Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2024.

San-Pédro[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 08:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete this unwanted redirect conveniently created and unattented to for years until I intervened. Also, besides its former target of San-Pédro, Ivory Coast (which is already included in the current-target DAB page), I see neither an aditional ambiguous entry for a title conflict nor a justification to keep this any longer. Intrisit (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the redirect was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really understand the rationale to delete this at all. I would advocate moving the current target to this but there was a recent failed move proposal, so best to keep at current target. A7V2 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A7V2: Besides that RM, which I created stemming from 162 etc.'s disagreement of "ambiguity" with the proposed title and was left unattended until I intervened, I will assume you haven't checked the page histories of both titles. Else, what other rationale(s) do you want for deletion proof? It's/They're redundant! Intrisit (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Intrisit While I may reply to one of the other places you have pinged me, for all of the nominations you've made I think you need to review the reasons to delete a redirect, found at WP:RFD#DELETE. Redirects should absolutely not be deleted for "redundancy" (and certainly not just because they are "unwanted", especially if not unwanted by everyone as is clearly the case). This is unquestionably a valid way to search for the place in the Ivory Coast, and given the outcome of the requested move discussion, it is presumably a valid way to search for other places on that page as well (that's not for RfD to decide). A7V2 (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I reply directly to your comments on its own RFD area, maybe you are/were a little put off with my individual comments to your replies to one or more RFD entries, no worries. My problem is not with the Ivory Coast place searching with the title, but rather the title's standalone look among/relative to the other entries in the San Pedro DAB page with plain "San Pedro" and no modification. Until my 11 November 2023 RMTR request, the titles "San Pédro" and "San-Pédro" were redirects to the current article title, i.e. "San-Pédro, Ivory Coast, and that the two titles, as quoted from Roman Spinner, "should flow to the related DAB page", which doesn't sit right with me, unless the page is moved to plain old "San Pedro, Ivory Coast". Intrisit (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The number of replies isn't a problem, no worries there! What I'm getting at is that you seem to be nominating these redirects out of annoyance at the outcome of a RM discussion, rather than on the mertits of the redirects. I actually agree with you re the RM discussions, but things don't always go your way. Deleting these redirects won't change the outcome of the previous RM discussion, but it would make things slightly worse for some readers. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fine as is. BD2412 T 23:53, 7 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).

San-Pedro[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 08:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete this unwanted redirect conveniently created and unattented to for years until I intervened. Currently, I see neither an aditional ambiguous entry for a title conflict nor a justification to keep this any longer. Intrisit (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the redirect was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the above. No reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A7V2: Prove that there's one other entryat the DAB page with the proposed title and I'll finalize it rather than just DABbing every title under the sun. Intrisit (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. What do you mean by "proposed title", and what do you mean by "finalize it"? Certainly any article on the dab page San Pedro could be searched for using the hyphen. Potentially San-Pédro, Ivory Coast is more likely, but certainly keeping the redirect is better than deleting it (for which you have not given a reason to as yet). A7V2 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For explanation, the proposed title is "San-Pedro"; the "finalize it" part still goes back to the RM in question. The reason for a request to delete this rdr, which of course I haven't given, stems from the article title "San-Pédro, Ivory Coast" being the odd one out among the other entries in the DAB page with the plain "San Pedro" with no modification or hyphen. Intrisit (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to search for any place named "San Pedro" as "San-Pedro" instead. A7V2 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fine as is. BD2412 T 23:54, 7 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).

