Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 18, 2023.

Wikipedia:AntiVandal redirects[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 23:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R#DELETE, criterion 6. Certainly not longstanding, were created in February. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, neither old enough nor generally useful enough to keep. Skynxnex (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is unneeded. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete while it may be the most likely target on Wikipedia Google does return things like anti vandal paint so unlike say Articles for deletion (which goes to an article about WP anyway) it doesn't seem that useful so the arguments against XNRs seem applicable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a good cross namespace redirect. Antivandalism measures aren't unique to Wikipedia, and editor who has sufficient knowledge to be looking for antivandalism tools should be aware of the existence of namespaces. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 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).

Daniel uk[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 23:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. Different OSes have speech synthesis names, and this isn't Alexa or Siri. Could also refer to anyone in the UK named Daniel. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:10, 18 May 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).

Bodnick[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 as-is. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the surname is particularly relevant to Marc directly; are there other people with this surname? Happy to let others decide whether this one does need deleting though. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a {{r from surname}}. There are lots of people named Bodnick, but we don't have articles about any others. Please see the search results. If other articles are created, this can become a surname page. - Eureka Lott 23:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Eureka Lott --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as he's not a mononym. I'll throw in some other entries. If result is keep, then create Bodnick (surname) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that would be wise. Wikipedia:Name pages says:

    Name index articles should only list notable people bearing the name. Therefore, inclusion of red links on name index articles should be limited to individuals who are otherwise clearly notable, but are missing an article.

    The other entries you added probably won't have ever articles or meet WP:N. - Eureka Lott 21:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect per Eureka Lott. No need for a disambiguation AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the draft but formatted as a surname SIA. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and oppose the surname SIA per Eureka, either on this page or a new page. Jay 💬 15:24, 28 May 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:Eliminators[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Wikipedia:Eliminators

Redirects to List of iPhone models[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 Timeline of Apple Inc. products by a rough consensus. Note, as an aside, that the 3rd redirect has accrued many views through this RfD by being linked from external search results for list of apple devices and suchlike. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 06:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, as the target was previously at several different titles and covered different product lines, as seen by the hatnote. Currently there are no other incoming links to these and therefore should be safe to delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:10, 18 May 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).

Brigitta Dau[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a page for an actor that just redirects to a random article for a movie they are credited in (and was previously edited to this from a random show they were in for only a few episodes). Unless they were notable for the work or it's the only work they have been in (neither of which seem to be the case) the redirect should probably just be deleted unless there's something else actually relevant to them. Also I'm not sure if this is relevant, but the user who first created the redirect in 2009 appears to have created numerous redirects, some of which may be in similar situations to this one (and many of which appear to be anime characters' names written in a bunch of different ways?), someone might want to look through those and see if any others should be removed. Ringtail Raider (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirects that target pages with no actual information on the subject of the redirect are enormously unhelpful and misleading. There are no other reasonable targets. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable voice actor. She voiced Ranma Saotome for six episodes; that's about it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:12, 18 May 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).

賀錦麗[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. It does not appear that the name is going to be added to the target, so the conditional keep support does not kick in and give keep a consensus. Keep outright nevertheless has more support than deletion (as well as being the consensus of the prior discussion), and all side's arguments are reasonable interpretations of existing guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 05:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete - per WP:RLOTE. Estar8806 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:RLOTE. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomSorry, voted twice, see below AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC), updated 03:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added the simplified Chinese characters version 贺锦丽 and Hanyu Pinyin version He Jinli to the nomination. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sun8908. J947 † edits 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the reader is generally geared toward any redirect being from a synonym, even without mention. They should be able to work it out at least this way; as it stands. They cannot work it out if they get to the search result page. I'm conscious of not wanting to overbloat an already massive article here, but if editors feel it's due then by all means. J947 † edits 05:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if consensus is to keep this redirect again, it should really be mentioned in the target; I'd suggest adding something like the following in Kamala Harris#District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011): Her outreach to Chinese American voters, including her adoption of a Chinese name (賀錦麗)[1] suggested by her friend's father, helped her to a second-place finish in the primary election.[2][3] 59.149.117.119 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ pinyin: Hè Jǐnlì; Cantonese Yale: Ho3 Gam2-lai6
  2. ^ Hoge, Patrick (2003-11-10). "Harris stumps to gain edge among Chinatown voters". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2023-05-10.
  3. ^ De Souza, Alison (2020-08-24). "What's in a name? For Kamala Harris, maybe an edge with some Asian-American voters". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 2023-05-10.
  • Keep "Examples of appropriate non-English redirects include: Original or official names of people..." The policy is being applied incorrectly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the arguments at the previous RfD. WP:RLOTE is not clear-cut in this instance, as the title has a stronger connection to the subject than a run-of-the-mill transliteration. So by default we should keep as WP:CHEAP. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep only if mentioned at target and directed to the section concerning her adopting a Chinese name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [1] already mentions Kamala Harris has an official Chinese name that is not a phonetical transliteration to her English name. It has no direct linkage to her English name. Sun8908 Talk 03:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the result of the previous discussion. In the event of doubt, best to err on the side of keeping foreign language redirects like these. I think mention should be added but is not essential for what are effectively alternate names. A7V2 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 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).

