Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 2023.

Jaxxon[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 Jaxon (name) with several entries added to the disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) โ€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that needs to stay at Wookieepedia. Absolutely zero significance, only appearing in a literal handful of comics. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:38, 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) 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm kind of surprised there is no entry at the list page, since Jaxxon is fairly notorious as a character design in Star Wars and has recently shown up in SW media in the past couple of years. I could see there being sufficient RS to justify an entry and therefore a redirect. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the entry to the list with some additional sourcing. I think there's enough coverage to keep it as a list entry. Okay with a hatnote there to the other suggestions given here. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As such, the list contains only information from the Skywalker Saga films, the 2008 animated TV series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and other films, shows, or video games published or produced after April 2014. This is the current list criteria, which the character does not meet as he does not appear in the visual medium. TNstingray (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes no sense because the article says This incomplete list of characters from the Star Wars franchise contains only those which are considered part of the official Star Wars canon, as of the changes made by Lucasfilm in April 2014 and the comic books are very much part of that canon. There's no principled reason why minor characters who appear briefly in an animated show or video game are included, but characters with significant and in-depth real world coverage and analysis like Doctor Aphra and Jaxxon (less news media hits because older, but more coverage in academic books and articles because of his prominence of Disney's less than stellar development of its non-movie characters) are not. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the list criteria needs to be changed. I have slowly worked on separate drafts of characters for different sections of canon: OT, PT, Clone Wars, etc., to match the existing list for The Mandalorian, as the current big list is quickly becoming too broad. I would agree with you that there is no principled reason why minor background characters should be included; hence why I have removed many of them and requested the deletion of many redirects. Doctor Aphra appears to be significant enough to include. Jaxxon is not, as his coverage is neither significant nor in-depth. There was merely a reaction to his cartoon design, which is a generic reaction to most additions to Star Wars canon (recall Ewoks, Gungans, Lurmens, Babu Frik, Noti ...) TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, Jaxxon gets coverage by books from reputable publishers because he is so symbolic of the ridiculousness of early Marvel Star Wars comics. I'm undecided if it's enough for notability purposes, but it should be enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia. [2][3][4][5][6][7] There are also additional examples if you do a Wikipedia Library search. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 23:55, 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).

I Am the Very Model of a Scientist Salarian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#I Am the Very Model of a Scientist Salarian

Dab hand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Dab hand

Demoncrats[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. WP:G3 by Acroterion. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t โ€ข c) 06:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demoncrats currently redirects to Democratic Party (United States). However, "Demoncrats" is not written in the body of the article. The term is noted in some academic literature (e.g., Shofner, 1978; [https:doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00089-2 Havey, 2020]), though not all sources discuss the modern Democratic Party in the US (e.g., Green, 2014). At present, no articles link to Demoncrats. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:51, 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).

Dream hoard[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 It's been almost a month an no actual argument in favor of keeping has been provided. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. (2 of 4) MicrobiologyMarcus (petri dishโ€ขcultures) 19:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this one is just common as i was writing the article i notcied that i would not finish the title occasionaly and just dream hoard would be easier as a redirect. Same thinking as WP:CHEAP. Unless this has a better different page, but I think if any redirects for discussion for this page end up getting deleted, this would be the one. i think we should keep the others. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:45, 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 21:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, โœ—plicit 23:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree with nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dream hoard" is not a synonym for the target, and was meant as a shorter identifying text per the creator. I'm open to any other deletion rationales, but not the one in the nomination. Jay ๐Ÿ’ฌ 09:50, 29 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).

Jewnited Kingdom[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 (WP:G3). Deleted by RickinBaltimore as vandalism. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 16:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, this is a pejorative term related to a conspiracy theory of Jewish supremacy. I cannot find this specific term in any academic literature or in mainstream news outlets, though the related term Jewnited States has been named in academic literature (Clark, 1990; Kimmell, 2003). At present, Jewnited Kingdom redirects to the United Kingdom, but nothing links to it. If we were to keep it, I would recommend redirecting to Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pejorative and (hopefully) an unlikely search term. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly inappropriate. Can we speedy delete a re-direct? If we can, we sure should here. I think an admin needs to look at some of the re-directs this user is creating. They are concerning. KJP1 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another, and as completely inappropriate. Jewkraine. I shall log at ANI. KJP1 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This editor's now blocked. KJP1 (talk) 13:54, 21 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 Little Mermaid (upcoming Disney film)[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 ๐Ÿ’ฌ 09:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Trying this deletion request again per WP:UFILM as page views are virtually nonexistent now. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Page views have tapered off and there are no incoming links, so seems like per WP:UFILM this is good to be deleted. TartarTorte 19:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The discussion in July was premature, but this one is not. There isn't a clear line to be drawn as to where the utility of the redirect ended, but it was at some point between mid August and mid September. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (an article should never feature the word 'upcoming'). Nate โ€ข (chatter) 00:58, 24 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).