San Pédro, 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 keep. It's snowing in here. (non-admin closure) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This title was the first of many titles for the info now located at the current target. A question of whether to delete as redundant or keep for foreign language article change reasons. It's up in the air, so listing it here for a fresh discussion. Intrisit (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as very plausible. "Côte d'Ivoire" is the name for "Ivory Coast" in French, which is the Ivory Coast's principal language. Duckmather (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duckmather. "Côte d'Ivoire" is the official name of the country, and the article should honestly be moved to the current redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Presidentman: contra you, the country has its article at the title Ivory Coast because that is how people say it in English (as WP:COMMONNAME specifies). Duckmather (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I've always heard it referred to as "Côte d'Ivoire" even in English, but perhaps I'm in the minority. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Côte D'Ivoire" is how always see it too, but very nearly every time I see it is on Sporcle which has it's own standards for country names that do not necessarily correspond with COMMONNAME. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tagged redirect since it wasn't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoris talk! 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the redirect was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - until now the original target was incorrectly given as San Pédro, Côte d'Ivoire (a redirect) when the current target is the article San-Pédro, Ivory Coast. I have changed this above. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the name of the country in the local language, and it is often referred to in English in this way anyway. Further this is a previous name for the article. No concievable reason to delete, many reasons to keep. A7V2 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A7V2: I kept it at the redirect and not the article target for a reason. I felt and still feel disappointed with the outcome of the RM (my RM), but as you saw in it and I've written already, this title was attended for years until I intervened. With some matches of the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations happening in a new stadium in that location, sources will pop up so as to figure out the right title for this. Until then, there's nothing to do! Intrisit (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here? In the RfD listing on this page you put the incorrect "current target" as it was missing the hyphen. It's not a big deal and I fixed it. The fact that this was a previous name for the article is all the more reason to keep this redirect as deleting it could break external links, but regardless it is clearly a valid way someone might search for this, hence the reason to keep the redirect. A7V2 (talk) 08:30, 7 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).

Walt Disney Television (1983-2003)[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 💬 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete this currently-unwanted redirect conveniently created by a user in the wake of the Walt Disney Company acquiring about 90% of 21st Century Fox and returning to using this name for its combined television assets, although for about 20 months. Its shutdown date/year is currently disputed. Inappropriate CSD tag placed on it correctly reverted, so listing it here for a fresh discussion. Intrisit (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article cites 1983-2003 as the dates in multiple places, and I'm not seeing any evidence of a dispute about this on the talk page, WikiProject (talk) pages or other obvious location. So it seems like a plausible {{R from currently unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: The abscence of a dispute in whatever/whichever talk page relative to the titles stems from current happenings (between 2019 and 2021 when this title was reused) and was for disambiguation purposes only. If you check that title's page history, you'll notice that a currently-inactive user opted for the "production company" tag rather than this title, which means no one cared about it until 2018 and should tell you something. (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tagged redirect since it wasn't tagged by the nom. CycloneYoris talk! 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Years match lifespan. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: If it does, why not rather push for a move to this title rather than keeping it (which by the way is what I call "a fan-made title" stemming from a 2019-2021 disambiguation) as a redirect or even as a title at all?! Intrisit (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the redirect was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. As the hatnote attests the title is ambiguous and this therefore seems a completely reasonable search term. A7V2 (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A7V2: The hatnote is for the title of the current article target itself, not a fan-made disputed title (the proposed redirect title) created by a now-inactive user in the name of a disambiguation. Erroneous title that is justified to be deleted! Intrisit (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a redirect, not a title for the article. Given that the term "Walt Disney Television" is ambiguous, it is plausible that someone would search this way as it is a common way that articles are disambiguated on wikipedia. The fact that the creator is now inactive is not relevant. A7V2 (talk) 08:32, 7 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).

Diabetes with other coma[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 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned specifically in the target article, leaving the connection between the two topics unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 6 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).

Nigerian players representing other nations[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being ambiguous since Nigerian athletes ("players" in the redirect title) can play sports other than rugby. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 6 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).

Beast in other media[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Beast in other media

See You On Venus[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 09:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to one of the two lead actors in the film, Virginia Gardner, where there is no discussion of the film. It appears in the actor's filmography table and links right back to this redirect (and that is the only link to the redirect). There is at least one other lead actor for the film, Alex Aiono, to which this could have been targeted, but it, too, does not discuss the film although it is listed in the filmography table, but does not link to this.

I am not sure if this film would meet notability requirements for its own article. I am not familiar enough to know if any of the reviews are by "nationally known critics" as stated at WP:NFO. Here is a link to a list on IMDb of external (non-IMDb) critic reviews, although I do not know which of those are from reliable sources. Only two full-length reviews are required, but they need to be from a "nationally known critic". It does not appear to meet any of the other criteria at WP:NFO.

