Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2023.

Raye Richards[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 per WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful, as there is no mention at target. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had erroneously created this redirect based on their real name Brittany. There is a draft for them pending at WP:AFC. Redirect will have to be removed before the draft can be accepted. Filmforme (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 05:51, 6 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).

Purple Line[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and implausible redirects, created by a user who was blocked specifically for creating bad redirects. See previous discussion of nearly-identical redirects here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Same rationale as my vote on last year's RfD that was linked: All commuter rail on the MBTA is signed as purple, but these lines are not called the purple line, as they're all different lines. It's one of those scenarios where the entire name of the target article is included within the disambiguator and a distinct lack of common references for these being called the "purple line", show to me deletion will not cause much harm. TartarTorte 18:23, 6 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).

Côte d'Ivoire,[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be a reason to have a redirect with a comma at the end of the country's name. (The regular version of Côte d'Ivoire without the comma has justifiably existed for 11 years). Utopes (talk / cont) 22:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually on second thought, this one is a lot more harmless than other types of WP:UNNATURAL redirects that I've seen. I think I'll leave the RfD up for now because the OCD was flaring when I first saw this, but in the grand scheme of things this redirect is not causing any major problems if its only a comma, admittedly. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:34, 5 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).

Miel Campioni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miel is seemingly the younger brother according to [1]. However, such brother is not referenced at the target article, making this redirect confusing. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:42, 5 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 airline destinations in Colorado[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 List of airports in Colorado. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to include non-encyclopedic page into encyclopedic lists Fram (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to List of airports in Colorado: I guess a list of airports is for all intents and purposes a list of airline destinations, but it also has non-commercial airports there. Furthermore, this isn't the world's most likely search term, so if it's deleted I wouldn't mind too much, but I guess weak retarget as there is a somewhat appropriate target. TartarTorte 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could refer to a list of airports in Colorado, per above, or could conceivably refer to places airlines in Colorado fly to outside of Colorado. Perhaps the risk of confusion is slight, but this is also an awkward/unlikely search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SURPRISE and per Mdewman6, or very weakly {{Wikivoyage redirect}} to wikivoyage:Colorado#By plane. Presumably what one expects to find under this title is a list of airlines and which destinations they fly to in Colorado, or a list of destinations and which airlines fly there. Neither the current cross-namespace target nor the list of airports in Colorado serve this function, and neither really does Wikivoyage, but Wikipedia is not a tour guide. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This redirect is useful.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak soft redirect, strong oppose keeping as is: Redirecting a mainspace title to a subpage of a WikiProject is entirely inappropriate. I don't think a list of airports is that appropriate, deletion is fine by me, but I think soft redirecting is the best option. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 15:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to WikiVoyage or redirect (equal preference, oppose keeping it as is). I don't think it's plausible that someone using this search term wants anything other than a list of destinations in Colorado served by airlines (if I were looking for that I'd probably be equally happy with one organised by airline and one organised by destination) and I don't regard it as an awkward or confusing search term (contra Mdewman6). WikWovyage or the list of airports are both imperfect but better than the status quo or deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of airports in Colorado. Reasonable target that's in mainspace of Wikipedia; I don't think the WikiVoyage (or project-space) list is necessarily better, anyway. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, retarget to List of airports in Colorado, or point to wikivoyage?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:19, 5 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).

إنفنيتي ورد[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic transliteration of company name; no cultural or linguistic connection. Delete per WP:R#DELETE, section 8. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NOTDICTIONARY and doesn't fall under the leeway provide for foreign language redirects under WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above unless someone can prove the company's connection with an Arabic speaking country/culture. --Lenticel (talk) 05:52, 6 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13#Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod

Fartnite[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The A and the O are not particularly close to each other on a qwerty keyboard, so this does not seem like the world's most likely redirect. TartarTorte 20:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is clearly not a typo but an intentional derogatory misspelling. I'm not sure whether it's a notable enough for a redirect, but it should be discussed based on what it actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the author "Fartnite" is a term often used for Fortnite as a joke. However, it is also a misspelling that could sometimes occur. That's the purpose of the redirect. EditorEpic (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a feasible misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguably falls under WP:G10, as it is not a common term to refer to the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:48, 10 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).

