Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2024.

Our Nige[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 00:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at all at target. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this ambiguous term can simply be mentioned in the appropriate article. RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 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:LIP[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 💬 19:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAT PNR which points to a category containing 8 items; the category itself has only been edited twice in the last ten years, with the last edit being in 2018. Among the few CAT PNRs that exist, a shortcut for Lipograms does not seem to be warranted or necessary; "lip" can refer to all sorts of things to begin with. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:32, 12 January 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:Law templates[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 💬 19:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 1:1 title match for a template category that does not seem to be in need of a PNR. No indication that this would be one of the few CAT pages in existence, as this template container category does not seem prone to frequent access and does not seem to need a spot in mainspace for it. The capitalization is also unnatural here compared to other PNRs. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:29, 12 January 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:disambig pages[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 💬 19:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A recent-ish-ly (2016) created CAT PNR with unnatural capitalization. For the most part, no other PNR does this (among MoS, CAT, or T at least, see [1]) No incoming links, CAT:DISAMBIG exists, and this is otherwise an unideal naming practice. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not useful nor consistent with other shortcuts. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:52, 16 January 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:NICKELODEON[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 💬 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be a need for the Nickelodeon category to have a PNR, which are usually reserved for high-traffic categories where a pseudo-namespace shortcut would be appropriate for ease of navigation. This is otherwise just a regular category. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:16, 12 January 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:AZTEC etc.[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 💬 19:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bundle of pseudo namespace redirects towards country & language related topics. "CAT" redirects are already few and far between, and are mainly saved for high-traffic areas where they may be needed, yet don't have much practical usage for people who are unfamiliar with them. Typing "category" is always the much safer bet, as there's no guarantee that any PNR exists unless you go out of your way to confirm it. A number of these were previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#CAT:ETHIOPIA etc.. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:08, 12 January 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).

Othala (Stargate)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Othala (Stargate)

Novid[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 💬 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Novid" is not mentioned at Aspirin and is ambiguous with NOVID (app) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this redirect is deleted, Novid (disambiguation), in its current state, will be eligible for WP:G14. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 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).

Screen Casts[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 Screencast. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects should be retargeted to Screencast, the primary topic for these titles. The original target is in reference to the website ScreenCastsOnline, which is no longer mentioned in the Apple community article due to lack of third-party coverage. — Newslinger talk 09:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's distinguishes to others on Screencast which covers other uses. Jimthing (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you restored the "ScreenCastsOnline" section to the Apple community article in Special:Diff/1193716850/1193780180, and I've started a discussion about the restored section at Talk:Apple community § ScreenCastsOnline. I've also updated the redirect targets in this RfD nomination to reflect your edits of the redirects in Special:Diff/1193780493 and Special:Diff/1193780948. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: How would you like to proceed since mention has been added back, Jimthing has not responded at the talk page, but Jimthing also voted to Delete? Jay 💬 10:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​I've removed the Apple community § ScreenCastsOnline section in Special:Diff/1195124172 due to a lack of independent reliable sourcing for the content within. I believe retargeting the redirects to Screencast would be the best option because the redirect titles are plural alternative spellings of screencast, which WP:POFR establishes as a valid reason for redirecting. — Newslinger talk 12:05, 12 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 14:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after being on vacation for few days; section now reinstated with past/present cites at Apple community#ScreenCastsOnline with appropriate hatnote on Screencast. To be clear, I voted above for delete on Screen Casts & ScreenCasts RD's to Apple community#ScreenCastsOnline, instead of it being an RD to Screencast (which is more logical, being the singular of the plural) per this proposal. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section you restored in Special:Diff/1195633263 cites self-published sources, which are not reliable. I've responded at Talk:Apple community § ScreenCastsOnline. — Newslinger talk 07:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It mainly lists external sources actually. One can still go ahead and move the ScreenCasts/Screen Casts redirects to Screencast, as they are separate. Jimthing (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: The Delete votes of Jimthing are actually meant as Retarget to Screencast, agreeing with the nomination. Jay 💬 19:04, 19 January 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).

Deny the Armenain genocide[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 💬 18:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, created long ago (hence ineligible for R3) but unnoticed until now. Mistakenly clicked to keep the original when moving to Deny the Armenian genocide.