Yes, redirects are cheap, but it is annoying to click on a link for a topic to get more information only to get redirected right back to the article where you started where there is no information.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:45, 29 January 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) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No information of the film at target actor's article other than listing the film in the actor's filmography. No evidence identified to establish notability of the film per WP:NFO.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 21:36, 6 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).

Logarithmic cosecant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Logarithmic cosecant

Searching for Secrets[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 Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. web series#DoubleAgentep2. The original delete rationale is mooted by the new target which includes mention of the term. While some editors maintain their delete stance on the basis that even the new target is less than helpful to readers, they are in the minority and do not have a policy-based advantage over the other arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 05:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for a term not reflected anywhere in the target article to provide any context for why it redirects there -- Google confirms that it represents the title of one episode of the target series, but it isn't named in that article at all. For added bonus, the only inbound link that actually exists to this title at the present time is expecting a Canadian Screen Award-nominated (i.e. notability locked in) documentary television series for which this was the title of the entire series and not just one episode of it, and that would clearly hold WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over a single episode of a drama series. So even if somebody wanted to add a mention of this episode to the target article now, this redirect would have to be from a disambiguated title so that the Smithsonian Channel series can have the plain one. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Infiltrating the Set, Post Heist, The Mastermind Is Revealed, and Security Alert should also all be deleted for the same reason: "Redirect for a term not reflected anywhere in the target article to provide any context for why it redirects there -- Google confirms that it represents the title of one episode of the target series, but it isn't named in that article at all." GSK (talk • edits) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid episode redirects. If you need the "primary" then just move the target. Also, since you use twinkle, do not remove the option to notify the creator. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article which was in draft, is now live with an episode list which this episode title redirects to. So this isn't different than any other episode redirect. Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gonnym. This has the potential to be useful should the episode articles or web series be expanded upon, and is a helpful search term for readers who may be looking for this, among the other episode titles mentioned. Per WP:Redirects are cheap: WP:RFD states: "Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around." Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Awesome Aasim 06:05, 30 January 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) 20:08, 6 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).

Martian Mickey[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:XY, can also be found in Mickey Mouse Clubhouse#Recurring. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 20:03, 6 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).

NCr[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 target both to Binomial coefficient. Jay 💬 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it helpful to have nCr (converted to NCr) and nCk (converted to NCk) redirect to different targets? I think they should probably both target Combination notwithstanding that article doesn't actually use the notation (it uses ) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target both to Binomial coefficient#History and notation where the notation is explained? In any case I think that Binomial coefficient is a better target than Combination since nCr and nCk are expressions of the binomial coefficient. A7V2 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two redirects should clearly go to the same place. I think either target would be fine, but mildly agree with A7V2 that Binomial coefficient is better on account of that's what these symbols are (whereas a combination is a thing that is counted by the number they represent). --JBL (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Man, I'm on a roll with running into these nominations "in the wild"...) I agree with A7V2, or even just redirecting to Binomial coefficient itself. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:CD62:3CEC:4780:D05D (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here instead)[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).

Montblanc(ffta)[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 move to proper-spaced title without leaving a redirect. Jay 💬 13:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Montblanc (ffta), doesn't exist. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Montblanc (ffta) without redirect. It was an article for a few days in 2007 but given its a sub topic it seems better to keep the redirect with its history at the correct title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:RDAB. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the open title per Swale; the open title is likely and useful, and while there doesn't need to be a redirect at the current title, there's no reason to lose the history over it either, so rellotting it to Montblanc (ffta) is preferable (as it'd be a good redirect to have anyway). Utopes (talk / cont) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more opinions on the properly-spaced disambiguator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there's a clear consensus that the incorrect title shouldn't exist as no one has suggested keeping but it seems reasonable to keep the history as although others have said "delete" there doesn't seem a problem with moving as that still satisfies not having the redirect at the current title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without leaving a redirect per Crouch, Utopes, and Thryduuf. No reason to delete the history. Skynxnex (talk) 02:46, 7 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).