Nopa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nopa is not a "real" neighborhood in San Francisco. Notability is not established in reliable sources, because few sources ever mention it. The actual area is part of the Western Addition. Please see my further comments in Talk:List_of_neighborhoods_in_San_Francisco#NOPA on 8/20/2023. I also put a tag requesting sources and none have been identified. Hence, I believe this redirect should be deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:20, 5 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).

Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No such grade exists in this specific order, would recommend deleting. Richiepip (talk) 20:06, 5 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).

"Ss" for beta redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Multiple redirects created by Eubot that consist of converting an eszett in a different redirect's title to ASCII characters. However, the eszett in these redirects is used as a substitute for the Greek beta – as "ß is a lot easier to type on most non-Greek keyboards than β" – rather than being a part of the name, so it is unlikely for this to be searched for. Randi🦋TalkContribs 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Weird Eubot redirects that won't be used as noted per nom as ß instead of β makes sense Ss as the expanded form of ß instead of β doesn't make a lot of sense. TartarTorte 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per conensus of previous discussion. I can't envision anyone ever getting use out of them. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and also confusing as 'S' has specific meaning in naming chemicals. ― Synpath 01:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the consensus at the previous Rfd linked above. Thanks for putting the rest of these together. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – FE-ss-CPPIT has been bundled into the nomination with similar reasoning, only differing in that a different bot has created the redirect. Randi🦋TalkContribs 06:49, 8 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).

HermitCraft[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 Minecraft server#Notable servers. (Non-admin closure) RedPanda25 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:48, 5 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).

Blue Chapman[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has multiple listed roles on Wikipedia, including at City of Ghosts (TV series) and Council of Dads (TV series). Would recommend deleting to maintain the title as a redlink, and encourage article creation if notable. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:45, 5 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).

Klaatu (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background extra, basically not even a character. Not listed, and will not be listed at any point. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although this is a minor background character, it is still a character, and this redirect is helpful to anyone who wants to search for this character, no matter how minor and obscure they may be. No reason to delete. TypoEater (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No mention of this character, so this redirect is not helpful. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:57, 1 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) 16:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This character is not on the list, so anyone looking for information about them will get nothing but disappointment. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not Wookiepedia --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 6 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).

Visagate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visagate has no news search results relating to the Polish scandal on Google or DuckDuckGo. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's an alternative translation of Afera wizowa; as per discussion in Talk:Cash-for-visa scandal#Page title: Is "Visagate" appropriate? Abcmaxx (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Original creator of Visagate[reply]
    The fact that it's an alternative translation doesn't mean that it should be instantly kept. Other editors also pointed out the fact that no (reliable) sources used the term "Visagate" when referring to the scandal. Also, no actual article uses a "gate" prefix other than Watergate or Elsagate, for example. Though, my point is that you completely invented the term "Visagate" when referring to the Polish scandal, so for the lack of sources I nominated this. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 18:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no support for the “alternative translation” (by whom?) on the talk page. NM 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so you are the editor who came up with your original translation. I think you should have disclosed that. NM 21:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original title of the article, alternative translation that has seen use in the current WP:ITN/C discussion. Plus, given how recent the title change was, many people here might still be familiar with "Visagate", moving the article while deleting the redirect would just cause confusion. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who would be familiar with Visagate and not know? The article was around for 1 day before being renamed to Cash-for-visa scandal.
    The only use that Visagate has seen on WP:ITN/C is discussion about whether it's appropriate. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 11:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that it's an alternative translation doesn't mean that it should be instantly kept: it pretty much does; redirects are cheap. J947 † edits 02:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Though there is literally no source to prove that Visagate is even being used by anyone to refer to this. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we should retain ones like this that make no sense. See WP:RDEL point 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..."  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, this term doesn't appear in a single reliable source, and the Polish term Afera wizowa does not translate to "Visagate", at least according to any sources given. Sure, it was the article title for a short time, but other than that it's a pure Wikipedia neologism and an implausible redirect; by retaining this we would be according the name a status it doesn't have and therefore misleading readers. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Visagate was completely invented by the creator of the article, as literally no sources (let alone reliable ones) used Visagate. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough the term does appear in reliable sources, but not for this... e.g. a story relating to the UK giving visas to Ukrainians, something about Marc Márquez not being able to travel to India, a US issue regarding green cards and various other things. So if anything those topics would be better targets for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT than this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we can disambiguate Visagate instead, since it can refer to other things, but definitely not this Polish scandal. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is shown to be an actual translation. As it stands, this appears to be made-up by the page creator. Disambiguation is also an option, if there are valid targets. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC), 03:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don’t make up new names that are clearly not from RS, thanks. NM 21:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify there are many scandals called "visa-gate" or "visagate" [2] so this should become a set index with references to the name visa_gate and link to the articles concerned with the scandals -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Listify and include what pages? There are most likely no standalone pages for these events. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This redirect will become a new list (ie. listify) -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 21:54, 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) 16:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This appears to be a reasonable translation, and is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reasonable translation" How come no reliable sources use Visagate when referring to this? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 13:50, 6 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).

