Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 16, 2023.

Demographics of federal electoral districts of Canada[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 24#Demographics of federal electoral districts of Canada

List of libertarian socialist communities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 25#List of libertarian socialist communities

The Tower (Dubai)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 24#The Tower (Dubai)

Municipal Tuberculosis Sanitarium Complex[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could refer to many different sites. Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist for closing the October 8 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No other facility with this title appears to be mentioned on enwiki. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Presidentman. I cannot find anything else on wikipedia (or off) that is called "Tuberculosis Sanitarium Complex" that is not the Chicago one except for one-off mentions. It seems that this is the only place by such a name. TartarTorte 21:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Athondai[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 25#Athondai

Mainspace redirects to WikiProjects[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 WPs, retarget Wikimedia Mexico. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type * Pppery * it has begun... 16:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the closest to a compelling reason to get rid of these has been that they should be using the WP: namespace. However, they are all formatted to use WP namespace - as if someone was trying to use the WP: namespace and left out the :. While I recognize there is a substantial technical difference between WP: and WP, this is a perfectly reasonable mistake in trying to get to the namespace, and the items being looked for aren't going to naturally come up in search results because of that technical difference. - Darker Dreams (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first 3 as unnecessary cross-namespace redirects, or unnecessary errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/retarget: WM has a plausible target, for the others forgetting a colon isn't plausible for a CNR. Clyde [trout needed] 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Wikimedia Mexico and delete the rest. CycloneYoris talk! 00:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rosguill: why was this relisted? It looks to me like there is a clear consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought there was enough support for keep, and enough of a split between retargeting and deletion, that a second relist was in order. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough on the Keep point I suppose, but there isn't a split between retargetting and deletion as almost every vote for either is to retarget Wikimedia Mexico and delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Wikimedia Mexico and delete the others, per everyone above. - Eureka Lott 17:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Wikimedia Mexico, delete the others. The keep rationale based on forgetting to use a colon is not a good enough reason, in my opinion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