Stevens-Johnson-Fuchs-Syndrome[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. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, no evidence this syndrome is commonly referred to as such. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referenced as such externally here and here. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: despite the strange formatting, which seems harmless. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not harmless. It clutters the search box with two versions of a misleading and badly formatted name not mentioned in the target article, and both are essentially unused. So we have them actively obstructing readers getting to either the correct article or to other search results that begin with "Stevens John", of which there are several. It's not common practice to keep grossly malformed and misleading redirects. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eejit43, who has demonstrated that this is a plausible search term that is neither misleading nor malformed. We don't delete redirects that are useful to people navigating in one way just because it might be slightly inconvenient for people searching in a different way. Thryduulf (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is searching that way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references Eejit provided, which the nom has not refuted. If formatting is the concern, either this, or the erroneous(?) Stevens-Johnson-Fuchs- Syndrome may be moved to Stevens-Johnson-Fuchs syndrome and tagged with {{R from synonym}}. Jay 💬 08:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Eejit43's links show that Stevens-Johnson-Fuchs syndrome may be a useful redirect (I wouldn't support creation until it's added to the article though. Who is Fuchs?). This formatting is not used, thus not useful. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the question of who is Fuchs, it may be a German-localized usage, per this Journal of the German Society of Dermatology article and this JAMA dermatology article. This Indian Journal of Paediatric Dermatology article and this Clicnical Case Report say it is a variant / milder form of Stevens-Johnson, however this Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica post says Most authors consider it to be a pure mucosal variant of Stevens-Johnson syndrome; however, some consider the syndrome a separate entity. So I have struck off the R from synonym suggestion from above, but it may be tagged as {{R with possibilities}}. Jay 💬 07:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly formatted and not mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 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).

Monosexism[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 04:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, not mentioned in the target. The best I can think is wikt:monosexism (per WP:SRD). The concepts overlap, as sometimes biphobia is regarded as monosexism or monosexism as biphobia, however monosexism also oppress other non-monosexual and non-monoromantic individuals (e.g. pansexual, aromantic, omnisexual, etc.). MikutoH (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the section was removed by JasonAQuest in this 2017 edit with the summary "integrate "Monosexism" material into "Denial" or leave it to Monosexuality (which much of it was actually about)". The last mention of the term "monosexism" ("The term sapphobia has been coined to denote the intersection between misogyny and monosexism, being the prejudice aimed towards bisexual women.") was removed in this 2019 edit by Mathglot, but it's clear the useful content about it went some time between the two. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Monosexism as "R from merge".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:19, 6 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).

John Connaughton(financier)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, John Connaughton (financier), is a redirect that targets to the same target as the nominated redirect. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:39, 6 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).

Pidge(Voltron)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Pidge (Voltron), is the target of the nominated redirect. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:38, 6 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).

Lance(Voltron)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Lance (Voltron), is the target of the nominated redirect. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:37, 6 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).

Princess Allurra(Voltron)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Princess Allurra (Voltron), doesn't exist. However, the title with the correctly spelled word, Princess Allura (Voltron), is a redirect that targets to the same target as the nominated redirect. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:36, 6 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).

Paandi Muni(2018 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Paandi Muni (2018 film), doesn't exist. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:34, 6 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).

Nimki(2018 Film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing spaces between the words and the disambiguators. The titles with the correct spacing, Nimki (2018 Film) and Nimki (2019 Film), don't exist. However, the title with the correctly capitalized disambiguator, Nimki (2019 film), is a redirect that targets to the same target as the nominated redirect. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:32, 6 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).

Noesis(software)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Noesis (software), is the target of the nominated redirect. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:28, 6 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).

