion to promote article creation would be worthwhile. There's an article (albeit a stub) about All-dressed, so the flavor of chip idea for an article isn't unprecedented. TartarTorte 18:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

WaveLight[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "WaveLight" does not appear at all in the target page. (Note that there is a separate page "Wavelight" (note the different capitalisation) that has a hatnote pointing to "WaveLight".) PatricKiwi (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like the nomination concern has been mooted by edits to the target, but since it's been less than seven days since that change a relist seems in order to confirm that the changes are sticking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as relevant content has been added to the target page. EpicPupper (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

South Ukraine counteroffensive[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A representative of Ukraine's military has declared Ukraine intends to do a counteroffensive against Russia on spring to cut Russia's corridor connecting Crimea with the mainland [4]. This corridor is located in Ukraine's south. But the current target article is also about a counteroffensive in the south. This redirect is ambiguous and will turn problematic in the future. Besides, the most appropriate title for such a new counteroffensive will most likely be something like "2023 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive". A disambiguation page is not necessary. So I believe it is best to delete the redirect. It does not have any link and received one single view in the last 30 days anyways. Super Ψ Dro 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, already ambiguous and likely to only become more complicated the longer the war lasts. signed, Rosguill talk 03:16, 4 April 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).

Pithius[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. While alternatives to deletion were raised in the discussion, no real opposition to deletion has materialized. signed, Rosguill talk 05:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target anymore. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to both the initial stub article and the now removed section in the target [5], "Pithius" is one of the demons in the classification in Francis Barrett's The Magus. The version of this text this text that I've had a look at doesn't seem to mention this name, although it does mention Pythius. It could be an alternative name from a different edition of this text, but either way the topic doesn't seem worth providing navigation for. I'm tempted by the idea of creating a slightly non-standard dab page from Jay's list above: these items are all difficult to spell, and "Pithius" is a plausible misspelling for all of them. I wouldn't leave that to the search engine, as it doesn't seem capable of handling it. – Uanfala (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario[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. After two relists, editors remain evenly divided between keep and delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural nomination, given that it has been nominated multiple times for CSD and it has been declined over and over again. In an effort to break that cycle, I am asking the wider community to have its say. The article was at its former title from February 2022 to February 2023. Arguments for its deletion can be seen at Talk:Jan Huygen van Linschoten, Market of Goa, Itinerario, Special:Permalink/1140019916, and Special:Permalink/1139589271. Additionally, see User talk:LlywelynII § Criteria for speedy deletion (permalink). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per LlywelynII, mainly because of the out of order terms. The redirect title should not be a list of search terms in random order. Also, I don't know why the target has a disambiguated title. Move the target to Market of Goa. Jay 💬 10:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this was the title of the article for a year. I agree this is a very, very unlikely search term, but given K4 it is likely there will be outdated links from other sites which pointed to this article and therefore now instead point to this redirect. J947 † edits 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a single example of that, there might be some merit in keeping the redirect. As is, no, I don't think the traffic on the page speaks to anyone having noticed and linked it. — LlywelynII 13:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this statement; I reckon from RfD experience that at least half the time in a case like such the redirect does get views from old links. The average potential harm in deleting this is greater than the slight maintenance that eventuates from it being kept.
    Buuuuuuut, now that you ask for a single example, using this Backlink Checker I can give you one: [6] (and [7]). Not much, especially judging how little-used this redirect has been even while an RfD has been ongoing, but it is something. It's a pain to others if it's deleted, and redirects exist just for navigation. J947 † edits 04:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • LlywelynII, it's orthogonal to this discussion but the article's title should be (Van Linschoten), right? Or am I being dumb... J947 † edits 03:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the page is about the art which wasn't made by the author of the book it appeared in. — LlywelynII 13:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok, not sure why I didn't ctrl-F for Doetecum in the first place. J947 † edits 04:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But why have the disambiguator at all? Jay 💬 18:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's not the market at Goa. It's some random artwork of the market at Goa in the past. — LlywelynII 13:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a work titled Market of Goa. What is it ambiguous with? There is not one market in Goa, and enwiki doesn't have anything to say about a Goan market. Jay 💬 13:31, 2 April 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).

