Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2023.

Vixy Reinard[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. Per WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history, I will be recording the history at Talk:List of Star Fox characters#"Vixy Reinard" listed at Redirects for discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per {{R from merge}} - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is not mentioned at the article and the only content that was merged was 2 lines of original research that never received a reference on its original page, or on the page that it was merged to. If, in the off-chance this character gains notability in the next decade, the page can be undeleted and presumably restored. In the meantime, it is a misleading redirect that points readers to a page where they will be inevitably disappointed by the redirect's implied (false) promise of information. As mentioned by Zxcvbnm, this hopefully will encourage people to seek out the relevant Fandom page instead. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:50, 22 September 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-95 exit list[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. While normally a discussion like this would be closed as "no consensus, default to redirect in absence of support for the status quo", in this case redirect !votes advocated redirecting to an as-yet-uncreated/unspecified target that I cannot default to, despite the lack of support for keeping outright. signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not contain a list of exits on I-95. The article of the version prior to WP:BLARring is unworkable as many of the transcluded pages no longer exist. TartarTorte 23:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The ideal solution is to create a list of lists by creating redirects to the exit list sections of all of the state articles (e.g. I-95 in Florida exit list as a redirect to Interstate 95 in Florida#Exit list to link from the list of lists. Happy to do this, but want to make sure there is consensus for this before taking the time. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Such redirects are unnecessary and the nominated redirect can be deleted as totally unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's workable as a solution to me. I'm not entirely sure where it would best be to gain consensus (unless as a result of this RfD). Out of general WP:LISTNAME concerns, it would be probably better to have this at List of exits on Interstate 95 and each subarticle as List of exits on Interstate 95 in Florida or something along those lines. I'm not sure if there's any policy one way or another against a list of redirects, but that would provide people with what they are looking for generally without requiring substantial amounts of work compared to restoring the dependent pages from the state of the article when it was WP:BLARred. TartarTorte 13:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been consensus for many years that exit lists do not warrant separate articles. Creating additional redirects is unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 19:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—just adding a bolded !vote here to clarify my position for the !vote-counters. Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to a set index or a list of lists as proposed; i.e. create that page, but not at this title. The information is already on Wikipedia; we're not doing readers any kind of service by making it harder to find. If there is a rule that prevents creating such a list of lists with redirects to the state exit lists, it should be ignored. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I drafted a quasi-disambiguation navigation page below the redirect. Initially I tried to compile a full list here by transcluding the exit lists from each state's article, but this breaks the transclusion limit. We could possibly create the full list and then transclude the sections back into the state's articles, but that would make the state articles difficult to edit (I think - I haven't tried). I drafted it here instead of creating a new page because there's history here, but if consensus is to go with something like this then it should be moved to a more appropriate title, probably List of exits on Interstate 95. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice draft. I would personally maybe think this would be slightly better at Lists of exits on Interstate 95 and have the redirects be something like List of exits on Interstate 95 in Florida as opposed to having piped texts with links to anchors, but both work pretty nicely and elegantly in my view. TartarTorte 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I honestly don't see why this is needed considering that you can just add links to the state exit list on the main I-95 article page. ChessEric 19:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. –Fredddie™ 00:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget/create per Ivanvector. Gets a few views a month, so someone's probably looking for the info. No real reason I see not to have a list of lists here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting / expanding?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 01:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What about refining to the "Major intersections" section? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever happens here, it’s also worth bearing in mind that this isn’t the only “I-[X] exit list”-type redirect. Other examples include Interstate 90 exit list, List of exits on Interstate 5, etc., so there’s potentially a bit of a rabbit hole here. Many of these (including the nominated redirect here) also appear to be - often untagged - Rs with history/Rs from merges, and so for that reason I would strongly oppose deletion in order to preserve edit history and attribution. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 12:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See quarry:query/76614 (and User:A smart kitten/random pages/interstate exit list redirects) for my very very very very very rough attempt at compiling a list of interstate exit list pages. I’m working through the redirects now to see which should be tagged with either {{R from merge}} or {{R with history}}. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for going through this backlog of untagged redirects. I think that based on the outcome of this RfD, regardless of if it's to SIA, delete, or keep; it could make sense to RfD all of those in a bundled redirect with the intent on having the same outcome as this RfD, to have consistency as you've indicated. TartarTorte 17:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only problem with bundling IMO would be that some of the redirect targets here do have exit lists. So I, for one, wouldn't support deleting, for example, List of exits on Interstate 96. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to a list of state pages, because if someone is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's format of listing interstate exits under the subpages for the length within each individual state, they would probably have trouble finding them, and as mentioned above this link does get a few views per month so it would help a significant number of people. RedPanda25 20:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget or repurpose seems necessary by licensing, given the history from 2006 including content moves/merges. If there's currently no viable target, keep as is, to preserve history. I don't think a history merge is appropriate in such a case because the content was moved to multiple different articles. —siroχo 03:34, 23 September 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).