Carpenter's Gothic(k)[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I don't know what means, and for the first one, the title without parentheses doesn't exist. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I lean towards Keep for all of these, as they are the kind of thing people write, therefore read, therefore possibly search: "Carpenter's Gothick" is an alternative spelling, so, I guess, is "Caryatide", and the "is it a singular or a plural" may as well lead to the dab page for the island(s). PamD 09:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The parentheses make these improbable search terms: anyone who types most of the names should find the correctly spelled article titles, and if variations or errors are common, they can be redirects. We don't need redirects from possible equivocation between two or more forms of a name. P Aculeius (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the 1st has existed since 2008 its always been a redirect. Although the 2nd has existed since 2006 its always been a redirect. Although the 3rd has existed since 2010 its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The parentheses make sense grammatically, but these are unlikely search terms. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, everything that PamD said. In all of these cases, the parentheses aren't indicating a brand new word, but rather are indicating modifiers to the previous word, meaning the lack-of-space is appropriate here. If it was an entirely new word, such as (song) for instance, a space would be needed. But you'd never indicate "one or more dogs" as "dog (s)"; you'd remove the space there as it represents one word. Same thing goes for gothic(k), caryatid(e), and others that are constructed similarly. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Cook Island(s) as a potentialy plausible search term, especially for someone not quite sure what they are looking for (noting that there are both "Cook Island"s and "Cook Islands", and the denonym of someone from the Cook Islands is confusingly Cook Island, so the dab page will be helpful. No particular opinion from me on the other two. A7V2 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Pam D and Utopes, "Cook Island(s)" strongly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't quite understand the argument for keeping these. According to their history, each of these redirects had precisely 0 page views over the last 90 days, prior to this discussion. They're not helping a significant number of readers find the correct articles. Why? Because anyone who searches for "caryatid" and isn't sure whether it's spelled with an 'e' first finds "caryatid" and other articles beginning with "caryatid". If the searcher insists on spelling it with an 'e', then he or she will be redirected to "caryadid" anyway. Anyone who searches for "carpenter's gothic" finds the novel, "Carpenter's Gothic" and the architectural style, "carpenter gothic", and if the reader insists on adding a 'k', he or she will be redirected to one of these. Anyone who searches for "Cook Island" will get both the singular and plural results at the top of the list.
Having found each of the likely alternatives, and with redirects already existing for the unlikely variants, why would anyone insist on searching by adding parentheses to equivocate between singular and plural, or archaic spellings and modern ones? Chances are that the occasional page view is generated largely out of readers' curiosity to see why such a strange title exists, rather than an expectation of finding the contents they're looking for at that title. Given that nobody actually seems to be searching for these, they don't seem to serve a useful purpose. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know for sure how people will decide to use the search engine, but as this is still a proper way of referring to the subjects, it should be accommodated. These are half correct, and half alternate spelling/plural. Could very well be copied-and-pasted from a clipboard or website into the search bar, with the valid modifications. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, everything that could be singular or plural, or given an archaic spelling, needs to have a redirect ending in (s), (e), (k), or something similar. Which is pretty much every single article in Wikipedia. And usually having zero page views over several months means that we are sure how people are searching—and that they're not searching this way! We don't need redirects from every possible spelling, just those that are reasonably likely. And the data suggests that these are exceedingly unlikely! P Aculeius (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't particularly say that "every x needs a redirect ending in ()". The redirects brought here are all pretty unique situations, given the fact that these were intentional, one-off creations, and I'm not seeing the WP:PANDORA's box to create tons of these. The cases here are all fairly noteworthy, in the sense that these are intentional modifications, and not randomly adding parentheses for the sake of adding parentheses. Cook Island and Cook Islands are mistaken and interchanged very often, and the addition of a "k" after "gothic" is a well-documented alternate spelling for the subject, also used on encyclopedia.com: [1] (which also has a good usecase for caryatid(e) too: [2]). At the end of the day, the situation for adding a (x) at the end of a term is not very common, and there's not a need to go around adding them indiscriminately. At least for the terms brought up here, there is evidence of these terms being in use, in this format. And that should be fine! About as harmless as a regular "R from plural" or "R from modification" or "R from alternate spelling". Further still, I don't see there being a problem even if MORE were added, wherever evidence says that its appropriate to add. None of these are a net negative. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not alternate spellings: they're equivocation between multiple spellings. I'd vote to keep alternate spellings. But all of the spellings that these redirects represent already exist. And there's no evidence that anyone uses these to search for these topics: literally zero page views over stretches of ninety days or more for each of them. There's a good chance that the rare single page views, multiple months apart, comes about for no other reason than that someone sees the result in the search window alongside all of the likely targets, and wonders why it exists at all. That just doesn't seem like sufficient justification for these to exist. P Aculeius (talk) 12:04, 13 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).

