www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 22, 2024.

2020 Games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. After three relists, editors remain closely divided on whether the Olympics are the primary topic for this term. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer Olympics are not known simply as "Games". See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#2022 Games. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll note, they are in many occasions, such as [1] [2] [3], none of which use the "summer" qualifier but do refer to the 2024 as Games. These aren't the Winter Olympics. There's the colloquial Olympics, and the Winter Olympics. The word "summer" is often dropped on most occasions when discussing the Olympics that take place in the summer, so I wouldn't consider the winter games to be on the same level. 2008 Games and 1992 Games are current redirects to their respective Olympics and have existed since 2007 and 2006, respectively. This is in conjunction with similar titles such as 2006 Winter Games and/or 2014 Winter Games as expected. These were created through AfC so I don't have a strong attachment, but if you have any alternate titles that have a higher significant usage of "2020 Games" that could be useful to note. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguate, or retarget to 2020 in video games, since it ignores the winter olympics and those other things people refer to almost exclusively as "games"
would suggest "2020 summer games", but that also seems to refer mostly to games released in the summer of 2020 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree on the summer games part, 2020 Summer Olympics has 50x more views than 2020 in games. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there were no Winter Olympics in 2020? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this is a useful redirect, and I don't think it would be a useful dab page either. If you search for "2020 games", ignoring this redirect, you'll get results that take you to the likely spots mentioned in this discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but reopened upon request for additional consideration of the arguments above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Utopes, the Summer Olympics are commonly the Games, and are referred to as, say, "Games of the XXXII Olympiads". The capitalization makes it clear that this is not about, say, video games, but one specific event. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • re to 2020 in sports.Baratiiman (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already multiple WP:XY candidates found, and too vague for a disamb page. Ca talk to me! 14:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chaotic. Games in uppercase refers unambiguously to the Olympics when preceded by a year when the Summer Olympics were held. I have no opinion on why only the 1992 and 2008 redirects exist for a 130-year old event. I am not convinced by Utopes' references though. In the context of the Olympics, the "Games" is obviously used as a synonym, but I don't see these redirects as a general synonym but as useful terms, which may also be used for piping. I don't see benefit in deletion, and no need for disambiguation. Jay 💬 17:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As ambiguous and vague. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague to be useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jay and Chaotic Enby. Theoretically highly ambiguous, but in actual practice there is a very clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 48JCL TALK 02:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreeing with Chaotic Enby. -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 11 June 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).

Islamic Insurgency in Somalia (2007-Present)[edit]

Not appropriate for a "2007-present" redirect to point to events from a decade ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 04:29, 29 April 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! 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Bundled with the uppercase redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favour of Thryduulf's solution as having "Present" in the redirect would be misleading per nom. Jay 💬 08:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any misconceptions will be cleared up by reading the target. We don't help readers by making it harder for them to find the content they are looking for or by needlessly breaking old links - indeed that makes it more likely that misconceptions will remain uncorrected. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, incorrect redirects never ought to be deleted by virtue of being old. Jay 💬 20:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being old is always a reason to be cautious when deleting redirects (it's why R3 is limited to recently-created redirects) because there is a greater likelihood of incoming links that will be broken (and breaking links is a bad thing). However being old is not a reason on it's own to keep a redirect, just as being incorrect is not a reason on it's own to delete one. We have to balance whether it is plausible that someone will use the incorrect redirect and if so whether we have anywhere appropriate to take people. In this case it's very plausible that they will be using the redirect, not only by following links from when the conflict was still ongoing but also because they could be conflating two different conflicts in Somalia (for a variety of reasons). The disambiguation page will educate them that they have followed an outdated link and/or misremembered what is happening and take them to whichever encyclopaedia article it was they wanted to read (where they will be further educated about the topic) without having to navigate search results (which may be several clicks/taps away) and which are not guaranteed to contain the relevant article(s).
It is not true that this will apply to every redirect that is both old and incorrect - we need to evaluate each of them on their own merits, but this is why they are discussed at RfD rather than speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the War in Somalia disambiguation page where anyone using these search terms (or, more likely, following old links) can find whichever conflict they want to read about. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1930–31 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#1930–31 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team

Anglo-Chinese School(Independent)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely sure if this redirect is eligible for WP:X3 since both its creator created this redirect not as a {{R from move}}, and since the acronym listed for the target in the article is "ACS(I)" with no space between the "S" and "(I)" letters. But then again, there is no space between the "C" and "S" letters either, and their words are clearly separate. Vote here is for delete, but bringing it here instead of tagging since I see this as a borderline case per what I have stated. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 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).