Dennis Rogers[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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spelling left over from old move ★Trekker (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Completely plausible spelling, considering Dennis is written more commonly with a double n. No harm in keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CycloneYoris. This redirect is potentially helpful to people who're searching for his name like that. Disambiguate per J947 and all "disambiguate" !voters below, and add a "See also" section including Denis Rogers' article. @BD2412: Thanks for finding all these other entries! Regards, SONIC678 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC), edited 01:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate. I was just about to say what these two said, but this is an ambiguous title. Search is more helpful than a straight target in this instance IMO, despite a plethora of unhelpful partial title matches. I suggest disambiguation would be the most helpful, but equally all the Dennises Rogers mentioned on the site carry little information beyond the mention. J947 † edits 01:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add, a search outside of Wikipedia also results in a lot of hits for several other people and fictional charaters named "Dennis Rogers", it might be misleading to direct all people to Denis Rogers.★Trekker (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reaffirming that I strongly disagree with keeping as is. Correct titles should be prioritised over incorrect titles. The dab page sort of stretches it at the moment, but I'm fine with that. J947 † edits 04:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Search still works. Denis Rogers is not in search results so would not be found. Peter James (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry what do you mean?★Trekker (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still possible to search for something if it's the same as an article title. Search for "Dennis Rogers" and the Denis Rogers article is not in the results, so without a redirect would not be found. Peter James (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? That makes no sense, if you search "Dennis Rogers" you get redirected to Denis Rogers, and if you search "Denis Rogers" you also get that article.★Trekker (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I find the following additional instances in a search for "Dennis Rogers":
  1. Mike Rogers (Alabama politician), full name Michael Dennis Rogers
  2. Dennis Rogers, Vancouver Canadians minor league baseball team manager in 2003, 2004, and 2006
  3. Dennis Rogers, columnist for The Raleigh News & Observer in Barbecue in North Carolina and Lexington Barbecue Festival
  4. Dennis Rogers (strongman & arm wrestler), in Grip strength
  5. Jay "Saint" Smith ("an outreach pastor named Dennis Rogers took Smith under his wing")
  6. Dennis Rogers, volunteer and recipient in the 2019 New Year Honours
  7. Dennis Rogers, United States Marine Corps Brigadier General, in Kemper Military School
  8. The Dennis Rogers Show (2007), Roger Rohatgi, lead actor
  9. Dennis Rogers, fictional British Intelligence agent sent to rendezvous with a Swiss Banker in James Bond 007: Light of My Death
Of that group, I would guess that the general is likely notable, and at least some of the rest are noteworthy, so there is enough to disambiguate from what is currently a misspelling. BD2412 T 19:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. That's the way to go; enough there to make that worthwhile. Schwede66 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate ambiguous name. Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Certainly no reason to delete this plausible misspelling, but DABing when only two potential targets have WP articles and one only has "Dennis" as a middle name seems unnecessary. An anonymous username, not my real name 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reasonable search term and the only plausible article whose subject this would refer to is the misspelling. Should any of the people named Dennis Rogers actually have a page, then this can be easily rectified, but absent such a page existing it makes sense to keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate'. There seem to be enough entries to justify a page. In any case, the New Zealand politician, whose name is not spelled this way, is not particularly well-known and would be prominently featured on the DAB anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patar knight (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per J947, and rely on search results because there are several mentions of the name on enwiki. Agree with An anonymous username that the DAB is unnecessary. I went through the drafted dab and all entries it led to, and I don't see that a DAB page more helpful for the minor mentions in articles, than what a search would provide. Some entries are really stretched, such as the The Dennis Rogers Show linked from a page of its co-host. Disagree with Peter James, that searching for "Dennis Rogers" will not show up Denis Rogers. It does now, and will work even after Dennis Rogers is deleted. Jay 💬 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or delete - I think that entries for the Vancouver Canadians manager and brigadier general, plus the current target, are just enough to justify a disambiguation page. I don't disagree with the deletion arguments but at this point in the discussion I think it's going to be very difficult to sway a consensus for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and disambiguate - the Dennis/Denis error is common enough that it makes sense to list entries for both names on one page, and there aren't so many entries that a single disambiguation page would be too long. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very plausible misspelling and the current target is by the most likely of those who currently have an article. No prejudice against a dab page, but it should not be primary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that Denis/Dennis is a very likely search term. Denis Rogers does seem like the primary target, and should remain so, but a dab page can be created as a secondary page. Fieari (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as misspelling only A dab of random one-time mentions buried in other pages is a solution looking for a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there is a problem here, as it stands. Keeping as is is detrimental to the navigation of readers wanting to find a Dennis Rogers. Deleting improves that navigability, but comes with the side problem of making it difficult to find Denis Rogers – our search engine endless surprises in its fallibilities; it looks as if deleting this redirect will remove any trace of the single-n article from the double-n search. Disambiguation, in whatever format, solves both problems. J947 † edits 04:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disambiguation isn't the only way to solve this problem. We can delete this redirect, but create another one, say Dennis Rogers (New Zealand doctor) -> Denis Rogers. This will ensure that the single-n article will show up in the double-n searches. – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Right, done so. Support disambiguation still, but weakly. J947 † edits 06:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: pageview comparison. Denis Rogers 8,843–6,669 Dennis Rogers. I think this points to a supermajority of readers searching up Dennis Rogers not referring to Denis Rogers. J947 † edits 04:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per J947, Rosguill and Uanfala. Delete this redirect, but create another one, say Dennis Rogers (New Zealand doctor) -> Denis Rogers (to ensure that the single-n article will show up in the double-n searches) looks like the best option. --Nagsb (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Sock blocked – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    J947 mentioned above that he did create one, but with a different title - Dennis Rogers (politician). Jay 💬 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now, that is good enough as well. Nagsb (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Sock blocked – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see why this is so vexing. The real Dennis Rogerses we've found are so minor, I don't think anyone would bother with such a disambiguation page if we didn't have Denis Rogers. Because the double-N spelling is more common in English, I'd have no issue with the redirect if the situations were reversed. I support deletion because I think readers searching this (a) are not looking for the New Zealand politician; and (b) are not appreciably better served by the drafted disambiguation page than by search results. (The latter is a comment on the marginal nature of the people listed, not the efforts of those editors who made the attempt.) --BDD (talk) 21:34, 25 April 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).