History of Porin Ässät[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 Porin Ässät. signed, Rosguill talk 04:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the target of this redirect to Porin Ässät, because I'd have thought the men's ice hockey team would be primary for Porin Ässät, judging off raw pageviews, but that doesn't seem to be the case. As long as the current target is at its disambiguated title, it stands to reason this should be retargeted. in lieu of bringing this to RfD. However, it was reverted, so we're here any way. J947 † edits 20:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Porin Ässät. I don't think we need more navigational pages here - the readers pointed there can figure out which entity they are interested in the history of, and go to its article. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, I support retargeting. J947 † edits 02:50, 27 May 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).

Wind power in Europe[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 rename target article to Wind power in Europe. As pointed out by multiple editors, the article covers non-EU countries in Europe (notably the UK). -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deception. Europe and EU are two different things Randam (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/move current target to this title. The article seems to cover wind power in all of Europe, not just within the EU. A7V2 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 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).

Scarfy[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 07:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in the target. Despite that, there are numerous other places to retarget to (George Danzer, A Very Potter Sequel, List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes, and perhaps even Scarfies). Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to allow for uninhibited search. A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – search is quite handy for one-word terms. Can confirm no merge took place as part of the BLAR in this page history. And this doesn't need to be sent to AfD. J947 † edits 06:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Veverve (talk) 15:35, 19 May 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).

Old Bible[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. However there was agreement with the nomination that the current target is not proper, hence retargeting to Bible as a suggested target that had some support. Jay 💬 08:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unfathomable link, imo - what does "Old Bible" even really... mean? Not sure who might forget the name of the Old Testament - if they did, sensible people would go to Bible and find it linked there...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; that didn't age well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meaningless phrase. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bible. Searching around, I don't agree that this is meaningless; I found a number of uses which refer to the "Old Bible" or "old Bible" (Wikipedia can't distinguish the case of the initial word so any distinction is irrelevant here). It appears to be Mormon phraseology, and relevant results can be found by search this phrase alongside terms like "Mormon". However, based on what I saw I think this phrase is used to distinguish the whole Old and New Testament canon of mainstream Christianity, in contrast to the more recent additions to the Mormon Bible. Aside from old publications and Mormon webpages, the Mormon use of the phrase is quoted on Wikipedia at The Peace Maker (pamphlet). That said, the phrase is ambiguous with its more literal sense (a bible manuscript/codex/book that happens to be old). Simply retargetting to Bible serves both senses and will avoid surprises. – Scyrme (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The literal sense was my reason for the delete recommendation, it would be like making a redirect for Old newspaper. But yes, as Mattdaviesfsic posted, this could better redirect to Bible in general instead of interpreting to the reader which portions different religions consider Old. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and vagueness. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about my findings?
    I don't really agree about this being too vague; there's only really two things this is likely to mean: either 1. bible books/manuscripts that are old, or 2. an "old bible" canon as opposed to a newer substitute or addition, such as the Book of Mormon. Redirecting to Bible serves both uses, as it the topic of that article is the "old bible" in the latter sense and discusses a number of old manuscripts, translations, and historically significant examples, thereby covering the former sense. – Scyrme (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The use by LDS is too niche, and not mentioned at the target, for the expression not to be vague and the target not to be surprising. Veverve (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why redirecting to Bible would be surprising. The relevance seems obvious enough to me. – Scyrme (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AngusWOOF that if this only refered literally to old copies of the Bible that it wouldn't be any more plausible than "old book" or "old newspaper" but its use in mormon phraseology provides "Old Bible" with a second meaning while redirecting simply to Bible covers all interpretations thereby resolving ambiguity. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still think its unfathomable for anyone to search this. Even if there is direct phrasing of it in Mormon literature (which I hardly see as being reliable.......!), I still doubt anyone would search for it. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattdaviesfsic: The reliability of the sources in which it appears is not relevant to whether it makes a helpful redirect. Many redirects are based on terms that are unlikely to appear in reliable sources (eg. {{r from slang}}, {{r from nickname}}). These a retained because they are still helpful to readers who don't necessarily limit their vocabulary to terms used in reliable sources when searching for topics.
As for whether anyone would search it, looking at pageviews, this redirect has had a somewhat steady views since it since it was created on 14 March 2023, with as many as 11 views on 10 April 2023 almost a month later. Before it was nominated, the redirect had a total of 101 views and a daily average of 2. That's fairly healthy for a redirect. Admittedly, later in April there was stretch with no views. It's hard to tell whether that whether that would have continued as an enduring trend because this nomination interrupted normal traffic early in May.
Things won't go back to normal until after this is closed. If there are no views for many months after it's closed, then it would be safe to say the early stats were atypical, but as it stands it seems too soon to tell what the long term traffic would look like. In that case, this can be nominated again. However, for now the evidence we do have suggests that some people have found the redirect helpful. Since the redirect is cheap, that should be enough in the absence of a strong reason to delete. – Scyrme (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget this strikes me as a perfectly plausible, if uneducated (for non-Mormons?), way of trying to find the Old Testament, and pointing it to Bible addresses the edge cases identified by Scyrme. signed, Rosguill talk 04:53, 1 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).