Resistance: Jinrui Botsuraku no Hi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation of subject; unrelated to Japanese language or culture. Delete per condition 8 of WP:R#DELETE. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:29, 5 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).

Template:R from deadname[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 Template:R from former name. Y'all are overthinking this. If there were real demand for this to be a separate redirect template and category, I'd expect to see a lot more than just three (3) people whose deadname redirects transclude this template. Anyone who thinks there should be a separate template and category is welcome to boldly get to work changing the {{R from former name}} to this more specific template, on deadname redirects. Then, if your changes stick, you would have a stronger argument for possibly creating the new template and category. wbm1058 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m starting a discussion about this rcat redirect as I’m personally unsure as to whether it should point to {{R from birth name}}, as it currently does, or {{R from former name}} (or even potentially become a new rcat). I came across this discrepancy because I noticed that Bruce Jenner is tagged with {{R from former name}}, however the redirect {{R from deadname}} (which would - unless I’m mistaken - be suited for this redirect) redirects to {{R from former name instead. I welcome others’ thoughts on this. A smart kitten (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Bundled the avoided double redirect Template:R deadname into this discussion, which I didn’t realise existed until now. A smart kitten (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list last updated by user:A smart kittenmeow 09:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I'd support retargetting to {{R from former name}}. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 12:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents now that I’ve thought about this for a bit. While a birth name will always (?) be a former name, a former name isn’t necessarily going to be a birth name. I know this isn’t CfD, but whatever happens here I’d also suggest making Category:Redirects from birth names a subcat of Category:Redirects from former names. (Can someone more experienced than me let me know if I ought to notify WP:CATP of this discussion, given it now involves potentially modifying categories?) I’m still neutral/undecided on whether Category:Redirects from deadnames or similar should become its own thing. A smart kitten (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait hold on, {{R from birth name}} states that it can be to a more common name or a related topic (my emphasis). Not sure about some of my previous comments now. I’m gonna notify Template talk:R from former name and then I’m gonna bow out of this discussion for now before I get even more confused. A smart kitten (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either retarget to R from former name or make it its own rcat. Deadnames are always former names but not always birth names. If we retarget, deadnames that are also birthnames should be tagged with both rcats. If we create a new rcat, such names should get all three rcats, unless we implement A smart kitten's suggestion. The documentation for the newly created rcat could at least explain this all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer creation over re-targeting, if it helps the closer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some people actually have names made after death to represent them. Funerary names, tombstone names, and ceremonial names -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s fair to say that ‘deadname’ is the common name for the name a person was known by before transitioning, as indicated by our article on the subject, and uses of the term by RS: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] A smart kitten (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create template & companion category - I think this is enough of a unique situation to warrant completely separate treatment. Deadnames are not necessarily birth names: I can't think of an example, but a person could have gone by a name different from their birth name (a stage name, probably) and later abandoned that name as a deadname. On the other hand we can reliably say that all deadnames are former names, but the former names category also includes a broad range of objects and entities' former names, like former designations of space objects, or companies that re-branded; even in the narrow context of a person changing their name, deadnames are not quite the same thing. They could be a subcat, probably - we already have Category:Middle-earth redirects from former names for example, and looking at the category I think splitting out a subcat just for former names of people is warranted. If we do conclude that a new category should be created, I'll ask for an edit filter to be created to track and notify about any pages being added to it, because I'm sure it will be a target for harassment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New rcat per Ivanvector. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought about supporting a new rcat, but I'm a little worried about collecting all the deadnames in one place. Is there a real BLP concern there? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good point. Didn't think of that at all... Hm. Consider my !vote struck until further notice. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skarmory If that’s a potential issue, then would there be a similar problem with the redirect itself - as in, that such a list of deadnames would be available through ‘What links here’? To be clear I’m not trying to dismiss the issue, but just mentioning this because any potential BLP issue may already be present by way of the redirect existing at all (but don’t take this as a delete !vote!). Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be much harder for someone not already experienced with Wikipedia to find the "what links here" on a template redirect, so I'm less concerned on that front, but that could be a potential problem. I don't know that I'd be opposed to deletion myself on those grounds – the redirect is semi-ambiguous, and tagging with the more precise r from birth name or r from former name and not funneling all deadnames into r from former name may be better anyway, especially given the low use (only two redirects use these rcats, despite them existing since April and November 2021). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • new rcat: if having Category:Transgender people is fine, I don't see the harm in this; specifically because, if their deadname wasn't noteworthy, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, per MOS:DEADNAME, so a new rcat shouldn't give new info that isn't mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia.
Doerakpoes (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving my thoughts here now that I’ve read the input from other editors (if any previous comments by me could be interpreted as !votes, then this supersedes them).
I agree with Ivanvector that this is a unique enough situation to warrant separate treatment. So my preference/!vote would be creation of a new rcat. However, this is based on the assumption that such a category wouldn’t be a BLP policy issue. Having said that, though, I am at least somewhat persuaded by the argument Doerakpoes makes in this regard, about the fact that we also have categories such as Category:Transgender people (I am very unfamiliar with BLP policy though, so feel free to not give this much weight).
Skarmory raised the potential BLP issue around collecting all the deadnames in one place. However, I have to admit I’m not sure what the specific BLP issue(s) with having such a category (e.g. Category:Redirects from deadnames) would be. Again, feel free to take this with a pinch of salt, as I’m not familiar with BLP issues, but I’ve noticed that what’s been happening so far is more of a general alluding to BLP issues, rather than references to BLP policy sections that such an rcat may come into conflict with. There’s nothing wrong with raising potential issues in this way, of course (I’d do the same thing if I was worried about possible BLP concerns, given my inexperience). However - now that other pages have been notified - if the discussion isn’t made aware of a specific part of policy that an rcat would potentially come into conflict with, I don’t see how references just to ‘possible issues’ would be enough to prevent the rcat being created (if that is the way the consensus leans). To stress, though: this is not in any way meant against any editor that has raised potential BLP issues in this discussion so far.
I have some more thoughts about how redirects from deadnames may work, but I’m putting this comment down first as I’m terrible at actually being able to write down my thoughts at the moment, and I want to make sure I actually got my main !vote down.
user:A smart kittenmeow 13:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some supplementary thoughts on how redirects from deadnames could work:
  • As far as I can see (I may have missed something though), there’s no specific policy yet that would apply to how notable a deadname would have to be in order for a redirect from it to not be deleted. In my experience so far, redirects are generally held to a lower standard than if the same content were inserted into articles (e.g. WP:CHEAP). However, given the issues around deadnames and BLP privacy, I would offer a suggestion that such redirects are held to a higher standard, and are only kept if the deadname is notable enough to be included in the article itself (per MOS:DEADNAME — [i]f a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page - my emphasis). My reading of the policy, including WP:BLP#Applicability, suggests to me that inclusion of a deadname will either be appropriate in all namespaces, or in none. (See also WP:BLPPRIVACY)
