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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unmentioned quote listed as "R from catchphrase" without any further reference at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak soft redirect to an appropriate Sly Cooper Wikiquote page, especially for one of the games in Sucker Punch's original trilogy. All three of them mention that phrase, albeit worded as "jump[ing] and hit[ting] the circle button" rather than "press[ing]" it, but I don't know which specific one it should go to, so it can also be deleted to avoid this. Regards, SONIC678 23:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: jumping exists in many video games, and the circle button is standard on Playstation controllers. This specific quotation may appear in Sly Cooper, but the components are too common to be pointed to just one game. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 02:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per QuietHere. 〜Askarion✉ 15:32, 19 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).
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 23:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created redirect from the title of a 2021 film. The film is not mentioned in the Telugu cinema article, but could plausibly be an article in the future. (WP:R#DELETE #10) gobonobo+c 22:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a mention is added somewhere. The only mention I can find on Wikipedia is a talk page post asking for it to be added to List of Telugu films of 2021 before it had a reliably sourced release date. I offer no opinion on whether an article or mention would be desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 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).
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 phrase refers to how the global tcket sales reached billion, but there is no mention of it at the target. Qwerfjkltalk 17:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NotAGenious. Even if that mention is determined to be unwarranted in the article, the term is out there in the wild and makes a useful search term. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:07, 19 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).
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.
Speedy delete: WP:G10 as it was deleted before. TartarTorte 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not against a delete, it's worth noting that this particular epithet has its own Wiktionary entry (wikt:Obomber). No usage citations given there, though. --GnocchiFan (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This has been created multiple times, meaning people are looking for it here so we should take them to the relevant content elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see harm on soft redirecting to Wiktionary. NotAGenious (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion WP:G10. Contentious information about living persons is required to be sourced inline wherever it appears on Wikipedia. We could probably make an IAR exception for a non-neutral redirect where the title is explained and cited at the target, but Obama's bio does not mention this at all, and the Wiktionary entry has no sources period. Policy compels deletion of this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was the creator of this redirect page. On the wiktionary entry, I've added numerous quotations to justify this redirect as it has been in use for more than a decade. The reason I made this redirect page was that there was already mention of criticism on Obama's bio from opposition regarding his administration's actions overseas in the lead section (Nine months later, he was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, a decision that drew a mixture of praise and criticism), foreign policy ("The killing led to significant controversy") and legacy ("Obama fell short "in areas many Progressives hold dear", including the continuation of drone strikes"). If nothing else, the redirect can be targeted towards the article on the use of drone strikes by the US or its foreign policy from 2009 to 2016 directly since this is what most people refer to when they mention the term. BesNutGeb (talk) 09:49, 20 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).
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.
Retarget per nom. --Lenticel(talk) 00:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Leanne Morgan per nom and everyone above. "Lianne" is a reasonable spelling of "Leanne." Regards, SONIC678 02:10, 19 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).
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 02:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such time zone as UTC-13:00, and there is no mention of UTC-13:00 on the target page (UTC-10:00). 132.234.228.163 (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm rather confused by this. It seems that that a sentence The time zone is the only one reaching the hypothetical UTC–13:00. was in the article at the time of creation of this redirect, so I understand why it was created, but that was later removed and when it was in the article it was uncited. Unless this is added back with a relevant citation, these should be deleted. TartarTorte 03:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To explain what this (confusing, possibly original) observation presumably refers to, there is a bit of territory in longitudes corresponding to UTC+11, but that are to the east of the International Date Line, and hence would make sense to be in UTC–13. However, they actually use UTC–10 (rather than UTC–13 or UTC+11), which is closer to the rest of Alaska and the U.S. SilverLocust💬 06:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like something that would warrant further explanation on some related article. I don't see such an explanation anywhere, but if it exists then I would think that'd be the best target for this redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly – 333-blue at 08:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy to strike my vote and change to keep if that's readded to the article or redirect if it's added to another article. I don't know a great way to source that in, but I don't have the world most experience editing timezone pages, so I'm not great at finding sources for them. Thanks all for the explanation though; that makes a lot of sense. TartarTorte 12:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the time zone does not exist, and the "hypothetical" is WP:OR. The only landmass that lies within the meridional UTC+11 time zone (west of 172.5°E) but east of the IDL is a peninsula at the extreme western end of the uninhabited Attu Island in the Aleutians, and is part of the UTC-10 Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone. This bit of trivia isn't mentioned anywhere and really doesn't need to be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 02:24, 19 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).
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.
Delete per WP:FOREIGN as an inappropriate non-English redirect. (Direct translation where the native/original form of the title is in English) Johnj1995 (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No affinity between the Japanese language and India TartarTorte 03:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reviewed the above RfD for precedent and I am not fully of the opinion that the precedent from said RfD was to retarget any given foreign name of a country to Names of X or X where X is the name of the country in English. For example, 이탈리아 and 프랑스, which are Korean language terms for Italy and France respectively, were deleted at RfD. I think it moreso is what category it falls into as to having affinity or not. The retargetted redirects from the RfDs linked above were the Korean language terms for Japan, Taiwan, and China, all of which were determined to have affinity due to having large Korean populations. I don't think it would cause catastrophe if this is kept; however, I do think that this could be setting a potential larger precedent per WP:PANDORA to create all kinds of redirects like this if this is used as precedent. TartarTorte 14:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one stated retarget any given foreign name of a country, but rather retarget to articles where the names are already mentioned & explained in prose. The actual sourced content of such an article itself is the best context for evaluating affinity: most existing "names of X" articles don't list every name of a country in every language, but only those which have been discussed in some fashion by non-dictionary sources. This of course cuts both ways, and serves as a guard against the WP:PANDORA scenario you suggest: whereas names of Japan discusses Korean names for Japan, Name of Italy and Name of France didn't, which is why no one suggested retargeting to those articles during the debates. Similarly, names of Germany lists a bunch of foreign names in a dictionary-like fashion with little apparent encyclopedic rationale for including those names, and I recall editors at RfD having objected to retargeting names there as well. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's worth noting that the relevant sentence in Names for India does not appear to be sourced. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:39, 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).
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.
I've recently created an article for the New Zealand ice cream flavour Goody Goody Gum Drops. This poses an interesting question: should this redirect to the ice cream flavour, or should a disambiguation page be created? To me it appears that the ice cream flavour is the primary topic as it is considered to be 'iconic' to New Zealand, and (I believe) is much more well known than a song from 1968 by a pop band whose Wikipedia article has 3,000 views in the past month. —Panamitsu(talk) 01:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and add a hatnote per QuietHere. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and add hatnote per QuietHere. NotAGenious (talk) 10:43, 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).
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 02:31, 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).
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.
Delete per WP:FOREIGN as an inappropriate non-English redirect. (Direct translation where the native/original form of the title is in English) Johnj1995 (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I would say that with the shared border with China, diplomacy (or lack thereof) between the two countries, and their border skirmishes, there's probably enough affinity, but it's not the strongest case ever. I wouldn't say that every country should have a redirect for every other country in every language, but this one seems to have some tie to the country it's targetting. TartarTorte 01:10, 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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#Kuzushiji