Phytophtires[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 💬 06:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN: According to French Wiktionary, phytophtire is a dated French name for an insect in a suborder of Hemiptera that included aphids and cochineals. This seems rather an obscure redirect to have on English Wikipedia, as the term is not mentioned in any article on English Wikipedia (nor on French Wikipedia for that matter). I suggest therefore it should be deleted. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although redirects are cheap, this one serves no useful purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:05, 24 September 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).

Paul Orban[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 💬 06:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a logical target for this article title. Orban was a pulp illustrator and it would be better to leave this as a redlink per REDYES until someone (possibly me) gets around to finding the sources and creating an article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 22 September 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).

Wither skeleton[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 💬 17:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a thing in Minecraft, but since it isn't a synonym for Minecraft and our article on Minecraft doesn't mention it the redirect doesn't make any sense. Hut 8.5 18:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wither skeleton is not notable enough for its own article. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hut 8.5: unhelpful/misleading. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – mentioned at Skeleton (undead), but probably shouldn't be. J947 † edits 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14#Allay which deleted several Minecraft mobs; it is not necessary to redirect every non-noteworthy gameplay feature to the main game article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at the Minecraft article. Its entry at Skeleton (undead) is not helpful for readers as the "wither" aspect of the title is the part with higher relevancy, while the skeleton article makes no note of this. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:33, 29 September 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).

Valuejet[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 Value Jet. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be retargeted to a disambiguation page instead. There is an active airline called ValueJet, operating since 2022, which makes the old redirect to the defunct ValuJet Airlines confusing. The fact that there is no mention of the new airline on either ValuJet Airlines or Valuair doesn't make it better. Renerpho (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I’ve started a very rough draft of a dab page at Draft:ValueJet, but would WP:ONEOTHER apply here? I haven’t checked, but if one of them is the primary topic, should the redirect be targeted there (with a hatnote to the other page)? (As a side note, if ValueJet (Nigeria) is the primary topic, it could potentially be moved to just ValueJet.)
The existence of Valuair does make things slightly more tricky (maybe it makes it more like a WP:TWOOTHER situation than a more straightforward ONEOTHER). I suppose the question then might be of whether to have two hatnotes (eg. {{Redirect}} and {{Distinguish}}), or to have a disambiguation page and just have the one hatnote that points to that dab page.
Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 11:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not actually sure what the primary topic is. The Nigerian airline is the only one that's currently operating, and it's the one I was looking for when I noticed the missing dab page; but ValuJet Airlines was much larger, and the name became almost synonymous with the 1996 crash. If I had to create a new airline, I wouldn't want to call it Valuejet to avoid bad associations, but that's a different story... Renerpho (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renerpho (talk) 15:22, 22 September 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).

Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar[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 💬 06:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this so I could create an article based on the fallout of the death of the redirect target. I was told "no" via someone converting this into a redirect, only for someone to do the thing I was planning on doing at 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis. This redirect is now moot, and I am pissed off. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason you think this redirect should be deleted? Being pissed off is not a good reason (note that the diplomatic crisis article is also a redirect as of this writing). VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that people are far more likely to search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar," "Nijjar," or "Canada-India [crisis/incident/etc.]." "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar" is more appropriate as a neutral, WP:CONCISE title for an article that the mentioned search terms would instead redirect to. Mootness comes from there being consensus for an article at Hardeep Singh Nijjar. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD I personally disagree with BLARing this article, but I could see why some may think it is too soon to create a separate article. I think having this discussion at AFD would be more constructive due to this disagreement. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis has now been merged back to Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar seems like a perfectly reasonable {{R to section}} to me. There has been discussion at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar#Split content to Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar where the consensus is not to split off the death into a separate article, so I don't think that restore/AfD is necessary or likely to be useful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BLAR has just been reverted by the creator, Lukt64. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And is on the main page now?!?!?! What exactly am I doing wrong that Lukt64 didn't? I don't understand this. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was doing it wrong. He made a three-sentence stub that was totally pointless because everything is in the main article. Another user copied-and-pasted a lot of content over, making it a still-pointless redundant duplicate. Lukt64 should not have restored the article because there was nothing on it that wasn't already on the main article, there was consensus against a split, and a proper split that avoids so much duplication was not performed. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman: good point that there is significant editing history in the redirect, which would potentially be a reason not to delete at RFD. But all significant contributions in that history are by the nominator, so we could potentially accept this per WP:SPEEDY criterion G7. There is clear consensus at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar that the fork is unnecessary at this time so I don't think AFD is the right path; something shouldn't be sent to AFD when the consensus outcome is already to retain as a redirect. VQuakr (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: thank you for informing me of the talk page discussion. I did not see this intially. I change my !vote to keep the redirect as an {{R with history}} and {{R to section}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – whatever the status of a split here, the redirect is useful, whether it points to a section of the main article or a separate article. No reason to delete. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Redirect Similar issue has been already discussed on "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" TALK page, and consensus was to have article name "Hardeep Singh Nijjar". It is clear that people are far more likely to search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar," or "Nijjar,". Also "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" is more appropriate as a WP:NPOV and WP:CONCISE title. Further, Google / Bing search is smart enough to automatically bring Nijjar's Wiki page on Nijjar's death search.RogerYg (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with {{R to section}} - Even though people might search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" or some variation of "2023 Canada-India diplomatic crisis", a quick search on Google Trends reveals slight but subsequently dwindling interest in searching for "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar". Retaining the redirect with its history intact doesn't make sense as it was mostly copied from the current article. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine to Hardeep Singh Nijjar#Death and subsequent diplomatic dispute (to fix the section link). As long as we have sufficient content about his death, then a death redirect makes perfect sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:33, 29 September 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).

Yeni Mersin İdmanyurdu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#Yeni Mersin İdmanyurdu

Phalaenea crataegella[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30#Phalaenea crataegella

The Presidents of the United States of America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#The Presidents of the United States of America

Judea deleda est[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 💬 07:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly translates to "Judea must be destroyed", although neither phrase is mentioned at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm just going to assume that the phrase exists in some literary form (shouldn't it be "delenda est Judaea"?), since neither of these are what we would expect someone to type for it. In the first instance "delenda" is misspelled; and it's highly improbable that someone would search in all capital letters using 'I' for 'J' and 'V' for 'U', as if searching for the meaning of a Latin inscription without bothering with lowercase letters. Even if the phrase—in this order—has a legitimate reason to be a redirect, neither of these is a probable search formulation. P Aculeius (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: aside from the typo in Judea deleda est (the correctly spelled Judea delenda est does not exist), this just seems generally implausible. The reference to Carthago delenda est is clear, but I can find no evidence that this phrase has been used to refer to the Bar Kokhba revolt (or indeed the Roman-Judean wars more generally); google search just brings up a bunch of weird antisemitism. At best this is unhelpful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:32, 22 September 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).

Invasive carp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Invasive carp

Life is but a dream...[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Life is but a dream...

Baw with a ba[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 💬 07:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is supposed to be a transliteration of the lyric? I could not find any information online to verify this particular pronunciation, but maybe it sounds similar-ish. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:24, 22 September 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).

Tag team boxing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Tag team boxing

Daniel Schneemann[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 21:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the target says it that he exists. I mean, yes, there is a mention at the target, but as a redirect this isn't useful to the reader. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unhelpful redirect, since there's no meaningful material about this player at the target list. This is one of a bunch of redirects for non-notable minor-league baseball players created around the same time by the same user. Most of them probably should be deleted. - Eureka Lott 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is mentioned at the target, and that is likely the ONLY page where he will receive a mention. It is a clearly spelled redirect, pointed at the appropriate applicable page where the subject is featured. As long as those are true, this redirect serves its purpose as a redirect, even if the subject is not notable on their lonesome. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't the problem; this kind of redirect isn't helpful to the reader in my opinion. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Utopes · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The target contains too little substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no good target. He is mentioned at Columbus Clippers#Roster also, and other pages too. There is more information in the search results than what the redirect can provide. Jay 💬 07:22, 29 September 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).