As a matter of fact, both should be deleted IMO, because being full sentences, they don't constitute encyclopaedic or search terms. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have bundled Deny the Armenian genocide into this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — kashmīrī TALK 15:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Redirects phrased as imperatives are almost never worth the cost of maintenance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first one as implausible. Neutral re: second one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first one per the above (typos in long phrases are prime examples of unnatural search terms). Keep the second one per WP:CHEAP, though. Duckmather (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tamzin. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's agreement to delete the first redirect, but we could have a firmer consensus on the second one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per Tamzin and since I believe imperative statements have been deleted via RFD in the past for the same reason. (I think I may have nominated some years ago, but I cannot recall any specific discussions at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 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).

Stabbing attempt of Lee Jae-myung[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. signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an attempted stabbing, it was a stabbing. WP:RDEL reason 2 toobigtokale (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was the result of my reversing an undiscussed page move. I left the redirect because, I mean, technically it was an attempted stabbing—right up until it was a successful stabbing (or, a different way to look at it, it was an attempt, just a successful attempt). My bar for keeping an {{r from move}} is pretty low, and "technically correct" passes it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 15:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May have to agree to disagree although few people will probably see this redir in the grand scheme of things. I think technically correct rough synonyms are fine, but a redir that downplays the scale of something may not be so good. E.g. "injuries" to describe a murder case or "alleged murder"; both are true but unless those topics are notable subtopics they're both not helpful and potentially slightly misleading toobigtokale (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of things (most?) are first attempted and then completed. Like, Shakespeare first attempted to write his poems before he completed them. Is it a point for an encyclopaedia to keep all such "attempts" as search terms, given that it clutters the search box? — kashmīrī TALK 07:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an understanding of Korean criminal law might assist here. Crimes concerning inflicting bodily injury include attempts to do so a part of the same offence, while crimes of homicide have a separate section about attempted homicide. This is similar to the criminal law in many other countries, where an attempt to murder is a separately distinguished crime, while inflicting an injury, or attempting to do so, is not distinguished as a separate crime. While the degree of completeness may affect which crime is charged or influence sentencing, it does not change the intent to commit a crime. In this case, if one interprets "stabbing" as a mistaken synonym for "murder" then having a redirect from "attempted stabbing" to "attempted assassination" is a plausible error for someone who is not a lawyer to make. I would suggest keeping this redirect even though it is not particularly accurate description of what happened. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my previous point still stands; while it's technically correct that attempted stabbing is a part of this incident, it is minorly misleading/distracting to have a redirect for it. Korean criminal law doesn't add all that much I feel; we write for international, general audiences. We should be clear about whether or not a stabbing was merely attempted or successful in our titles and redirects, because titles (in some sense, headlines) are what readers would grab onto. Either way, again, few people will likely see or use the redir, so I may stop spending more time on this. toobigtokale (talk) 09:48, 5 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 14:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Tamzin. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from deleting this (technically) correct {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a doctor in the house? It was reported that Lee suffered a one-centimeter cut to his neck, with minor bleeding. Does this technically qualify as a more successful attempt than what the attacker intended? The fact that we need technical guidance on this question indicates that the average reader would not be so thorough on such a search term. Keep. Jay 💬 16:37, 19 January 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).

Justice League Dark (upcoming 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. signed, Rosguill talk 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anymore, due to the deletion of sections. So, will both redirects be deleted? 176.33.241.125 (talk) 14:10, 12 January 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).

2023 Santa Barbara International Film Festival[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#2023 Santa Barbara International Film Festival

Janes Place, California[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. It seems very unlikely to me that Special:Permalink/907324445 will survive AfD, but my view as a closer has always been that if there is a good-faith request to restore, there's a fairly high bar for deletion, generally a case that either some CSD applies or that the article would have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD. I think this is close to the latter, but not quite there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target article never mentions Janes Place, or gives any hint about what or where it was. Very obscure place, unlikely search term. Propose deleting; or restoring original article if reliable sources about this place can be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to WP:AFD per WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my stance on this in response to the straight "delete" votes. I think WP:AFD should be used in this case since I think if the page is deleted via AFD, the discussion may hold more WP:G4 potential in the event this page gets created again, potentially saving more editor time in the long run while potentially agreeing with the concept of WP:RUSHDELETE. That, and one cannot predict what editor may almost randomly appear on a WP:AFD with good references that can "derail" a deletion discussion, even after the nominator performed as much WP:BEFORE as they could ... saying this from experience. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per WP:BLAR and all the other California placenames recently nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per WP:BLAR --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topo map shows it as an isolated cabin. There's really no need to waste people's time with these RFDs and AFDs, just remove links to it or delete it from here. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reywas92. I honestly see no reason why we should restore a two-sentence stub just to delete it a week later at AfD. Better to delete now than later. Sure, the BLAR was done without discussion, but does it really matter? The creator was sanctioned by the community back in 2021 for mass creating these problematic stubs, more than enough reason for me to oppose restoring. CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also bundle Janes Place. Jay 💬 11:03, 10 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 14:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have bundled Janes Place into this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CycloneYoris: the sources need to be examined, that is not something that RfD is competent to do. Whether it was the intent this time or not I don't know, but it is not uncommon for RfD to be (attempted) to be used as an end-run around AfD, which is something that should be strongly discouraged. If you disagree with a BLAR then revert it and (optionally) nominate it at AfD, it is the RfD nomination that wastes everybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete echoing CycloneYoris, and especially to push back against rhetoric like that is not something that RfD is competent to do. I trust RfD participants to be able to look at sources and decide whether or not something has a chance to be kept at AfD. This is definitely not an 'end-run around AfD', this has been a stable redirect for over four years! -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 14 January 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).