Mazur's theorem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Mazur's theorem

3c7[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 Investment Company Act of 1940#Summary of notable provisions. This is kinda bordering on WP:NCRET, but it's the most appealing solution the participants proposed, so I'm just going with it. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3c7 is a term that is not mentioned on Wikipedia in a meaningful capacity (i.e., not outside of Canadian postal codes and other IDs). What this code refers to, to my understanding, is a tax exemption called the 3(c)(7), which deals with investment funds. Strictly speaking, "The 3(c)(7) exemption refers to a portion of the Investment Company Act of 1940..." This is not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. For a three character redirect that'll often be scrutinized, I'm not convinced this is helpful as it stands if I have to look elsewhere information on this code and its relation to the topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A 3(c)(7) fund (rarely referred to as simply a 3(c)(7), and even more rarely referenced without using the parentheses) is a kind of private investment fund, exempted from certain types of regulation under U.S. law. The standalone term 3c7 is not used often enough to make a redirect needed, and if it were, a redirect to our article on investment funds would not be helpful. That article broadly covers all kinds of collective investment vehicles and is not focused on private funds. (It would be nice if we had an article on private funds, but we do not.). John M Baker (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First, I disagree with John M Baker's assertion--funds are very often referred to as 3c7 in common parlance in finance and financial planning. Contrary to nom it is not a tax exemption, but an entire classification of private funds. I agree that it would be nice if we had a private fund article--maybe that's something I'll accomplish sometime--but in the meantime Investment fund is the best target, as it at least acknowledges the existence of these funds (in the lede: or it may be sold only in a private placement, such as a hedge fund or private equity fund). It is clear from a quick Google search that this is the primary topic, so at absolute worst this is a indirect from incorrect parenthesis. Ultimately, redirects are cheap and I think this has a decent probability of being helpful, less a common term in financial circles is completely unmentioned. Bestagon ⬡ 14:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John M Baker. Someone who knows what this term refers to is looking for more specific information than we seem to have, someone who doesn't know what it means will just be confused - especially if they're not actually looking for 3(c)(7) (which I'll create as a redirect to Investment Company Act of 1940#Summary of notable provisions which discusses the section). Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:18, 6 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).

Japanese Telecom[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. Participants did not consider deletion, and there was no agreement on a single target. However, I am retargeting to Communications in Japan as an option that came up more than once. No prejudice against further discussions or nomination. Jay 💬 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target; there isn't a concrete plausible alternative as any article in Category:Telecommunications companies of Japan could become a target for this particular redirect. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have Communications in Japan, though someone searching this term is probably looking for a specific company or a list of them. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history. The BLAR comment did say "the content here appears to be a copyright violation". I have tagged it as {{R with history}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to Communications in Japan. There are some info there about Japanese telecoms but I think a standalone article or at least section in this potential target would be better. --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:17, 6 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).

Kirchenlexicon[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 turn to set index article. There is agreement on turning this to a set index. The nom, or any editor may make the change along with fixing the three dozen incoming links. Jay 💬 08:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Kirchenlexicon" is a general type of book (encyclopedia of church figures) and it doesn't make sense to redirect to this specific one. There's at least two with wikipedia pages. Could also make sense to turn into a disambiguation page. — Moriwen (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a set index page, which is what it should be, you can have one. There are three dozen incoming links for the redirect that would need to be fixed. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:13, 6 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).