Angel Eyes (Lime)(song)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this qualifies for WP:X3 since it looks like double disambiguation instead of lacking a space between the title and the disambiguator ... but either way, this redirect is as useful and as problematic as the redirects that are eligible for WP:X3. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 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).

UA (India)[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. Seems harmless enough. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the abbreviation UA is used in any context for Uttarakhand. There is a vehicle code column in the table at States and union territories of India where UK is used for Uttarakhand, but no UA. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Vehicle registration plates of India, this was the vehicle registration code for the former name of the state "Uttaranchal". Gotitbro (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 17-year out-of-date vehicle code seems an unlikely search term to merit a redirect from "UA (India)" to Uttarakhand. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still appears on vehicles in the state, and is also used by the state government in communications (e.g.: https://uaresults.nic.in/; main contact adresses still operating at "ua@nic.in", ua.nic.in) among others. Do not see why it would not be a likely search term. Gotitbro (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep per Gotitbro. This is listed on the disambiguation page, UA, and I see nothing else on that page that would specifically refer to India. BD2412 T 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 22 May 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).

Shihab Chottur (walker)[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. As Caeciliusinhorto-public pointed it out, this is the wrong place to raise notability debates on an article recently deleted by concensus on AfD. Consider improving the article though feedback and submitting through WP:AfC. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 07:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article (Shihab Chottur (walker)) with a notable WP:1E from a long walking list. Please move this article to its own main page, or take it back as an article ~~ User:Spworld2 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per Shhhnotsoloud, relatively recent consensus at AfD to redirect to this list. This is not an appropriate venue to overturn that decision, which I think is what the nominator is asking for? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:55, 23 May 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).

Champcar[edit]

Delete as the redirect is ambiguous. Champ car is a type of racing car; Champ Car was a motorsport sanctioning body. In addition, the talk page for Champcars leads not to Champ Car World Series, but to Championship Auto Racing Teams. These were two separate organizations. RegalZ8790 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. The CCWS was the successor via bankruptcy of CART. In fact, the "Champ Car World Series" name was used by CART as the name of the series it sanctioned for the last season before the bankruptcy filing by CART, purchase of its assets by a group of team owners and reorganization under the CCWS name. The first question is was the split of the article (it used to be one article at Champ Car before the separate CCWS article was split out and the other article moved to the CART name) really necessary? I'd lean yes because it's a logical point for a break under summary style, not necessarily because of the legal structures (there was much more continuity than break in operations).
So the question then becomes which article is the best target for the "Champ Car" redirect (the redirects here are just alternate spellings and should point to the same place). Well, "Champ Car" was the common short name of the CCWS organization and likely primary meaning of the term. The general category of American open-wheel racing is most commonly known as IndyCar, but CART couldn't use that anymore after the Indy Racing League split (CART did use the name before, calling their series the IndyCar World Series prior to 1996) so they went with the more obscure Champ Car term after the split, but it didn't become part of the organization's name until the reorganization. As long as Champ Car redirects to the CCWS article, we should be consistent with spelling variations. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia need the unused redirects? At what point do the spelling variations simply become misspellings? Champ car, Champ Car, Champ cars, and Champ Cars already exist as redirects, in addition to a plethora of others.
But my point is that there is no obvious destination for the redirects I originally listed. They are grammatically incorrect, and could be taken by an editor to mean either a type of car, OR the sanctioning body. Using a small 'c' for car, they should probably direct to the AOWR page, but as one 'word' they are simply incorrect spellings, and I am questioning why they need to exist. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChampCar and ChampCars also exist. Probably because IndyCar is properly written as one word prior editors assumed Champ Car was as well. WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, so there's no particular harm in having the non-CamelCase versions kept as well. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is that the redirects I have placed for discussion facilitate sloppy, ambiguous writing. RegalZ8790 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom due to ambiguous term. Okmrman (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not properly tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate aside from the cars that raced in the post CART/IRL split, and the series that they raced in, there is also the synonym with any sort of indycar, and any rear-engined open-wheeled open-cockpit single-seater. Thus there are enough terms. Disambiguate at champ car -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig per the ip editor. Even if it were just the cars and the racing series that would be enough for a noprimary disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Face cancer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31#Face cancer