7 October 2023[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 Portal:Current events/2023 October 7. Basically a toss-up between that and 2023#October, but slightly leaning toward the portal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been brought to my attention that, prior to my closing this, involved editor User:Undescribed had relisted this. First of all, don't do that. You're involved and it should have already been clear to you from MJL's comment at AN that you weren't seeing things entirely clearly on this. Second, if you're going to relist, you have to actually replace the old discussion with {{Rfd relisted}}. Third... I've added the parallel comments below. A keep, a delete, and a retarget to portal. I find there is still a rough consensus for that last option. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 11:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't make sense. This date shouldn't like to a specific event. Merlinsorca 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Since this seems to be the main historic event for this day, and has been heavily compared to both the Pearl Harbor attack and 9/11. The January 6 United States Capitol attack has a hat note for redirect from "January 6, 2021" and the Attack on Pearl Harbor has a hat note on "December 7, 1941" as a redirect, so why not have one for this event as well?
Undescribed (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Was done as a request on the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood talk page as October 7, 2023/7 October 2023 is tied to the Hamas-Israel war. For instances, this article] from Vox Media is titled "Where was the Israeli army on October 7?" and that was published today, October 16, 2023. "October 7" is tied to the war as the start date, similar to how December 7, 1941 is tied to Pearl Harbor and September 1, 1939 is tied to the German invasion of Poland. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    September 1, 1939 is an article about a poem with that title so isn't relevant here. Obviously in the context of the Israel-Hamas war the date has only one significant event but outside that context there are two (at least) significant events. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other significant event listed in the 2023 page for October 7 is the Afghan earthquake, what are the other ones you mention? I can also list many others instances of these type of redirects including "July 7, 2005", "August 6, 1945", "June 6, 1944", etc.--Undescribed (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't even make any sense to retarget it. The whole reason for having the hat note "for other events on the same day, see 2023#October 7" is to address the other less well known event that happened on that day. Undescribed (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's backwards - the hatnote is there because the redirect exists, the redirect does not exist because of the hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, but what I'm saying is that removing the redirect based soley on the fact that it was not the only event listed for October 7 in the 2023 page is not a valid reason. This is why the hat note is there for disambiguation purposes. If the reader meant to search for the Afghan earthquake instead of the Israel attacks, they would simply have to click on "2023#October 7". See the January 6 Capitol attack and Pearl Harbor as analogs that I mentioned in my post above as reasons why this redirect should be kept. Undescribed (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Portal:Current events/2023 October 7, which is the preferred target for single date redirects. The 2023 Herat earthquakes were also significant with thousands of casualties, so there may not be a primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the redirects for "July 7, 2005", "September 11, 2001", "August 6, 1945", "June 6, 1944", and "December 7, 1941"? How can you justify those redirects but not this one? Also, the Afghan earthquake is definitely not primary topic over an attack with unparalleled magnitude and media coverage, and is on par with 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Undescribed (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I am not commenting on any other redirect but "7 October 2023". If you feel other redirects should be discussed, feel free to nominate them. As for primary topic, I consider 2023 Herat earthquakes a very signficant event: ~1,500 deaths, ~2,500 injured, over 21,500 houses destroyed, over 17,000 other houses severely damaged, 114,000 people in need of aid, etc. That is not to say that the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is not very significant (because it is!), but due to the fact that there are multiple very significant events that occurred on that day, we should not be redirecting to one over the other. -- Tavix (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is important to compare this to other redirects because they are precedents that need to be discussed and/or challenged. So lets say that this Afghan earthquake happened on the same day as 9/11. You're telling me that 9/11 still wouldn't be primary topic? Yes the earthquake killed over 1,000 people and was terrible but how it is primary topic? Whenever people think "October 7th" I guarentee you they will think about Israel attack not the earthquake in Afghanistan. I think its crazy that this redirect was even put up for discussion in the first place. Undescribed (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I am not commenting on other redirects, nor am I engaging in hypotheticals. I already laid out my case for why I personally do not feel there is a primary topic for this specific redirect. You obviously disagree, and that is okay. -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: I have a question regarding your logic. The 2023 Herat earthquakes are, as you nicely said, a significant event, given the near 1,500 death toll. That said, I would like to point out that it is the 2023 Herat earthquakes (plural). While it would be true and accurate that almost all the deaths were caused by the earthquakes on the October 7, would it truly be ok to say that an article encompassing events from October 7, 11, and 15 should prevent a redirect for an even larger significant global event that is known for a start date of October 7? Just sort of wanted to pose that question, given your logic is around a significant event, whose article is not truly just about an event on October 7, but rather 3 different days. In a semi-poor argument (i.e. not me arguing as I was asking a question), one could argue that because the article encompasses 3 separate dates, it would be trumped by an event known by a single date, or something around that style of logic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you answer the question yourself with almost all the deaths were caused by the earthquakes on the October 7, which means that October 7th is clearly the date associated with these earthquakes. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to disagree. If it was the date, why did the other earthquakes which aren’t really notable get included into the article? Why not just keep the notable earthquakes by themselves? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With an eye toward closing this: @Thryduulf, NotAGenious, and Selfstudier: Do y'all have thoughts on Tavix' suggestion to retarget to the portal rather than the year/month article/section? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is indeed the "preferred target", fine by me, Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether portals are the generally "preferred target for single date redirects" but I regard that as equally good to the target I suggested. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel comments due to incorrect relist (see above).
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