A human[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#A human

95th[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) Duckmather (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to a disambiguation page, but all the related disambiguations there are partial title matches which should be removed. Thus this redirect has no purpose and obscures search results, of which there are many not listed in the current disambiguation page (i.e. the search results are superior to the DAB page). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created per request by 65.94.169.222, along with 53rd and 67th, with their reason "{{R from partial disambiguation}}", which is a link to a template rather than WP:RPURPOSE. We do have at least one disambiguation page at a similar title: 111th, which is a list of partial title matches. I was notified of this discussion because of my edit of 15:32, 21 September 2017 as part of the cleanup work after the year 95 was moved to AD 95 and pulled off of primary topic status. Such redirects may be "cheap" but they aren't free – they pile additional work on gnome-administrators like me, when changes of this sort are requested by the community. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ordinal entries at the dab page 95 in their own contexts may simply be referred to as "the 95th" or similar, so they are valid WP:PTMs, and this then is a valid {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider that usage. There are some divisions sufficiently famous that they are commonly referred to only by their ordinal, for example the 101st, which is rightly a redirect to 101st Airborne Division, but I couldn’t find any evidence that the same applies to any 95th division. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Mdewman6. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the PTMs are to be removed from the target dab, that has to be done first. I don't see much activity at the dab - only one edit this year, and it was in March. Keep for now. Jay 💬 06:55, 1 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).

Scotched English[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 restore and send to AfD. Frankly, as a personal opinion I think that the pre-existing article is in G3/G10 speedy-deletion territory, but given the contested PROD and now contested BLAR, it is reasonable to insist that more process be followed here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it's kinda offensive linking what is essentially broken Scots (because Scotched English is essentially broken Scots) to the Scots Wikipaedia. Broken English does not redirect to English Wikipedia and Spanglish and Broken Spanish do not redirect to Spanish Wikipedia. The Scots article has been a thing since 2005 as well, so saying that it's just Scowiki is wrong CiphriusKane (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, equating an English variety with a Wikipedia doesn't make sense. I will note that the reason this redirect exists while similar ones don't is probably that Scots Wikipedia was written in Scotched English rather than Scots until 2020. But that doesn't really justify a redirect. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more accurate to say broken Scots rather than Scotched English. The amount of Scotched stuff was a lot less than was made out to be, especially as a lot of the "Scotched" stuff was actually just different dialects being mixed together/niche words being used inappropriately. Also, the Scotchers only started showing up in 2010 from what I can tell, while the wiki itself was founded in 2005, so saying "until 2020" is inaccurate CiphriusKane (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section ("Controversy") in the Scots Wikipedia article about that very controversy. Maybe it should be a redirect to that specific section? HappyWith (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While at a period of time, a number of articles on the Scots Wikipedia were in broken Scots, that doesn't mean that this term should redirect to that wikipedia's article, given that it refers to broken Scots in general, and the Scots wikipedia a few years back is not the only example of broken Scots. I don't really think that there's any good target on wikipedia right now. If a section to the article on the Scots language about the frequency of this practice were to be added, I'd support retargetting there, but as of now, I support deletion. TartarTorte 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's actual content about Scotched English on its own somewhere (and not its role in a controversy), I think deletion is the best option here. Someone searching this will likely not be looking for the Scots Wikipedia incident. This is also supported by the fact that there is no mention of the word Scotched anywhere in the target (outside the hatnote). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgot to check the history. Restore and AFD – this has been contested multiple times in the past, an AFD should settle things here instead. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot that this page has gone through in the last 3 years for it to be deleted at a RfD - draftification, draft objection, PROD decline, and a BLAR which is now being questioned. It was unsourced, however there were multiple maintenance tags added, before it was BLARd. Restore and AfD. Jay 💬 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what is basically broken scots does not related to a wikipedia. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article there was an article at this title which was redirected by an editor to the current target. That target isn't appropriate - it doesn't mention the term and even if it did it's about a specific instance of a more general phenomenon. Deleting the redirect would act as a backdoor deletion of the article, it should instead be sent to AfD if someone wants to delete it. Hut 8.5 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: Idc if this is restored or kept, but the phenomenon is mentioned, albeit not by name, in the target. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 04:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per others above. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 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).

Poor country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Poor country

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_22&oldid=1178470628"