  • Regarding what to do if an editor encounters a redirect from a non-notable deadname: I’d suggest that this may be an occasion where the redirect should not be taken to RfD, in order to avoid the Streisand effect (also per WP:BLPTALK). Instead, I would propose that in this situation, Oversight should be contacted to evaluate the possible privacy issue - in the same way that they may be contacted if there was such an issue that arose in an article itself. (See also this archived VPPol discussion)
I’m really sorry for this jumbled mess of words and hopefully some meaning can still be drawn out of it; I’m really not doing great at wording things atm. All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? New rcat?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I missed the discussion since the previous relist, but I don't think the category is really a BLP issue. The guidance for the category would follow MOS:DEADNAME: if a person was notable under their deadname (MOS uses Bradley Manning as an example) then we include their deadname and a redirect is appropriate. If a person transitioned before becoming notable and isn't known by their deadname then we don't include it, and any redirect from such a name would be eligible for WP:G10 deletion per WP:BLP. Those policies apply whether or not we create a separate category for these redirects; we don't have to reinvent policy here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{R from former name}} per SMcCandlish and others above. There are many reasons that a person has a former name. Let's not split out this one, especially due to the potential BLP problems noted above. I think we're better to stay on the side of caution here. - jc37 21:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (sorry for another one): Of potential interest to this RfD, I opened a discussion at VPP about policies regarding what to do with redirects that are potential BLP privacy issues in and of themselves. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{R from former name}} per Jc37 and others. Even if collecting deadnames in one place is not a BLP problem (I don't know whether I agree with that or not currently) as Firefangledfeathers points out Deadnames are always former names but not always birth names, so this being a subcategory of birth names would be factually inaccurate - something that could potentially be a BLP issue of its own in some cases. [disclosure: I came here from the VPP discussion]. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Retargeting to {{R from former name}} makes sense to me, since "deadnames" are not necessarily "birth names". While Ivanvector's suggestion of a separate template for a people-specific subcat of Category:Redirects from former names could also make sense, I see no convincing argument so far for a category specific to "certain former names of transgender people" and others above have expressed concerns over that idea. So even if the new rcat is created, I'd call it something like {{R from former name of person}} (with a category like Category:Redirects from former names of people) and still have these titles as redirects. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a better idea than mine, actually. Create the {{R from former name of person}} and companion subcat. This would also get all those names of people out of the parent category, which has over 23,000 members and where there are opportunities to further subcategorize former corporate names, former geographic names, former names of astronomical objects, and so on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't necessarily oppose this, I'm looking at the people section of Template:R template index, and I think most, if not all of those should probably then have "...of person" appended. Perhaps just close this as retargeting to "R from former name", and then do a follow-up group nom? - jc37 20:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:R from dead name also currently leads to {{R from birth name}}. I don't know how to add this to the discussed redirects myself. Doerakpoes (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Recent discussions seem to trend towards retargeting to "R from former name"; relisting to have eyes on the new suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 15:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the {{R from former name of person}} idea. Allows for things like married name changes, etc. that happen but aren't commonly considered deadnames to be categorized along with deadnames, which reduces the chance of BLP issues, given there's something else lumped in there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is created, and I agree it's a good idea, then retargetting this there would make sense, but unless and until that happens {{R from former name}} is still the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget redirect to {{R from former name}} per Thryduulf, because (1) such names are inherently former names, but not necessarily birth names (so the current target of {{R from birth name}} is less accurate), and (2) I'm not seeing evidence that it would be useful or wise (as opposed to harmful) to have a new separate rcat for this. -sche (talk) 01:32, 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).