CAT:CHEM[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chemistry category is otherwise just a regular content category that doesn't seem to need a PNR, and while it is at the top of a pretty tall category hierarchy, it does not seem to extremely benefit from the existence of a shortcut for a category that isn't going to be changing all too much (besides some instances of articles that get mislabeled as part of the "chemistry" category, but I still don't think that's justification for needing a shortened version that sits in mainspace). What really got my attention for this though, was the CAT:Chem shortcut, which one PNR for any purpose is one thing but two identical PNRs is already excessive. The "Chem" version is one of the only five CAT: PNRs that uses lowercase in any capacity, so that one is especially out of convention. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very odd to have a shortcut like this for a category. There really is no reason for this. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless at worst and helpful at best. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CAT:CHEM. Old enough of a harmless PNR to make deleting it now a bit silly (if it were new, the idea would be more entertainable). Delete CAT:Chem; slightly older but poor formatting. It also has very few internal links. Of little use if it remains extant, but harmless. I agree with the nominator about conventions, however. @Utopes: What are the other four (or you can point me to the list/data if that proves easier)? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both as completely harmless. In the extremely unlikely event a reader ends up at this redirect they will arrive at reader-facing content so the usual arguments against CNRs are not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 6 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).

Roza Potocka (1780-1862)[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 Antoni Potocki (1780–1850). Nominally no consensus, defaulting to retarget due to absence of support for the status quo. Editors who believe the article should be restored can do so as a regular edit. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Rosa is mentioned at Potocki family, not even Róża Potocka (1849–1937) , and without a mention this is confusing Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as regardless of the merits of an article about this person, there is not even a mention of them at the current target, and I don't believe any other suitable target exists. A7V2 (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chaning, see below. A7V2 (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about the close this as delete, but then I noticed that there was a prior article in the history of the last redirect that eluded everyone's attention. I don't particularly like doing this but I think we have to restore that and possibly send it to AfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Pppery, and AfD. I do not know if there can be a type of article that only has a family tree or a list of family members. Jay 💬 07:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose retargeting to Antoni Potocki. As shown above, the subject married twice, and we would need a good reason why husband#1 with 3 children would be preferred over husband#2 with 7 children. Jay 💬 17:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Antoni Potocki (1780–1850) as {{R from spouse}}. Oppose restoration unless Pppery or Jay was able to find evidence of notability? -- Tavix (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer someone at AfD to make that call. Jay 💬 06:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason why this call has to be made at AfD. If you're looking for someone in particular, someone who is familiar with Polish sources would be who to call upon. I've dropped a line at WP:POLAND to see if they can help us out. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not about Polish. There are editors who specialize in royal families and houses and family trees in general. There is no reason this call cannot be made at RfD. It's just that since it appears you made me liable to make this decision at RfD (not the right forum), I'm excusing myself! Jay 💬 15:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RfD is the right forum, these are redirects. I'm still baffled as to why some RfD regulars like to pass off decision making to other places when the discussion is already taking place here. If there's an argument to be made for notability, then let's restore the article. If not, then the article shouldn't be restored. If consensus is to restore the article, but someone still thinks it should be deleted, then that editor should nominate the article for deletion there. That cuts down on excessive and unnecessary AfDs. I'm not sure what you mean by me making you liable to make the decision—per WP:BURDEN you became liable to that when you !voted to restore the article. Finally, I'm adding this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility so if there are any royal genealogy editors watching that page, they'll be informed of this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect pages are not bound by notability requirements. Conversely, lack of notability is not a requirement for a page to be nominated at AfD. Being non-notable does not get a page deleted at AfD, it may be converted to a suitable redirect, or merged and redirected to another article. The burden is on the participant of RfD who opposes restoration, to provide arguments that the redirect page, if restored and AfDed, has a good chance of being deleted at AfD. Jay 💬 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, my goal is to get these retargeted to Antoni Potocki (1780–1850). I oppose all restorations by default unless an argument has been presented to keep the article should it be at AfD. That's how I can tell if someone is serious about actually wanting it restored or if they're simply forum shopping. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have a better chance of affecting the outcome by providing arguments, as I would believe at RfD a restore without arguments holds more weight than a restore opposition without arguments. With restoration we're talking of articles with a page history, not redirects any more, and an RfD participant is free to, but not liable to comment on articles. As a case study, see Tamzin's close of Janes Place, California. All closes needn't be agreed with, but this was not challenged either. Jay 💬 17:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide an argument for retargeting: {{R from spouse}}. The subject is mentioned at her spouse's article, resolving the nominator's issue with these redirects. As for your case study, yes I disagree with Tamzin's close of Janes Place, California. Numerically there were more !votes for deletion, and IMO the arguments for deletion were much stronger (but I'm biased, I !voted delete). That's actually a perfect example of the kind of "restore and send to AfD" that I object to. At that RfD, nobody offered any arguments for keeping the article. Nevertheless, it was dumped to AfD, where to the surprise of nobody there was not a single editor coming to its rescue. The AfD was a complete waste of time—it could have and should have been deleted at RfD. While I did not publicly object to that particular close, I did make clear to Tamzin that I object to that style of closure at User talk:Tamzin#Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms. That closure happened a little bit before the closure of Janes Place, so I felt that Tamzin was already familiar with my objections so it'd be exhausting to run back to their talk page so soon. Besides, it'd be a bit silly to file a DRV concurrently with the AfD. The correct result was arrived at in the end, it just took a longer and more bureaucratic path than necessary. If I may, I offer a better case study involving a redirect with article content under it: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Erin Sheehan. -- Tavix (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was fixated with anti-restoration implying arguments for deletion at RfD, that I did not realize Retarget was your argument. (I had opposed this retarget above, BTW). Thank you for providing the Queer Acronyms RfD reference. That is exactly what I was looking for (I had a delete vote there), but not recalling the subject of the RfD, and not remembering any keywords of the close, I did spend time searching, and could come across the similar James Place one. The purpose of my bringing up that close was to show how diametrically opposite your stand is to what closers may adopt. I was also not aware of your soft challenge to that close, so thanks for that. I too thought that the Erin Sheehan kind of close is what we were following, but your latest stand of introducing BURDEN on restorers seemed to go opposite that too. I trust RfD participants to have some kind of idea for what may or may not be notable and handle the content accordingly. RfD participants may opt to turn the RfD to a de facto AfD and suggest deletion, but I would think the burden is on them. In your case, since you voted Retarget, I guess this discussion is moot. Jay 💬 18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I still do trust that RfD participants have an idea for what may or may not be notable. That's precisely why I asked you and Pppery about notability earlier. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I believe in keeping the forums separate. For me, AfD is a lot more time and effort intensive, and I have respect for AfD participants and closers for investing the amount of time they do. When really required, I do go to AfD, otherwise I'm at RfD that requires a different thought process. And "dumping" happens both ways. Many AfDs close as redirect as an WP:ATD, and the AfD participants do not know that the redirect would most probably be deleted if it comes to RfD. Or you go in circles, like Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) that wasn't accepted at RfD went back to AfD, and became redirect to the same target again! Until it comes back to RfD. Jay 💬 06:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Antoni Potocki (1780–1850) per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Restore per Pppery and Jay (and target the others to the restored article). RfD is not the place to determine whether or not this article should be deleted. For me the standard to restore is met as the article has references and doesn't seem to meet any criteria for speedy deletion. I don't think the proposed target of Antoni Potocki (1780–1850) is suitable, in part because she is barely mentioned, but also because it's very confusing that their daughter had the same name and died in the same year as the subject of these redirects. A7V2 (talk) 07:21, 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).

Episode 201[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. Jay 💬 08:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of shows with an "Episode 201". No evidence this is what readers are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While there are indeed lots of shows with an episode 201, South Park is the only one with a notable episode 201, (afaict) the only notable show to have an episode 201 where "201" is part of the episode title, by far the primary topic for "episode 201" on Wikipedia and the only episode 201 on Wikipedia to have anything other than a passing mention. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The target is definitely not the only episode numbered 201 to be notable. Others I found from a quick search include King of the Hill (The Simpsons), The Waters of Mars, Daughter's Hand, The Truth (The X-Files), Sunrise (How I Met Your Mother), etc. It may well be that the South Park episode is the primary topic as none of those are referred to by their episode number, however. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment episode code "201" frequently refers to season 2 episode 1, many season 2 premiere episodes are notable. If this is kept, it should be a set index of episodes coded 201 or sequentially 201 -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Setindexify? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 6 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_6&oldid=1211741904"