Population 0[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 4#Population 0

Bird Pokémon[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 MissingNo. Nominally no consensus between retargeting to MissingNo., listify, and delete, defaulting to redirect in the absence of support for the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like corviknight and the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to missingno without a second or first thought cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to MissingNo. due to the unique bird type trait. Bird type doesn't equal flying type so it's not vague per se. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to MissingNo.#Characteristics per above "without a second or first thought". I'm putting that into my phrasebook. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Among Pokémon fans, this term is typically used to refer to the likes of Pidgey and Spearow, being weak Normal-Flying birds found early in the game. A redirect to MissingNo. would be too confusing, and this term doesn't have a good single Pokémon to send it to. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cogsan, Lenticel, and Aaron Liu: Pinging so that you can reconsider your positions. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not unlikely for people who heard of the missing type to search it. Hence, retargetting to relevant information at MissingNo.#Characteristics would be helpful. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    my opinion, after several minutes of questioning unrelated things like how hattrem can knock boxers out with punches when it has as much attack as an acorn and less than a mug, is that "bird pokémon" either doesn't narrow things down in the slightest or narrows it down to exactly one pokémon which has an unused type game freak forgot to completely remove. so i'm even more confused, and recommend deleting so i never have to think about it again :D cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also fine with deletion if we find the redirects too vague. --Lenticel (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Leaning towards delete. Why isn't Ho-Oh or Lugia considered a bird Pokemon? Seems ambiguous to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to MISSINGNO. -- the other pokemon aren't "bird" type, they're "flying". @Hey man im josh: Since this is one of few times anybody on Wikipedia gives a crap about my vast knowledge of the subject I will indulge you: MISSINGNO. is famously the only "bird" type because it's a glitch that exposed certain pieces of pre-release dummy code to the player, including a "bird" type subsequently unused in the following 30 years of games. The way MISSINGNO. works, you ask? Oh I'd love to explain...
jp×g🗯️ 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for the explanation @JPxG. Believe me, I remember MISSINGNO and the sixth item slot! I'm neutral on this now, kinda leaning to support retargeting. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment legendary birds are also classified as bird Pokémon, such as Articuno in its official description. Hisuian Braviary is described as "ferocious bird Pokémon". I would support listifying or dabifying. --MikutoH talk! 00:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the pokédex also makes mention of plenty of "bird pokémon" when it comes to bullying bug types
this usually refers to pidgey and taillow lol cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify - It seems that sources have discussed the group of pokemon that look like birds, even if they don't have an official "bird type" in-game/in-universe, so that would qualify for WP:NLIST. Fieari (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though MissingNo is the only bird-type pokemon, plenty of other pokemon are described as bird pokemon: indeed we use the phrase in eight of our nine lists of pokemon by generation. While "bird-type pokemon" arguably unambiguously refers to MissingNo (though I suspect it is just as likely to be intended as a synonym for "flying-type pokemon"), "bird pokemon" could also refer to Pidgeotto/Pidgeot (categorised as "bird pokemon" in their pokedex entries), all of the pokemon whose pokedex category is some modifier of "bird pokemon" (e.g. Pidgey and Spearow, among others, are "tiny bird pokemon"), all of the pokemon which are flying type, or all the pokemon which are inspired by or resemble real-life birds (which would exclude e.g. Zubat and Golbat, as bats, and Butterfree, as an insect, but include Psyduck).
    There's no point disambiguating, because none of these possible meanings have articles and I don't think they should have articles, but of the existing possibilities none are really satisfactory. If keeping, we could refine the existing target to Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokémon types, where flying type is at least listed, but I'm leaning delete. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    painfully pedantic note: missingno. is not actually the only bird-type (even then, there are multiple missingno.). it is the only bird-type with an entry in a list of pokémon and an article here though, because reliable sources don't seem to care about 'm or ????? (fc) (the latter only being bird/normal in the japanese versions of gsc) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to MissingNo or delete, but listifying would give us a pretty arbitrary list, and not even an especially relevant one among all the characteristics you can list Pokémon by. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with Hatnote. While MissingNo's bird typing is pedantically correct, the several other options available for targeting (Flying-type Pokemon, Legendary Bird Trio, et cetera) mean that this is quite clearly a WP:XY situation, and I do think that simply retargeting to MissingNo itself with zero mention of other options would generate a sizeable amount of WP:SURPRISE-- say little ten-year-old Timmy just caught a Pikipek and wants to know about other "Pokemon that look like birds", so he searches Bird Pokemon and runs right into a glitch he's never seen before. While a List or Dab would be a decent idea-- heck, that's how Bulbapedia solved this issue-- I myself think that simply adding a hatnote to one target would solve the issue fairly decently, given the small number of potential targets. Given MissingNo is the only one that has its own article, it really is the only one that has room for such a hatnote, and therefore we should add the hatnote-- and target-- there.
    I'll also note, for the record, that we have quite clearly reached WP:BARTENDER-- while there's debate on where exactly to go, I don't think anyone at all has argued for keeping things the way they are, with most people that disagree with simply retargeting to MissingNo instead advocating for dabification. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All possible targets are either so vague as to be useless, or guesswork as to what is intended, and I find Caeciliusinhorto-public's argument against a dab convincing. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:24, 31 May 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).