Digvijay Chautala[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Digvijay Chautala

Isabella Losa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close. There's already an AFD for that page. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect to Isabella Losa. The Spanish wikipedia has a similar redirect, and the first citation on the target article is [8], rough translation "Isabel, the nonexistent wise-lady who even has a street". DavidLeeLambert (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – RFD is for discussion on what is already a redirect. Discussion regarding turning an article into a redirect falls under WP:AFD, and a discussion is already ongoing on the page. Randi Moth (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ramanagar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect leads to an article about a city with a different spelling, Ramanagara (with an 'a' on the end). That article contains no uses of the redirect's spelling. There is also a disambiguation page at Ramanagar (disambiguation) that lists other places that do use the redirect's spelling. Moreover, that disambiguation page also lists places with a third spelling, "Ramnagar" (without an 'a' between the 'm' and the 'n'). For that third spelling, there is also another disambiguation page at Ramnagar. That different disambiguation page also has a mixture of spellings, some of which use the first "Ramanagar" spelling! See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 3#Ram Nagar, about a fourth spelling. There are only three articles that link to the Ramanagar redirect. My inclination would be to merge the two disambiguation pages and redirect Ramanagar there. However, I don't really know whether the spellings should be considered distinct and whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Urdu culture[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 Urdu-speaking people#Culture. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Urdu-speaking people#Culture as not all Pakistanis are speakers of Urdu. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom and also that not all Urdu-speakers are Pakistani. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