List of El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera characters[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There will likely never been enough source material for an article of this subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Redirects are costly so I'd rather see this deleted entirely. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The target section, so long as it continues to exist, is appropriate for the article. I feel the WP:BLAR was appropriate due to it not passing WP:NLIST, so it makes sense as a redirect to the section on the article about the characters. TartarTorte 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TatarTorte. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – how is this specific redirect costly? It redirects to the correct section, which has a list of characters. Redirects are cheap, too, and unless proven costly I tend to keep. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:32, 9 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).

Medieval Latin comedy[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every comedy written in Medieval Latin is an elegiac comedy. This makes the redirect misleading. Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:36, 5 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).

Croatia–Estonia relations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 08:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially helpful, since the target doesn't have much information on Croation–Estonia relations per se; most readers would have to do a text search to actually find anything. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Croatia is listed first. Conversely, Estonia–Croatia relations (were it to exist) should target Foreign relations of Estonia. -- Tavix (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is systematic bias and discriminates against Estonia for no good reason, other than alphasorting. If there is not enough material for an article, then the redirect should just be deleted. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. If you're searching for Croatia first, then you have Croatia ahead of Estonia in your mind. Therefore, it makes sense to get Foreign relations of Croatia over Foreign relations of Estonia. The relevant information should ideally be the same at both articles because it's an intersection, so it doesn't really matter which article one goes to. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 1 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) 14:10, 5 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).

Óльга А. Лады́женская[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Óльга А. Лады́женская

Cow belt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#Cow belt

George Andrews Reserve[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 Dandenong, Victoria. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion at WP:DELREV, @Govvy: has issues with the target of this redirect. As far as I understand their point, I think it is a good one, in that the reserve encompasses more than the football club. I therefore think that an alternative target of Dandenong, Victoria should at least be considered. JMWt (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget please, per nom, I've been around wikipedia for a long time and there is always something new to learn! But I feel people are understanding me now, regardless of the venue change. There may arise a similar issue at Green Gully Reserve which is AfD which also faces the same issues. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or else target to whichever of the two articles can have more information than they currently do, which is very little. Although looking at the article which was deleted, there probably isn't much which can be said anyway. A7V2 (talk) 01:57, 3 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 11:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dandenong, Victoria per nom. I agree that the venue is used for more than just as a football venue, so a redirect to the city is more appropriate. Frank Anchor 12:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. - Indefensible (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I nominated the article in question for AfD, but have no objection to the retarget proposal above. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 5 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).

Dinnerbags[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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "dinnerbags", or even "bag" for that matter at the target page. Searching on Google brings up purses and other accessories one might take to dinner. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's not a term I've ever heard before, but googling suggests it (and "Dinner bags") is (possibly regional) British slang, e.g. [9], [10], [11], https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=98319.msg5080067#msg5080067 [this website is apparently on the spam blacklist]. A mention in the article wouldn't hurt though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Basically a "bag" is a derogatory term for a woman in the UK and as a result "Dinnerbag" is such a term for a Dinnerlady. Cexycy (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be a regional term, I should mention that at least for my region, there are no Ghits for lunch ladies when searching "Dinnerbags", so a mention at the target may possibly make this more appropriate, revealing to readers why this term isn't a synonym for "bags you take to dinner". Utopes (talk / cont) 21:43, 11 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).

Temples associated with the Seven Chakras.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Temples associated with the Seven Chakras.

Social Security System (SSS)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#Social Security System (SSS)

SMOS:[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly a new pseudo-namespace redirect which was coined without consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Use WP:SMOS or MOS:SMOS or something instead. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "MOS:" pseudo-namespace was created, with consensus, as an alternative to "WP:" because the MoS was taking up too many mnemonic/recognizable shortcuts. There is no such issue with "Simplified Manual of Style", so no justification for a new pseudo-namespace for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is deleted, there are 9 other redirects in this pseudo-namespace which should also probably be nominated for deletion, but I'm unsure if bundling is a good idea. Those redirects are SMOS:A&Q, SMOS:ABB, SMOS:CAP, SMOS:D&H, SMOS:D&N, SMOS:MKP, SMOS:P&C, SMOS:REF, and SMOS:USG. As a further note, these 9 redirects all were created in 2015 by the same user, but that user is different from the user who created SMOS: which was created in 2023. TartarTorte 15:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those redirects could be bundled together but are probably best not bundled with this one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MOS:SIMPLE is available. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 6 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) Battle for Midway[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 Battle of Midway. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects seem to benefit from a common target, as neither contains a "the" in the common title, although can still be referred to as such. There's a few similarly named pages listed at The Battle of Midway (disambiguation) as well, notably The Battle of Midway (film) which includes a "the", but not the "for". Utopes (talk / cont) 07:24, 5 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Rattle his cage