Wikipedia:MYLOXYLOTO[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 13:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently bringing WikiProject Coldplay back from inactivity and this shortcut is too specific, it references a song from the band instead of their own name. The WP:COLDPLAY shortcut is enough already. GustavoCza (talk โ€ข contribs) 13:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - in the process of repairing the slightly incorrect notice tags on the pages, I've merged these three identical nominations. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless the shortcuts are needed elsewhere, these are completely harmless. There is no limit to the number of shortcuts a page can have and they don't all have to be advertised. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 23:50, 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).

Russia russia russia[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 05:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the word "Russia" three times. The three repetitions do not appear to be significant from Google searches, and this sequence is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My google might be biased as I'm located in the US, but searching google for "Russia Russia Russia" gives me almost exclusively information related to Trump's association with Russia and specifically his use of the term to dismiss the Meuller investigation. It's not the most common search term, but at least from my searching it was rather unambiguous unless it were to be retargetted to a more diffuse article about Trump and Russia rather than the Special Counsel investigation. TartarTorte 13:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get those results at all in my search; the nearest association was to an NCIS episode with that title. Everything else just was generic results about Russia for the most part. While you probably uncovered the reason why it exists, which I thank you for your help in that, I still am unsure whether this redirect will be useful for uninitiated readers, and may be possibly surprising to end up at an American-side investigation (especially given the fact that the only text in the title... is Russia). If this context was explained at the Mueller special counsel investigation page, this redirect would likely be more acceptable. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My search results were similar to Utopes'. Trump's dismissal was in the list (although sources disagreed on how many times he said the word) but equally prominent were reports of this being chanted by supporters of Putin following at least one of his speeches, the NCIS episode, discussions of NATO policy and two different podcasts about the Wagner Group uprising. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, my search from the Philippines for "Russia russia russia" just talks about the country in general. --Lenticel (talk) 06:31, 6 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) 17:10, 12 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) 12:41, 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).

Trump effect[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 05:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This phrase has a wide variety of meanings: Donald Trump's contribution to an increase in racially inflammatory speech, his contribution to increased bullying in schools, his contribution to new aesthetic developments in contemporary art, and so on. None of these are discussed in the target article, where the title phrase also isn't used, and none seem to be discussed in any depth in any other article. This seems like a plausible search term but one that's fundamentally so ambiguous that any given target will be more confusing than helpful. โ€“ย Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:58, 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).

Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod[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. Editors remain evenly divided between keep and delete due to disagreements regarding the extent that the German edition of this film was significant. signed, Rosguill talk 05:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German translation of title; delete per WP:RLANG. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was also the most popular film in Germany with admissions of 13 million, ranking third of all time lends sufficient affinity for the German language, in my opinion. I will note that the redirect is currently employed at Unter falscher Flagge. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Germans will presumably look this up on German Wikipedia. Redirects don't exist so that people can look up articles in languages other than their primary one but under titles that are in their primary language. Largoplazo (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This redirect is not for Germans, it's for English speakers who encounter the German title. I gave one such example. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rationale given is faulty - WP:RLANG is an essay, not an actual policy/guideline. Guideline-based reasons to delete (WP:R#DELETE) are not met. Beyond that, one could possibly argue that it does meet #5 (someone finds it useful) under WP:R#KEEP, especially in light of Tavix's point above. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RLANG expands on criterion 8 from WP:R#DELETE: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. My comment is arguing that the film is not related to German culture, and therefore a German-language redirect should not exist. Judging from your reply, it seems my comment was too concise to actually engage with. I'm sorry for that. Also, I'd like some clarification: is "one could possibly argue" meant to signify that you're arguing in favour of keeping the redirect based on that criterion? ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A guideline-basedpolicy-based reason is that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, including a translation dictionary. If it were, and redirects were handled accordingly, we could have people adding thousands of redirects to each of a million articles on here. But it isn't and we shouldn't. The essay makes very good points and makes a good guideline whether it's an official one or not. Largoplazo (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that "third most-successful film in Germany" is sufficiently close a connection to count as a linguistic affinity. I note that Das Dschungelbuch is not a redirect, though more than twice as many Germans went to see Disney's Jungle Book and that even had a German-American director. The only other language-based redirects to Once Upon a Time in the West are in Italian, which indisputably has an affinity. On the other hand, there's no redirect for Il รฉtait une fois dans l'Ouest even though the film had more views in France than Germany, and our article spends more time discussing its reception in France. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting a bit into the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST weeds. I think you make a solid case for the creation of those redirects, and would support their existence. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are actual translations instead of completely different titles, unlike the "Play me the Song of Death" in the present example. โ€”Kusma (talk) 09:50, 20 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 21:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't consider "lots of people who speak this other language are familiar with or really like this subject" (paraphrasing another user's Keep rationale, above) a reason to provide a translation. WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies, and the leeway given in WP:FORRED doesn't extend to this. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The film was dubbed into German. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE point 8 (which is a guideline): redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. The subject here does not have a close relationship to a German-speaking culture, as it's an English language film made by Italians and Americans. If being a successful film in Germany or being dubbed into German was enough to make a film closely connected to Germany then we'd have German-language redirects for basically all blockbuster films. Hut 8.5 19:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it is a step or two further than "Keep, it's dubbed in German". The German dub is successful-enough and noteworthy-enough to discuss in the article, and has derivative use (giving an incoming link). -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more tryโ€ฆ
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 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).

24269[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 ๐Ÿ’ฌ 09:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#D2: the redirect is in a similar vain to number articles in Wikipedia, compare 4 or 12.

Additionally, I'd also argue WP:RFD#D8. Yes, the number 24269 is cited in the article as the documentary number, but no is going to search for the document by only its number and nothing else. Ted52 (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Adjacent numbers do not exist as redirects to our articles about numbers of that order of magnitude so deletion seems better than retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and unsigned comment. - Presidentman talk ยท contribs (Talkback) 01:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That unsigned comment was by me, I typed too many tildes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing too special about the connection of this number to the text, and if somebody really needs it, the search function should pick it up. โ€”Kusma (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:46, 21 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).

In the Village of Guaraparim[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 moot. No longer a redirect so we don't need to discuss it here. โ€”Kusma (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned at target -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, and? Did you read the paper I put in the edit summary? In the Village of Guaraparim is a piece of Tupi-language literatureโ€”in fact, a really notable one. If someone searches for it, at least may the reader be redirected to the article of the language, while the article of the auto, itself, still does not exist. I can easily create a stub, but being threatened to have a page of mine deleted does not help me put in the mood to do so. Or I can be even lazier and just create a rough-and-ready list of Tupi-language literary works in the target article. This doesnโ€™t make any sense and is, in fact, very abusive. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10 - "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Without any information on the book at Tupi language, this redirect is of no value to the reader. Assuming the book is notable, a stub article should be created instead of a redirect. Tevildo (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Article created. MPGuy2824, next time, you can simply ask me to create the article, on my talk page. Or, better yet, if you do not know anything about the subject, it would probably be better simply not to touch the page. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:06, 21 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).