🔞[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 8#🔞

𝕏[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#𝕏

Rheobatrachus silus[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 Procedual close: New content can be directly added to the redirect page as it is by removing the redirect. No need for a RFD. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to create an article about this species of frog, for some reason the species name is a redirect to its genus. Delete. V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@V.B.Speranza, you can just remove the redirect by blanking the page, then adding new content. The redirect does not need to be deleted unless you want to move a page over it, which qualifies for speedy deletion and again is not dealt with here. Schminnte [talk to me] 17:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Don't Join[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for discussion. Apparently this is the full name of the character "DJ" in The Last Jedi. The lack of disambiguation makes me think there could be better targets for this redirect (like an anti-war, anti-draft slogan or something), but I don't have any great suggestions. Perhaps this already has the best target. TNstingray (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete rather than looking at it as a redirect one might ask "Is this a plausible entry point?" My feeling is that it is not, whatever the intended target. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems on first glance like an unrelated and semi-arbitrary redirect target for anyone using this search term. I can't think of any plausible alternative, so would rather have nothing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Star Wars[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly non-notable characters that are not and will never be listed on this page. Just because they exist doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. That is why we have Wookieepedia. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC) (edited to combine entries: TNstingray (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Weak delete all I am torn over "disk space is cheap" and allowing these redirects to remain, but I feel they service little or no useful purpose, given the lack of notability of the characters. Marginally more likely entry point than Don't Join (subject to a marginally different discussion), but unlikely even so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not Wookiepedia. --Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see a problem with these redirects. These are all plausible search titles, in a similar manner one typing "Nahida" from Genshin Impact in is looking for information on that character. Awesome Aasim 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Such plausible titles can be searched on Wookieepedia. Having redirects for the names of every background character encourages editing behavior contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia (users adding information about non-notable subjects, leading to repetitive reversions, leading to edit wars and a non-constructive environment, etc). If something is not listed on a list, why do we need redirects saying the opposite? TNstingray (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh... I presumed that they would be discussed on the page. Apparently they are not. Yeah, I can say "weak delete". For one there is the concern of breaking incoming links from external websites. For another, I can see how this can confuse readers. Awesome Aasim 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Heteronomity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30#Heteronomity

Troops (village)[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this village was called "Troops". Was never mentioned in the stub's lead, and was moved by the page creator a minute after creating the page at this title. Could have been a placeholder because of this, as it isn't mentioned and Google searches give all different results for "Troops village". Utopes (talk / cont) 04:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with 239 inhabitants, how likely is this to be useful. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Hо̄rai[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 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly normal redirect, except the o with macron character was typed via the Cyrillic script, and Hōrai already exists. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 indian films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 5#List of indian films

Methionylthreonylthreonyl...isoleucine[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 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two more quite-long-redirects for Titin that include a separating ellipsis. I would combine these with the previous, however, these two seem to contain the proper spelling throughout and could be worth discussing separately for that reason. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The separating ellipsis brings up accessibility concerns. TNstingray (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made similar comments on yesterday's log page: These are implausible search terms as the insertion of ellipses is arbitrary in addition to the sequence being ambiguous. I won't search for any examples, but I guarantee the sequences MTT*I and MTTQ*I match many other proteins. If these are kept it would suggest that all proteins should be searchable by their sequence on Wikipedia either spelt out like this or by short forms (i.e. WP:PANDORA). ― Synpath 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Exuperius negator (bishop)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created WP:XY redirect resulting from a round-robin move that went poorly. The species name "negator" has nothing to do with the bishop, and the disambiguator (bishop) has nothing to do with the species. Plantdrew (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Wikitable[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 5#Wikitable