R13y[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a software via edit summaries, but not listed anywhere at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Taking the first and last letters of a long word, counting how many letters are in between them and then replacing them with that number is a very common method of abbreviation that I've only seen used in software engineering contexts, c.f. I18n. In this case the word being abbreviated is "Reproducibility", our article about reproducibility is about the principle in scientific research, the article about the concept in the context of software engineering is at Reproducible builds. Anybody using this redirect is going to be looking for the target article, anybody who doesn't is very unlikely to encounter it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 9 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 football managers with most the games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be harmless, but this title existed for less than a minute before being fixed and is not just a finger-slip typo; effectively 7 characters are different. The search bar solves this with zero problems, as it would solve any other title. No reason to keep this, I think. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible search term. It took me a long while to spot the difference between these, for anyone else struggling the second and third last words have been transposed - i.e. "with most the" redirects to "with the most". Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf and WP:COSTLY. Even if someone were to search with "the most" transposed, this title would still likely come up as a top search target. (I can not currently do the search because it would go to the redirect, but a similar search for List of managers the at FIFA World Cup shows "List of managers at the FIFA World Cup" as the first result.) Frank Anchor 13:30, 6 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).

Faculty Maths,computer science and sciences of matter-University of Guelma[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remnants of a deleted article which got passed around from Faculty of maths,computer science -University Guelma to Faculty of mathematics,computer science and sciences of matter-Guelma's university. Deleted at this AfD discussion and then later speedied again. While this particular redirect does have history, it does not seem like history that is worth preserving while being a wildly unlikely search term for the current target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, even ignoring the multiple errors in the redirect someone using this search term already knows that the University of Guelma has a faculty of Mathematics, computer science and sciences of matter. The target article contains no additional information about it, so even a grammatically correct redirect would provide no value, let alone this redirect. Additionally, as far as I can tell the University of Guelma is the only one in the world to have a faculty with these three disciplines in the title so it will be very easy to find using search results. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for multiple errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 6 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).

Sniff test[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13#Sniff test

Events in rail transport[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13#Events in rail transport

Benjamin Spragg[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by a now-banned sock, to a poker player not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nobody of this name is mentioned on Wikipedia that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Player is now mentioned at the target article and has potential for expansion. Iffy★Chat -- 11:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now there's a sourced mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:15, 6 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Russia russia russia

Not an argument[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this is a redirect; in terms of literals, "not an" and "an argument" are not mentioned at the target page, nor does the article talk extensively about "arguments" in general. When turning to Google for answers, most results just show topics related to arguments as a whole, although Google Images does return some Molyneux memes with the phrase, so this might be a quote. Possible alternative targets include Argument simply for being the opposite of "not an argument", or either fallacy or formal fallacy, to which the former of these is the target for nonargument, while the latter is the target of logical fallacy. Or, if this phrase is not needed as a redirect, deletion may appropriate also. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:41, 5 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).

E.A.T. ( Philippine TV program)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improper disambiguation format; an WP:RDAB situation. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:23, 5 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).

Cdbc[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 Animal behavior consultant. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is not an acronym for the target, and is no more of a typo for the correct acronym than any of the other items listed at the CBDC disambiguation page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:19, 5 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).

Howard Stratton Davis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13#Howard Stratton Davis

DWKI-TV[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#DWKI-TV

California Bureau[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeably a redirect from a page move; this new article about Chinese espionage in China no longer mentions a "California Bureau". Simultaneously there are multiple bureaus within California that this title could refer to. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:55, 5 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).