Dulah, CA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not mention Dulah at all, and per the original stub at Dulah, California, Dulah was nothing more than a rail siding located near Solimar. It's incredibly unlikely that anyone would search for a rail siding, and even if they did, they won't find any information about it here. Delete this redirect. (Nomination is a follow-up, and paraphrases the previous RfD that removed the other redirect Dulah, California.) Jay 💬 09:35, 22 May 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).

Odiogo[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. While early participants argued for keeping and adding a mention at the current target, no effort to actually add such a mention has materialized, and subsequent editors have argued for deletion based on the status quo. No prejudice against recreation of the redirect if WP:DUE mention can be added at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to the history of podcasting after an AfD, because there was no sourced content worth merging. However, it doesn't appear at the target any longer, if it appeared to begin with if the merge idea fell through. Does not seem to be a useful redirect in the target's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/add mention to target. The site isn't mentioned at the target article because an editor disregarded the outcome of the deletion discussion and WP:BLARed the article instead of merging it properly. - Eureka Lott 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging BLARer Aircorn and the participants of the AfD - @Ansh666, Northamerica1000, Kvng, Nakon, MSJapan, Davey2010, Coffee, Enterprisey, and SwisterTwister:. Jay 💬 15:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/add mention to target per EurekaLott - The AFD was closed as Merge so why Aircorn decided to go against consensus and do whatever they please I will never know, Obvious keep. –Davey2010Talk 15:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not going to dig into a decision I made 6 years ago too deep. Judging from the timeframe, editnotice comment and content of the article at the time I would hazard a pretty good guess that I was working through the merge backlog and came across an article that closed as merge nearly 2 years previously, but had no mergeable content in it. A case of a bunch of editors saying merge, not providing info on what to merge and then being closed as merge without any guidance on what to merge (see Wikipedia:Merge what?). Its perfectly fine to redirect that in this case and is not ignoring consensus. Hopefully someone commenting here that it should be kept will follow through and add sourced content to the article if that is the consensus reached. Aircorn (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target at this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Aircorn and Pppery. Unless someone actually thinks that content about Odiogo should be added to History of Podcasting and actually adds something which would make this redirect worthwhile, there's no point keeping it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:49, 23 May 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).