Administrative divisions by area (Disambiguation)[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. โœ—plicit 05:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I declined a G6 speedy on these as out-of-process, and G14 would not apply because the target is a DAB (which I'm going to convert into a list of lists in a sec, but that's still DAB-like for G14's purposes). However, miscapitalized "(disambiguation)" titles are not helpful except when there's significant page history, so I bring this here for consideration of non-speedy deletion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Entirely harmless and with significant page history there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: I'm not sure if you have checked their history before you commented here. The only edit of both ones before I proposed CSD is their creation. What Tamzin actually means is that these redirects with miscapitalized qualifier are not helpful since they have no significant page history. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That still doesn't change the fact that these are entirely harmless and we should not be deleting harmless redirects based solely on dislike for the capitalisation. (Disambiguation) is no more or less plausible a search term than (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely useless and obviously with no significant page history. These recently created redirects are the only ones end with '(Disambiguation)' qualifier. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedence at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. Steel1943 (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 2022 RFD, recently created with no meaningful history, should probably have been speedily deleted as R3 or G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a classic case of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly#Some unneeded redirects: "Errors in the act of disambiguation: e.g. disambiguated titles ... capitalization and spelling errors such as (Disambiguation)". I know it's only an essay and some editors like to pretend it doesn't exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:16, 22 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).

๐Ÿ‘ฏโ€โ™‚๏ธ[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 Playboy Bunny#International icon. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that this is the only meaning of the emoji (its name is "Men with Bunny Ears"). Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment ๐Ÿ‘ฏโ€โ™€๏ธ ("Women with Bunny Ears") redirects to Twin, ๐Ÿ‘ฏ ("People with Bunny Ears") redirects to Playboy Bunny. They should likely all target the same place, but I'm not sure either are the best target. Bunny girl also redirects to Playboy Bunny. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ah yes, the notoriously vague little pictures called "emojis". Strong delete. Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 20:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per all the above โ€“ most of these emoji redirects seem to be a huge time sink for the project, imo. --GnocchiFan (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm fine with redirecting elsewhere, but I believe that deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. This is probably why every other emoji redirect discussion brought up this year has concluded in a keep/retarget decision. (See prior discussions here: ๐Ÿคญ, ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ’ป, ๐Ÿ›‹๏ธ, โซ/โฌ, ๐Ÿซธ/๐Ÿซท, ๐Ÿคช, & ๐Ÿ™€) Enix150 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Enix150, sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF. Note the guidance at WP:REMOJI. โ€”ย Qwerfjkltalk 06:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Qwerfjkl: WP:REMOJI is just an essay that needs to be updated and doesn't represent any precedent in reality. If you take a look, all of the examples presented except for the nonce emoji/text combination are in fact live redirects. Going even further to address WP:OTHERSTUFF, every base emoji has a Wikipedia redirect, and there are currently no exceptions. That would make it the sole outlier among the thousands of emojis, and encyclopedias usually seek consistency in their coverage. Enix150 (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Enix150, Wikipedia is by no means consistent in it's coverage, and for that matter, redirects have no need of being consistent. We could, for example, make thousands of {{R to disambiguation page}} redirects to make sure there is one for every disambiguation page, but there isn't merely much point. There's even less of a point here, because these redirects have little value - it is by no means clear that the emoji refers to the target. IN the absence of an alternative target it should be deleted. โ€”ย Qwerfjkltalk 07:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Qwerfjkl: This user makes this same argument every time an emoji has been listed for deletion; I have argued multiple times that it isn't based on policy, that it would be consistently bad coverage, etc. Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 12:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Edward-Woodrow: And every single time the community has disagreed with your opinion, and the keep/retarget argument has prevailed in discussion: ๐Ÿคญ, ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ’ป, ๐Ÿ›‹๏ธ, โซ/โฌ, ๐Ÿซธ/๐Ÿซท, ๐Ÿคช, & ๐Ÿ™€ Enix150 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. It doesn't make your argument any more valid. Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 21:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does however make your nominations at some point disruptive. Gonnym (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Keep or Retarget to Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs where it is shown. At this rate, I'd also suggest that an RfC on "emoji redirects" may be useful for future clarity when these pop up, as WP:REMOJI seems in need of an update. An RfC has been floated a bit these last couple months, but especially with the seemingly uptick in emoji discussions, which usually echo the same sentiments (which makes sense, as all emoji share this trait), having an overarching consensus about "what to do" generally could add some much needed structure and alignment for the emojis which usually have wild variation, as shown by the different targets at Playboy Bunny / Twin, just for this example alone. (The broken-down-house redirect just below is the same way). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget. With very few exceptions, every emoji should redirect either to relevant encyclopaedic content about the meaning (or a dab page if ambiguous) or, generally less preferentially, to an article about the character. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the great ambiguity here, Thryduulf and Gonnym, where would you consider retargetting? Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 12:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't see any ambiguity as that is the trademark Playboy Bunny look. But if you and others feel otherwise, Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs (which can then be in expended to include the Zero Width Joiner versions) can be a valid target. The retargeting however should not occur if the base emoji (๐Ÿ‘ฏ) does not change target, as all 3 should direct to the same place. Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or retarget. Emojis should never be deleted as they are all valid search terms. If the target is incorrect or if there are better, then by all means, propose better options. Worse case, redirect to emoji block. Gonnym (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Do you think that every single possible search term should have a redirect on Wikipedia? If so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with what redirects are actually for. And redirecting to emoji block is not actually useful to the reader. Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 21:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to familiarize myself with a non existing page? That would seem on par with how your goal is going so far. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RPURPOSE. โ€”ย Qwerfjkltalk 06:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I obviously meant WP:RPURPOSE. Thank-you, Qwerfjkl, for the correction, and thank-you, Gonnym, for a needless assumption of bad faith. Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 12:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, keep, retarget to Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, or refine to Playboy Bunny#International icon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion should probably be temporarily suspended as this RfC was opened on the topic. โ€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:16, 30 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).