The Muslim World[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 Hartford International University for Religion and Peace#The Muslim World with hatnote back. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be redirected to Hartford International University for Religion and Peace#The Muslim World per WP:DIFFCAPS. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected in 2010 by Mynuddeenster. Before that, it redirected to Javed Malik because of a TV series or something? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget but hatnote per CycloneYoris. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a one-paragraph section on a publication reliant on only primary sources is nowhere near sufficient to usurp this from its proper target, which could easily be capitalized and have a "the" added. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pppery. It is far likelier someone searching for "The Muslim World" is looking for the current target than an obscure academic center. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and hatnote per Cremastra, and because of the "The" and capitalized W. As opposed to the incoming links for the journal, there were two incoming links for the generic uncapitalized meaning which I have unpiped (Waleed El-Ansary and International Center for Law and Religion Studies). Jay 💬 17:35, 9 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 14:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget the capitalization and "The" seems sifficent here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 12 January 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).

No Flow[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 14:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not helpful to redirect to a target that has no mention of the subject in question. These redirects do imply that these songs charted, so they may be notable per WP:NSONG. Deletion to encourage article creation may be desirable. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Cyclone. If the title had a song disambiguator, I would have agreed with J947's suggestion. Jay 💬 06:24, 12 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 14:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds like the first line of a chant some editors could have made years ago in opposition to the "Topic" namespace... Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention at target. Ss112 04:47, 14 January 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).

Dream Universe[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 Dream world (plot device). Nominally no consensus between two retarget options and deletion, redirecting to the more popular redirect suggestion in lieu of defaulting to keep given the absence of any support for the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 16:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not helpful to redirect to a target that has no mention of the subject in question. These redirects do imply that these songs charted, so they may be notable per WP:NSONG. Deletion to encourage article creation may be desirable. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Dream Universe" could also refer to the fictional universe that one experiences in a dream, which we discuss (though not directly) in Dream or in Dream world (plot device). No opinion on most of the song redirects, which should probably be bundled and relisted. Duckmather (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the Chinese film mention, but given other non-film entries, I did not find it a suitable target. Jay 💬 09:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:05, 12 January 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).

Cult house[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. Maybe a side note, but we should probably give some thought to the relationship between the Place of worship and Temple articles. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this counts as #3 under WP:RDEL, given that cult is most frequently used as a pejorative. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clovermoss, the reason I made this link is that it is used frequently in scholarship (in this case regarding Germanic peoples) to mean a building in which a particular religious group performs religious ceremonies. Cult in this sense is being used as in the Cult of Mithras or the redirect Cult of Isis. It is the phrase used in the source I am citing which uses it in contexts that aren't pejorative such as "It seems as if the hall buildings and cult houses in Svetjud, Trøndelag and sometimes in Iceland occupied a prominent position in the landscape". An alternative linking would be to Place of worship but the phrase in itself is important and should not be deleted. Ingwina (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingwina: Thank you for the contextual explanation. :) Is it possible you could add context about all this to the article? Right now the term isn't used in the target article at all (#8 at WP:RDEL). But if some content about this term is added to the article and its use in scholarship, that particular concern would be remedied. I do think it's possible that the term might be vague if it has multiple possible targets (e.g. place of worship as you mentioned). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I'll have a look for a source that defines it well in a general sense. In scholarship, the phrase is so common place it isn't usually explicitly defined but I agree it'd be good to have something on the pages talking about terms. I personally don't think it is too vague to be a suitable redirect - only that the Temple and Place of worship pages overlap signficantly in their scope and thus anything that falls into temple could just as easily fall into "place of worship". I guess given that it means a building where religious ceremonies are performed in a very general sense, Place of worship is probably more suitable as that's where Religious building redirects. Ingwina (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/ change to Place of worship. I'm not at all pursuaded by the need to follow the popular connotations of "cult", which is a useful word, still very widely used in academic writing. We have similar issues with Cult image etc. Isn't "cult house" also a thing in Pacific anthropology? Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All targets suggested so far fail WP:RNEUTRAL, given the potential negative connotation that comes with the word "cult". Steel1943 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the common neutral use of "cult" in academic settings, especially in regards to ancient secretive religious movements. Generalissima (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree with the negative connotation rationales of "cult". A search within enwiki shows its usage in encyclopedic contexts. However, equating this specific term with Temple or the Place of worship, with these articles providing no context of a "cult house", does not provide value as a redirect. Delete for redlinking. Jay 💬 19:09, 2 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 14:04, 12 January 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).