Look how they massacred my boy[edit]

This redirect is categorized as follows: A meme quotation from film and television, that is not mentioned at the article. Wikipedia is not an infinite compendium of unmentioned memes. Not a helpful redirect as people who want to read about The Godfather would search for The Godfather. Specifying a meme implies a search for specific content that we don't have on WP. Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, how often do people search for films via quotes? Regardless a simple search engine search will tell them the film's title and they can search for the title from there. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - stats show utility (WP:RFD#K5) and this is the correct target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ivanvector; people could be searching this redirect in order to find out what the quote is from. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a meme, people are attracted to the novelty, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of memes to gawk at. Searching for a phrase on Wikipedia to see the movie it comes from is an absolutely unreliable method that works 0% of the time. A google search is more effective in 100% of situations due to the usability and predictability it offers, which are two things that "typing a quote and receiving a redirect coupled with no context at the target page" does not provide. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Utility Utilization per page stats is does not necessarily indicate usefulness. Readers looking for the meme, or a context of it, will be disappointed. Jay 💬 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mention at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're looking for this, knowyourmeme or google are going to get you the answer. Wikipedia will not; we don't mention it at the target. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it's a page about a meme (memes are frequently notable, or later become so) and it redirects to what the context is.
jp×g🗯️ 18:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep although usually if you search it in english Wikipedia it showed wikiquote Baratiiman (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a direct quote and it seems plausible someone might search for it. CMD (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I thought about adding a mention to the article, but this was the best I found. Ca talk to me! 08:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikiquote page for the Godfather contains context for the quote, unlike the Wikipedia article. Since this redirect has utility (130 views last month), I suggest soft-redirecting to wikiquote:The Godfather. Ca talk to me! 02:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cremastra (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wikiquote per Ca. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DZHH-AM[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced and WP:DUE information can be added at a target. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Best cite that I got was it exists with address at the former Nichols Air Base. With that said, I don't think we have any material to work with to warrant a mention in any related articles. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - a redirect from a radio callsign to relevant information like where it broadcast[s|ed] from is useful, like if you saw it on an old navigation chart or something. It's not very useful but it's also harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Ivanvector. This is the only source I found about the station's ownership. Though, I don't know which part of the article this piece of info can fit. Nonetheless, a redirect is deemed harmless. ASTIG😎🙃 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per Ivanvector. Although it is not mentioned, it gives information about where it broadcasts from. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not appropriate to mention it at the target (for reasons Lenticel and others said) then why is it appropriate to subtly hint that it is in some vague way related without explaining how and leaving people confused. That's just mentioning it by the back door. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per Pppery. Cremastra (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a mention. That the station exist/existed and the location it was broadcast from is encyclopaedic information. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, and recreate/restore if a mention is added. I do disagree with an above point that it gives information about where it broadcasts from. It instead vaguely implies that there may be some connection with Philippine Air Force. Any additional "information" is reading too much into it. -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Big One (earthquake)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#The Big One (earthquake)

Harley Quinn (pornographic actor)[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. ✗plicit 03:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it seems like her screen name used to be/occasionally was, based on the IMDb [4] page and (all following links may contain pornography) [5] and just general Google search results showing video titles that mention both names "Bailey Jay" "quinn". Now, redirects don't need quite the same level of reliable sourcing to exist so I'm still on the fence if this is useful enough to exist and if a mention of the name could be added in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, better if mention added at target. If people are looking for information on this pornographic pseudonym, this person's biography is where they will find it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention at the target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per above. A retarget might be needed. Ahri.boy (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added mention at the Infobox where other screen names were mentioned. Jay 💬 06:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to give Jay's changes a moment to settle in. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as one may be able to tell from my earlier comment, I somewhat had been leaning keep even without a mention but it's a definite keep wth the change Jay made. Skynxnex (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer: I have no connection with the subject 😬. Jay 💬 09:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope you didn't take my comment as implying that :) I just hadn't found in my quick search earlier this screen name mentioned outside of video title/descriptions. Skynxnex (talk) 13:01, 22 May 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).

Bartleby Project[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Based on the name and the target, I can guess that it is about students who would "prefer not to" take standardized tests ... but there should be more than a guess behind a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There was an article at this title, but it was deleted via WP:PROD in 2011 because of notability concerns. The nominator correctly surmised the gist of the deleted page. - Eureka Lott 18:47, 26 May 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_May_22&oldid=1228815911"