33-0[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to a score during the game, highly unlikely search term. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. While the top couple of results on Google are for this match, the majority of results are for a dark brown shade of hair colouring, sub-strings of various product codes and a subclass of British Rail Class 33 locomotives. It's far too ambiguous to be usefully disambiguated. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Very unlikely search term and, as Thryduulf said, highly ambiguous. greyzxq talk 17:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as the term is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - individual regular season NFL games get standalone articles? This wasn't even the game's final score. Ambiguous per Thryduulf; search results would be better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: There is some precedent for redirects like this (being a score that the losing team was up by before a significant comeback) existing, notably 28-3; however, that game was the Super Bowl and 28-3 entered the lexicon far more becoming the dominant meaning of that term, whereas 33-0 has not permeated the zeitgeist in the same way. As noted by Thryduulf, there are multiple possible targets. The weak delete is that this redirect does seem to have a surprising amount of usage ~2 hits/day from the beginning of 2023 until the day before it was nominated; however, the ambiguity of the redirect doesn't override that. TartarTorte 12:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Journocaust[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, seems to refer to a separate event/name. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion, or redirect to Social media use by Donald Trump as the only search results I found for the term relate to Trump's retweeting of an antisemitic Tweet in 2017, and 4Chan posts using the term.[9] Bakkster Man (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of Chinese films of 2021/List of Chinese films of 2022[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. Salvio giuliano 08:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information for [2021 and] 2022 films is not included in the 2020 list ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grade (education)[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 Grade. Salvio giuliano 08:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Grade (education)" is ambiguous with education grades like seventh grade (which the grade dab poiints to Educational stage). It is confusing that the dab's first entry was "Grade (education)", which I incorrectly linked to, thinking it was the "grade" for the year in a student's educational stage—it was not. Grade (education) was actually moved back in 2013 with the reason reduce conflation with Educational stage, aka "grades".[10]

It's uncommon for a parenthetically disambiguated term to still be ambiguous. I suggest redirecting "Grade (education)" to the Grade dab as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. —Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Grade per nom. I've bypassed the use of this redirect on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the above. The grade-as-class year and grade-as-evaluation ambiguity is insurmountable. BD2412 T 14:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another similar redirect, Grades (education), exists. Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the age of this discussion, I suggest either nominating that separately after this is closed citing the outcome or relisting this discussion early to include that one. My recommendation would be to retarget to the Grade dab page as an {{R avoided double redirect}}. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or just boldly make "grades" consistent based on consensus established for "grade" here. —Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet[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 per WP:G3. . (non-admin closure) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible redirect. Clearly an in-joke but the page doesn't actually need to exist. MClay1 (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh, per Special:Diff/414598883 it seems a valid way of expressing an opinion. Ancient history now, anyhow. J947 † edits 06:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A red link will get the same point across. No one is ever actually going to use this redirect (nor should they). MClay1 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a plausible or valid redirect or even search term. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: highly implausible and an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted per WP:G3, and I'm considering create protection. It had already been deleted as patent nonsense and then undeleted days later by an administrator employing the "just a joke" defense, and had also been proposed to be deleted under now-deprecated criterion WP:T3. This "joke" redirect (WP:R3) was created two years after the IAU decision which led to Pluto's redefinition as a dwarf planet, making it obscure even at the time; it does not refer to any "debate" on Wikipedia and nothing in the history suggests it ever did. If this is recreated again it should redirect to IAU definition of planet, maybe the subsection #Plutoed which explains the point being made. I would prefer if editors would not create pages as jokes in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a template though. Wouldn't a cross-namespace redirect be confusing? MClay1 (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Phulrraa[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 💬 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and does not seem to be a plausible typo. Onel5969 TT me 18:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @Onel5969 This is one of the common spellings of this locality used in media that describe it. For example:
In the local language(s) this "rr" sound is spelled with ڑ which does not have an equivalent in English. So the number of possible ad hoc spellings that exist for the place name using the English/Latin alphabet or numerous. I do not actually think it is necessary to mention every possible variant spelling in the target article, as this just causes unneccessary clutter. Likewise the "ph"/"p" is because the sound at the beginning is pronounced differently in Urdu, Punjabi, and Hindko. In the first language, it is aspirated like "ph," in the other two languages it is not as these languages use a tonal pronunciation in this position (also something which has no equivalent in English). عُثمان (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The presence or absence of "h" at the end is also due to a difference in the aspiration/tonality reflexes of Urdu vs. Punjabi and Hindko. Word final "h" is used for tone in the latter two languages, but functions as a consonant in the first. عُثمان (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh woops, it did not even occur to me that this redirect had two "a"s at the end. I had intended to make this for Phulrra. Carry on.
عُثمان (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not uncommon to see aa in informal romanisations of the long a (= ā), and عُثمان has explained the other apparent discrepancies. But even if that name were incorrect (which it is not), then the redirect would still be worth preserving as an {{R from move}} (the article used to be at that title from 2007 until last December). – Uanfala (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Uanfala, especially this being the location of the article for several years. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pepper sauce[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 Setindexify. signed, Rosguill talk 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper sauce could refer to either this, or hot sauce, or any sauce made with peppers. In fact the redirect when it was first made originally redirected to Hot sauce until it was nominated for speedy deletion in 2010, then was redirected to a more specific pepper sauce for many years, then changed to the current target just over a year ago. Retarget back to hot sauce or find another target? Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Color Lines (Loop)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Color Lines (Loop)