Mr. Precision[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 88 Fingers Louie#Band members * Pppery * it has begun... 19:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Seems this redirect is a {{R from move}} with its content being moved to Dan Wleklinski, and the nominated redirect ended up targeting its current target since Dan Wleklinski was redirected in 2009 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Wleklinski. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both Wleklinski and Precision to 88 Fingers Louie where both are mentioned -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 88 Fingers Louie#Band members if Dan Wleklinski was known as "Mr. Precision" only during his time with the band. If he was known by that name even while at Rise Against, then this would be ambiguous and would have to be deleted. If deleted, Dan Wleklinski will also have to be deleted as no single plausible target. Oppose retargeting Dan Wleklinski to 88 Fingers Louie. Jay 💬 19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stick to delete both as no proper target, and oppose retargeting to any single band per the below. Jay 💬 20:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both Wleklinski and Precision to 88 Fingers Louie#Band members. To answer Jay's question, Wleklinski was credited as "Mr Precision" on the only album he recorded with Rise Against - see The Unraveling (Rise Against album)#Personnel. Tevildo (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If he was credited as Mr Precision on only the Rise Against album, why is this nickname used in the 88 Fingers Louie article? Is it because the name stuck, although he wasn't credited again as such for any other work? And the 88 Fingers article doesn't provide a context of Mr Precision, whereas The Unraveling (Rise Against album)#Personnel does.14:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
    A brief unscientific survey of the available material indicates that he normally goes by "Mr Precision" or "Dan Precision" when discussing his work (with 88 Fingers Louie and as a solo performer). We don't have articles on any of the individual 88 Fingers Louie albums, but see (for example) Discogs (not a reliable source) for their last album, which has him as "Dan Precision". Tevildo (talk) 20:28, 7 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 14:04, 12 January 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).

Genderphobia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 2#Genderphobia

Gumby "Fun Special" redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 28#Gumby "Fun Special" redirects

I Don't Want Nobody[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#I Don't Want Nobody

I Feel Divine[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 15:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not helpful to redirect to a target that has no mention of the subject in question. These redirects do imply that these songs charted, so they may be notable per WP:NSONG. Deletion to encourage article creation may be desirable. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No mention at target. Ss112 04:48, 14 January 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).

Terror Twins[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 04:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell "Terror Twins" is more commonly used to refer to the duo of Nikki Sixx and Tommy Lee of Mötley Crüe and not the (rather obscure) characters from Young Justice. ★Trekker (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on replies here I agree that disambiguate is probably the right choice.★Trekker (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate I'm also seeing references to members of Def Leppard as "Terror Twins" ([2]). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. There's also a song "Terror Twins" on the Punk's Dead: SLC Punk 2 soundtrack; and some reasonably likely PTMs like "Child's Play, Phantom Playmate and the Terror Twins" episode of Haunted Hospitals, and "Terror Twins with Rob and Tom Aikens" episode of Sh*t! I Married a Twin (has no article yet, but might get one at any time); probably others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, and maybe recreate later if a disambig page can be made. I tried starting one, and could not. There is no mention at Mötley Crüe nor at the articles of the duo, no mention at Def Leppard, although there is at the articles of Phil Collen and Steve Clark, no mention at Brick (character) although there is at Suicide Squad. Black Terror is one article that can have an entry at the dab. I didn't take a look at the partial title matches mentioned earlier. Jay 💬 15:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If mentions were added (with sources of course) to the articles would you support a dab page?★Trekker (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any further comments?★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding a mention at Mötley Crüe. However, that alone is not useful for a dab page as I see only 2 entries, whereas search results would show up more. Jay 💬 17:32, 11 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 13:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate I've drafted the page, but it wasn't easy! I had to ignore WP:DABONE, which I think is justifiable when dealing with a duo without a single article. I also couldn't find a good way to incorporate the Young Justice usage. It would look something like:
  • Terror Twins, a group allied with the [[Suicide Squad#Television|Suicide Squad]] in an audio story spinoff of Young Justice
or
  • Terror Twins, a group from an audio story spinoff of [[Young Justice (TV series)|Young Justice]]
Either of those would have felt like a large stretch just to accommodate a very trivial usage. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 28 January 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).