Säästöpankki[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 List of banks in Finland. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish-language translation of term; subject unrelated to Finnish language or culture. Delete per condition 8 of WP:R#DELETE. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Genuine question: what harm does this redirect cause? J947 † edits 02:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The general reason is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, including Wikipedia not being a translation dictionary. Exceptions are covered by WP:FORRED. The alternative would allow thousands of redirects from other languages for every article. Largoplazo (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which would be bad because? J947 † edits 02:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Largoplazo (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which applies to articles only. That section is entirely about dictionary definitions. It's absolutely irrelevant to the merits of foreign-language redirects. J947 † edits 22:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RFOREIGN, WP:NOTDICT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary for foreign terms to general topics or topics from unrelated other third languages or English-language topics. There are many foreign language terms with the same or similar spellings as different topics in English and other foreign languages, so unrelated foreign language redirects would cause ambiguous name collisions for not a good reason, when such uses could be sorted out at Wiktionary instead, which would backlink to Wikipedia for their topic articles. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add {{R with possibilities}}. See Finnish banking crisis of 1990s and compare Sparebank. I don't remember adding this redirect in 2015, but I presume it was a redlink in an article. It still appears in several. jnestorius(talk) 06:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:FORRED. In addition, Finnish banks aren't even mentioned at Savings bank, so if the rationale for this redirect is that the term might be entered by someone looking for information on savings banks in Finland, they'll be left hanging. Re Jnestorius's remarks: Finnish banking crisis of 1990s refers to "savings banks" and uses "Säästöpankki" only where it appears in names. As for Sparebank, I'm considering proposing a move to Savings banks in Norway as I see no reason to have that article under the Norwegian term, any more than Architecture of Italy should be titled Architettura. Largoplazo (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've proposed the move from Sparebank. Largoplazo (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to propose that Sparebank be deleted or that it remain as a redirect to Savings banks in Norway? jnestorius(talk) 17:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it should be deleted. As I said above, we don't have Architettura as a redirect to Architecture of Italy. Same thing. Even worse would be to have Arquitectura redirect to Architecture of Spain, given that we also have Architecture of Mexico and, turning to a country with a different language but the same word for "architecture", Architecture of Andorra. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One difference is that architecture is the same thing in any country, whereas the various subtypes of financial institution differ in different jurisdictions. jnestorius(talk) 12:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think architecture in Thailand, India, Morocco, and Finland is all the same? There are many differences, as there are with the specifics of how banking words in different countries, yet the same English term is used when talking about them in English, as is the case for savings banks. In addition—and this is the third time I'm pointing this out to you, here and at Talk:Sparebank—even the Sparebank article exclusively refers to its subject as "savings banks" after the second sentence. In English, they're savings banks. Just as säästöpankki, in English, are savings banks. Largoplazo (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think architecture in Thailand, India, Morocco, and Finland is all the same? — no, I'm not an idiot. I had hoped that a co-operative reader could find the non-idiotic interpretation of what I said. If, like me, you are not an expert in Nordic banking, then I think it's as well to leave the native-language redirect in place to allow for the possibility that the native word doesn't quite map to its English-language equivalent. If you are an expert in Nordic banking, then I bow to your knowledge, although you might add more value to Wikipedia by improving the articles' content rather than worrying about a marginal redirect. jnestorius(talk) 19:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Architecture = the style and structure of buildings. Savings banks = institutions traditionally or primarily organized as places for private individuals to deposit their money. In both cases, nation-specific regulatory and operational details are superfluous to the general meaning. The distinction you're drawing is specious ("idiotic" was your word, not mine). Further, would you like me to point out for the fourth time what I've already pointed out three times? To that point, let's add that we also have an article named Norwegian Savings Banks Association. It isn't as though I'm making up the equivalence. It's curious that you keep denying it. Largoplazo (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of banks in Finland. List of banks in Finland#Savings banks seems to be a good spot to formally define the general term. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of banks in Finland which covers both the general and particular cases. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of banks in Finland. J947 † edits 02:48, 7 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_5&oldid=1183121084"