Alan Umstead (musician)[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 💬 14:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Alan Umstead may be a member of Nashville String Machine (according to RateYourMusic), that name is never mentioned in the article and I was unable to find any additional information on Umstead's assocation with the group. I think it's an incredibly unlikely search anyway, but on the off-chance it is kept, I'd also suggest it be moved to Alan Umstead to remove the unnecessary disambiguation. Sock (tock talk) 18:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as unlikely, and since the subject is not mentioned at target. CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Catholic Answer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. I recomment deletion. Veverve (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Catholic Answer was a magazine published by OSV (see here). It might make more sense to add mention to the article about the former publication rather than to simply delete the redirect. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has yet to add a mention to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think mention can be added to the target per WP:UNDUE. Jay 💬 14:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

.test (international domain name)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to .test. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect pointed to Special:Permalink/362520528#Test_TLDs when it was created. In the meantime, the part has been split into a separate lemma with the shorter name .test. In my opinion, the longer redirection would only be misleading and could therefore be removed. F10sh (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to .test: If the section it redirected to has since been deleted than there's no point in having the redirect, however because the .test page exists it makes much more sense to redirect there in the first place. greyzxq talk 17:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to .test EpicPupper (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Chicken fart[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. Salvio giuliano 09:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was created "to discourage vandalism" which isn't a valid reason to create a redirect. Delete as pointless. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made it after deleting an nonconstructive creation. But Flatulence is actually only applying to humans, and we do not seem to have an article for animal. So I do agree the redirect is not that useful. But I disagree with the idea that "discouraging vandalism is not a reason for having a redirect". Even chicken flatulence is likely a notable topic. So the most constructive thing for An anonymous username, not my real name, is to write an article at the redirect location. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a name has no article but it is a magnet for faulty creations, it may be protected against creation Cambalachero (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Now that I check it, the point was moot anyway. The page was deleted for vandalism just in 2007 and 2009. There's no vandalism to discourage. Cambalachero (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target doesn't discuss flatulence by any bird, and redirects are a poor way to prevent vandalism. Glades12 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cambalachero. The two deletes happened way back. If there are new vandals, protect the page. Jay 💬 05:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Life Before Earth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26#Life Before Earth

Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 28#Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka"

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_17&oldid=1152155048"