Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 20, 2024.

B-rail[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) CycloneYoris talk! 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think people would search up B-rail for this. SNCB, NMBS or even SNCB/NMBS together is more appropriate JuniperChill (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to B Line, which is a likelier target IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Thryduulf finding evidence this is a former name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, definitely don't retarget. This seems to be an older brand used (possibly c.2008-2013) by SNCB/NMBS (see e.g. [1], and was previously their main website URI and pages/forum posts from that era show it was used (e.g. [2], [3], [4], ). However, articles (e.g. this from 2021 and from 2023 state that Barraqueiro Group have a subsidiary called "B-Rail" registered as an open access operator in Portugal, although services are still several years away and we don't have relevant content (yet) so disambiguation isn't sustainable at the moment. I can find no evidence of "B-rail" being used to refer to anything called "B line", just the above and various partial title matches for non-notable products and companies. Thryduulf (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Thryduulf. Older, defunct names are valid redirects, and they're useful if people are researching older topics. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2024 (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).

Hui (animal)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous number of redirects for this article. This is not sensible destination for a word that just means 'fox'. PepperBeast (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. This is an English language Wikipedia. Furthermore, this is basically just spam. If you look at the creator's drafts, they got a bunch of other such spam articles they're working on (all while claiming to be semi retired per their user page). An admin really needs to tell them to knock it off, all they're doing is clogging AfD and RfD. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all : Those are the Meitei language common names of the article's main topic. Besides, those terms are explicitly mentioned as well as discussed in different degrees inside the article, along with due citations. Those are not baseless claims or spamming. --Haoreima (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an English language Wikipedia. If those terms are not in use in multiple reliable independent English Language sources, then there is no reason a page should exist for them on Wikipedia, whether as a redirect or otherwise. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brusquedandelion, that's really not how WP:RLANG works. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is. That page explicitly gives Common words or concepts as an example of an inappropriate redirect. The creator of these redirects themself tells us, immediately above my comment, that these are the Meitei language common names of the article's main topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I expect this table will not be included after the merge. Possibly keep Hui (animal) itself? However, I don't believe we have a habit of redirecting [animal name] in a language to "[that animal] in [that culture]." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, and indeed such a practice is explicitly contraindicated by WP:RLANG. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Ridiculous" isn't a valid reason for the deletion nomination. It sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haoreima (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Due to this edit to merge Canidae in Meitei culture (the target of all the nominated redirects) to Meitei culture as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canidae in Meitei culture (closed to merge), I'm not sure how relevant or applicable some of these votes are now. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notwithstanding the moving targets, these terms aren't mentioned now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns too. However, these terms were not mentioned now because the nominator didn't bring the particular information to the targeted merged page. One can re-add them at any time. Haoreima (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ꯃꯨꯊꯠꯄ (which is, according to Google Translate, Manipuri for Delete). WP:FORRED (admittedly already mentioned as WP:RLANG) neatly covers all of this. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target was merged to Meitei culture#Animals and birds which mentions story titles having words Loushing and Keishal. However, these needn't be redirects. A search can show if non-English words the reader is looking for is part of any article. Jay 💬 17:00, 2 March 2024 (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).

Dada (Ultra monster) and etc.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Dada (Ultra monster) and etc.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 19#Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years

Qatar 2023[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to 2023 in Qatar per snowball clause . (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Qatar 2023" is not unambiguously affiliated with the 2023 AFC Asian Cup and I propose retargeting to 2023 in Qatar. I've tried to change the target, as has another editor (Significa liberdade), and instead of edit warring I'm seeking feedback on this.

It is my belief that "CountryName Year" redirects should be pointed to YYYY in CountryName. I made a similar nomination here, where I nominated a number of CountryName Year redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Google search gives a couple different results, and the first one is the 2023 Qatar Grand Prix rather than the AFC cup. No clear primary topic, and even if there was it seems somewhat wrong to declare that a search for country + year gets some specific sporting event. Rusalkii (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom in the absence of a primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per nom, many events in Qatar in 2023. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above rationale - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 16:52, 21 February 2024 (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 "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 29#List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes

January 6 hostage crisis[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) 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading/POV redirect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see mention of "Jan 6 hostage crisis" in the citations. Could it belong on one of the Trump articles? DN (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. Some section about Trump's comments (or those of other Republican politicians) about "January 6" might be a better redirect target. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples: Please be aware that your !vote is actually a proposal to "retarget", and not to "refine", as the article you're suggesting is completely different from the present target. CycloneYoris talk! 03:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, retarget, or refine?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No hostages, no crisis. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is coverage in sources. The target does talk about "hostages" and exactly that way in quotes. It does not talk about a crisis per Feoffer, and certainly not about a hostage crisis. Jay 💬 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not in WP:RS or concluded in articles that the charged/convicted are hostages. IP75 (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (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 Cogs[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 Gear#Types. Given that Cog#Types hasn't been created, the result that makes the most sense is retarget to Gear#Types, where there is a list of cogs. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of cogs at the target article. Perhaps in the past (and before the offshoot into List of Gears of War characters that's currently a redirect), but now this redirect has very little to offer readers. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I see no value in having this redirect, particular where there is no list of cogs in target. - Dyork (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I initially suggested retargetting to a page that has such a list, and Duckmather is suggesting disambiguating between a list of COGs and the page with a list of cogs. Thryduulf (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:15, 20 February 2024 (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).

Philippines Disputed Territories[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 withdrawn/retarget to Territories claimed by the Philippines. No point leaving this here when my nomination rationale was faulty and no-one has supported deletion or anything else. An obvious suitable target does exist. A7V2 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

There is no discussion of the Philippines at the current target, nor was there when this redirect was created back in 2005 [5]. The Philippines seems to be involved in several territorial disputes, both past and present, and many are listed on List of territorial disputes, and some have their own articles such as Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. There is also the article List of internal boundary disputes in the Philippines. I had expected to find an article called something like Territorial disputes of the Philippines, but no such article exists. I'm unsure what should be done with this redirect, but given lack of a clear best choice I'm leaning towards delete. Certainly the current target is not suitable. A7V2 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2024 (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 project[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) 00:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially ambiguous rcat redirect, considering that {{R to project}} redirects to {{R to project namespace}}. I'm also not sure that one thing being a project of another thing necessarily implies that the former is a subsidiary of the latter - for example, a person could be said to have a project, but such a project wouldn't be considered a subsidiary of that person. For these reasons, I propose deletion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as a technicality. I would lean toward keeping any rcat that has something to do with the real world, even if there could be some kind of internal "WP lingo" meaning with which someone might confuse it, since this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in internal self-documentation and self-organization for its own sake. That said, this template shortcut does not represent an actual rcat, but is a template redirect to another, and the match is poor, since projects are not subsidiaries but a different class of thing. If someone wanted to create an actual redirect category for projects (redirects from non-notable projects to the organizations or parties of which they are projects), then that would be another matter, and I would support keeping that. If the "confusable with an 'R from project namespace'" objection were raised again, my answer would be the same: reality, and WP's need to categorize it properly, trumps interal WP omphaloskepsis and shortcut-mongering. If anything, maybe the "R to project" shortcut (to the properly named {{R to project namespace}}) should not exist, since the shortcut version implies redirects from non-notable persons or other somethings to the notable real-world projects with which they are associated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:44, 21 February 2024 (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).

1792 presidential election[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 1792 United States presidential election. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the target, and there appears to be exactly one Presidential election in 1792: the 1792 United States presidential election. As such, I don't think this is an ambiguous search term, so I'm bringing it here seeking a retarget. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: Bundled Presidential election of 1792 into this nomination (courtesy ping Red-tailed hawk). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 00:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there had been other presidential elections in 1792 for which there were articles then at the least these should be refined to the section on 1792, but as that is not the case, retarget to 1792 United States presidential election per nom. A7V2 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Not only do we not have articles about other presidential elections in that year, I can't find any evidence there were others we could have articles about. Eventually, using the search term "1792" "presidential election" -"United States" -Washington -"college" -"US" -"U.S." I got a few hits related to something other than US presidential elections on page 2, these related to a battle in 1792 that The Independent speculated may have some meaning for the 2006 French presidential election, the 2019 Nigerian presidential election (in which one candidate received 1,792 votes), the president of a company called "1792 Wealth Advisors", Marie Antoinette (who was imprisoned in 1792), a list of Early Day Motions in the UK House of Commons that includes motion #1792 and a motion related to the 2009 Iranian presidential election and an alternate history wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2024 (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/2024_February_20&oldid=1214535546"