Chittem[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 04:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous with Chittem Narsi Reddy. Not sure what to do here – resolve through hatnotes or disambiguation, or potentially neither? Is this chittem stick referred to simply as chittem sometimes? – in that case the redirect should be kept as is. J947 † edits 08:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chittem is an Indian Telugu's Family name, like Chittam, which is less common. Referring to chittem as the politician is like using bush as a reference to either the president George W. Bush or his father. Looking for chittem is found for most references to plants or recipes, very few to people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavelik (talk • contribs) 02:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and in the instance of bush, the Bush family is prominently disambiguated. What matters here is what the reader searching up "Chittem" wishes to find, and as it stands it seems that that is probably split between two things. J947 † edits 23:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not finding anything where "chittem" stands on it's own with regards to the plant, but it does also appear in "chittem wood" and "chittem bark", as well as with "stick". Alternate spellings "chittum" and "chittam" do sometimes stand on their own. And it seems likely that the names starting with "ch" applied to Frangula purshiana are variants of shittim/shittah tree (growing up in the Pacific Northwest, I heard this word as a common name for F. purshiana (but never saw it spelled/written) as well as a plant in the bible. Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given the absence of actual ambiguity with a WP:PTM. Unlike Western family names, Telugu family names are not used as a short form of address or reference, so no reader will come across a source (even a Google Books snippet) calling him "Chittem" alone. This Rediff article about his death illustrates the point [2]: "Chittem" is only given at first mention, while every subsequent reference to the man calls him "Narsi Reddy". The WP:COMMONAME appears to be "C. Narsi Reddy"; most reports don't even mention what "C." stood for: [3][4][5][6][7]. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP, and since there's no evidence that the politician is referred to only by his surname. Better to leave as is, and possibly resolve with hatnotes if desired. CycloneYoris talk! 11:42, 25 May 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).

Jantra (album)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Jantra (album)

Eukarya Animalia Mollusca Cephalopoda Octopoda Octopodidae Thaumoctopus Mimicus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a list of the main ranked taxa to which Thaumoctopus mimicus belongs, from domain downwards (and with the specific epithet erroneously capitalized). No other page on Wikipedia links to it, and it seems highly unlikely anyone trying to find the mimic octopus article would do so by searching for this. And because nothing else starts with Eukarya besides Eukarya, this is confusingly the second thing that comes up when Eukarya is typed into the search bar, above all pages beginning with eukaryote/eukaryotic which would presumably be much more relevant to someone searching for Eukarya (and it's around the fourth or fifth default search result for pages containing Eukarya) Spizaetus (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a redirect page I created when I was 12. I think it's pretty clear it should be deleted. DanDan0101 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like another similarly-titled page has already been deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanDan0101&oldid=809306049#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Eukarya_Animalia_Mollusca_Cephalopoda_Octopoda_Octopodidae_Octopodidae_Thaumoctopus_Mimicus Spizaetus (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: unhelpful, unlikely search term, and we certainly don't need this kind of taxonomic-ranking redirects. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 15:53, 18 May 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).

MBTA Silver Line line redirects[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 02:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these names (without the "silver" or "SL") are never used. 1 and 4 are also ambiguous with bus routes. eviolite (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: Per nom as unused. I can find pretty much no examples of these being used without being preceded by Silver and arguably ambiguous with bus routes (1 and 4 are both bus routes as well). TartarTorte 00:05, 21 May 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_May_18&oldid=1159268648"