List of administrators[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 Category:Administrators, retaining existing hatnote and without prejudice against setindexification. Let's start with the easy part: There is overwhelming consensus against the current target. Opinions on a solution were split into three camps: delete (4), retarget Category:Administrators (4 + 1 "for now" + 1 very weak), or retarget Administrator (2)—plus 2 that would apply to either retarget option. Those last 2 bring the first target a bit past majority support numerically, and the delete arguments don't rebut the case for retargeting. However, there is general agreement that this isn't a great outcome, and several users suggested some sort of set index article / list of lists at this title. So this close is explicitly without prejudice against any editor taking that action; if they do so, they should include a {{selfref}} hatnote to Wikipedia:List of administrators and/or Category:Wikipedia administrators. (Note also that the article Wikipedia administrator exists, although currently the only individual admins mentioned are Andrew Lih and [ZOMG COI!] me. An in-article list of bluelinked admins could probably be justified though.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This search term is not exclusive to Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, too much Wikipedia bias -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Category:Administrators, which provides a list of administrators in general (outside of Wikipedia). Duckmather (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Especially on this topic and for this title, I suggest it may be worthwhile to discuss alternatives to deletion? As a cross namespace redirect, this may be one of, if not the most "sought-out" list located in the Wikipedia space that would be searched for deliberately by new users and/or people unfamiliar with the WP namespace convention. Even though the title doesn't include any additional qualifier before or after the word "administrators", which might make this be technically considered vague, searching for this term ON Wikipedia I feel makes it abundantly clear what is being looked for. (This could possibly be WP:COMMONSENSE, although it could also very well be my own personal bias / experiences). Both of the two redirects have averaged a noticeable 10 views a month after being around for 8 years. Sure, this may be a towards-Wikipedia bias, but at the very least this appears to be a title that will be searched and therefore it seems to be worth it to at least accommodate for the views, as there can very well be a topic here.
All this being said, yes. This terminology is not specifically exclusive to Wikipedia. There are many articles that detail lists of various administrators... so, a set index article consisting of lists of administrators could possibly accommodate the different types of admins? Alternatively, targeting the category for Category:Administrators itself per Duckmather also seems very doable for this title, (which also handily includes a link to Category:Wikipedia Administrators). In any situation though, it feels strange to me to remove the existence of this search term, as it serves a lot of good use in my eyes in regards to being a cross-namespace redirect, and one of the better examples of what types of XNRs would be most helpful, even if the title isn't as specific as it could technically be. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete I agree with Utopes that this is a search term that inexperienced users who are looking for a list of Wikipedia administrators will use, and as such it should be a blue link that leads to somewhere with a clear link to that. Whether that is the present target or some other page (e.g. a set index the category) with a hatnote to the present target I'm not sure, but outright deletion is definitely the wrong action here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Category:Administrators and add a big bold message pointing to WP:Administrators (or some better place). That's the best we can offer without going too out of line. J947 † edits 10:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a set index would be ideal here, though I'm not sure how practical it is. For now, I agree with Utopes that having some way to get to Wikipedia admins is probably useful, and deletion makes that difficult, so the category is probably the best target for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose retain as major Wikipedia bias. I do suppose that a soft redirect to Category:Administrators would be fine for now, but I do not support a "big bold message" at the top; a simple hatnote would do. I'm leaning toward a list of lists similar to Lists of presidents at some point. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unlike Three revert rule the word "administrator" isn't a Wikipedia specific term, that said I agree it may be useful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to administrator. Admins redirects to this DAB. There is a hatnote for the Wikipedia admins and provides a list of various types of admins which removes the Wikipedia bias. – The Grid (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to administrator, which is already a reader-facing list of (kinds of) administrators, and already has a hatnote to the policy page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

MediaZilla[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 04:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been called "MediaZilla" in over a decade. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was never called "mediazilla", this was only a nickname. Keep per WP:RECENTISM and there being no other plausible target (until the media software company becomes notable) but delete as an obscure cross namespace redirect. Take your pick... This, that and the other (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there's an existing website and app with the same name. (which a WP:SPA with the same name tried to change on the MediaZilla redirect) If those aren't notable, I would agree with keep per This, that and the other. – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: the mainspace and the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary CNR --Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per the closure at this related RfD. I don't see good reasons for a cross-namespace redirect in this instance either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked RfD is barely relatable to this one. The one you listed even permitted the one redirect to be cross-namespace redirected. – The Grid (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Egafd[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. This can be revisited should substantial mention of the European Girls Adult Films Database be added. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace -> template cross-namespace redirects can sometimes make sense if they are reader-facing templates or exceptionally common ones like Cite journal. This is none of those. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Dora the Explora[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 24#Dora the Explora

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_16&oldid=1184060966"