๐Ÿ’โ€โ™€๏ธ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7#๐Ÿ’โ€โ™€๏ธ

Bird like reptile[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. โœ—plicit 05:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A web search shows various pages describing different dinosaur genera as "bird-like reptiles", but I'm not seeing that term used for any broader group of dinosaurs. Ornithischia is the group of dinosaurs that did NOT evolve into birds, so the current target is not a good choice.

I would expect somebody who would use this as a searching term is looking for a topic more specific than dinosaur, but there are many topics they might be searching. This is a descriptive phrase, and not a term with any specific referents, so a disambiguation page would not be appropriate. Plantdrew (talk) 01:24, 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).

Rattle his cage[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 soft redirect to Wikt:rattle someone's cage. Although the numbers of !votes are mostly equal, I find the arguments for soft-redirecting more convincing, and more likely to be helpful to a broad range of readers. As Thryduulf said, I can't see [...] that this is the primary topic across all uses (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow โ€ข talk 17:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rattling a cage is an idiom, and does not appear to be highly associated with this particular race. Granted, this phrase does show up in the article once, as something Dale Earnhardt said during a post-race statement. Besides that though, as "rattling a cage" is used often outside of this context, there is also Rattle The Cage and Rattle the Cage which are different topics that directly refer to cage-rattling as part of the subject name. Or deletion, if no better topic can be found. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete. If there is no appropriate internal target (I've not investigated) this should be a soft redirect to wikt:rattle someone's cage. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:rattle someone's cage per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator here and late reply: In NASCAR context/circles, the phrase is associated with the race. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 12:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am possibly a bit biased from being a motorsports fan, but this does seem like an appropriate target and what I was expecting. I think that rattling a cage is a distinct target from the rattling his cage as the latter uses a specific pronoun to differentiate from the general phrase of rattling a cage or rattling someone's cage. The quote in mention is at the article Labonte finished in 8th, and one lap down. Earnhardt's victory was subsequently met by boos and obscene gestures from the crowd. NASCAR officials reviewed the pass but decided to let Earnhardt keep the victory. Earnhardt later stated, "I didnโ€™t mean to wreck him, I just wanted to rattle his cage a bit." so I think it should be fine to keep TartarTorte 12:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only usage on wikipedia not related to NASCAR (and specifically references to this moment) is in a plot summary for a novel, Mystery (novel). It appears to be in quotes, so I am guessing it did appear in the book, which is from before the 1999 race; however, the predominant use for this phrase is still in reference to this race. TartarTorte 12:38, 12 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) 16:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep potentially common search term, relates to the race, and is a relatively famous quote in motorsports.Yoblyblob (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐‘ฐ๐’๐’๐’–๐’”๐’Š๐’๐’ ๐‘ญ๐’๐’‚๐’Ž๐’† (๐’•๐’‚๐’๐’Œ)๐Ÿ”ฅ 00:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see that in the context of NASCAR that the target is the primary topic, but what I can't see is that that is the primary topic across all uses. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt. The difficulty with a primary topic argument is that it isn't a "topic". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 22 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_20&oldid=1184424157"