It's not personal. It's strictly business.[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 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from film not mentioned at the target article. No mention of something being "personal" or anything being "strict", not to mention "strictly business". The more notable quote from film, for "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse", exists as a redirect and IS mentioned at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:48, 12 January 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).

Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book![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 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrase redirect which is an unmentioned quote from film. The article does discuss Rommel, but he is never called a bastard nor is it ever indicated that Rommel has written a book. Does not seem to be a need to maintain a random line from the film as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:43, 12 January 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).

I'm sorry Dave[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19#I'm sorry Dave

Please allow me to introduce myself: I'm a man of wealth and taste[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 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote not mentioned at the target article. "Introductions" and "taste" are never brought up or alluded to, and this particular line does not seem to warrant the existence of a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:35, 12 January 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).

You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell![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 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from film, "maniacs" and "hell" are not mentioned at the target article. Unlikeliness of this search term does not seem to warrant a need to maintain as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:32, 12 January 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).

Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope.[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 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrase from a comic which is never mentioned at the target article. Despite the subject matter, the word "dope" only appears in the article once, and there does not seem to be a reason to prioritize maintaining an unmentioned catchphrase as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:29, 12 January 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).

Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?[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 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrase from film. "Wouldst", "Thou", and "Deliciously" are never mentioned at the target page, nor the latter word's derivatives. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:27, 12 January 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).

My mother isn't quite herself today[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 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quote, probably from a Psycho movie (Norman Bates allegedly says this). Unfortunately, readers will never know which one as this redirect is currently pointed to a disambiguation page. And just to confirm among the possible targets, none of the six films with this title mention this quote anywhere in their respective articles, (or "mother isn't" or "herself" at the very least). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:24, 12 January 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).

They're coming to get you, Barbara[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 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrase from film. The name "Barbara" is only mentioned at the page once, and never in this context. Does not seem to be necessary to maintain a particular quote from the film as a redirect, which isn't ever mentioned or addressed in any capacity. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The target article uses the spelling from the original film ("Barbra") 21 times. The one usage of "Barbara" is regarding the remake where the spelling was changed. The article previously included "They're coming to get you, Barbra!" in an older and longer version of the synopsis that summarized the entire film. The catchphrase is (perhaps obviously) present in the film which is embedded on the page. Rjjiii (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about the usage of "Barbra"; I should have made note of that here. The main takeaway from this RfD nomination was that this quote is never alluded to in any context at the target page, whether it's made towards Barbara or Barbra. ("Coming to get" appears zero times in the article.) I'm sure the film does feature this line at some point, but in the grand scheme of things, it's one line of dialogue among hundreds to thousands, and there's nothing to suggest this unmentioned line is warranted as a redirect over all others. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:14, 12 January 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).

Even a man who is pure in heart, and says his prayers by night; May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.[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 14:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrase from film; this is the written-out version of a poem spoken in the film, verbatim. This poem is no longer included on the page, and the entire spiel is not likely to be worth maintaining as a redirect Utopes (talk / cont) 07:18, 12 January 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).

2-4-4-2+2-8-8-2+2-4-4-2[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 nomination withdrawn. non-admin closure by withdrawing nominator. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They seem like implausible search terms to me -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @MPGuy2824: May want to consider looking at Category:Whyte notation. If you still want these redirects deleted after seeing that category, there's going to be a lot more similar redirects which may need similar discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, seems ok in that case. I'll figure out how to withdraw the nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red X I withdraw my nomination -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:20, 12 January 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 1093[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 💬 05:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is not the other, and when many series may have an episode by the redirect's number, it's probably best to delete this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 12 January 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 27[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 💬 04:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple "Episode 27"s and "Episode 28"s of many shows exist, so it wouldn't make sense to redirect both to a very specific "episode 27/28". Delete both. 1033Forest (talk) 04:13, 12 January 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).

Stupid cunt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19#Stupid cunt

Neural circuitry[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 Neural circuit. Jay 💬 05:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to artificial neural networks (computer science), when common sense would have it redirect to the neural circuit page. too_much curiosity (talk) 03:27, 12 January 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).

Secular Jewish culture[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19#Secular Jewish culture

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_12&oldid=1202244837"