Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 10, 2022.

Star (unicorn)[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 02:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created as a redirect to this now redirected article. "Star" is apparently a short name for "Starwind", a unicorn that's associated with the characters described in the current target's section. However, there's now barely a mention of Starwind, with Starwind and Star Wind leading, appropriately, to unrelated content. This is below the threshold of significance or meaningful content, so the redirects should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral as to whether a redirect should exist for a minor fictional character—confused by why this RfD showed up on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome article alerts. Are unicorns in general part of our remand? P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The second redirect has a talk page, and that talk page was until earlier today [1] tagged, obviously incorrectly, for the Classics wikiproject. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pegasus, Unicorns, what's the difference? My Little Pony was a favourite topic of Greek philosophers. P Aculeius (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But mostly because (unicorn) is a nonstandard disambiguation, so per WP:COSTLY it should be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no point on having a redirect based on a character's nickname, when that character does not even have an entry in the list. Dimadick (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Day Book[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Day Book

Rock reptile (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Rock reptile (Dungeons & Dragons)

Qyuandyq[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 speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 12:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was supposed to be a romanization of the Bashkir name of Kuvandyk, but I am afraid this transliteration is unreliable. I am its creator and I ask for its deletion. Super Ψ Dro 16:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: It would appear that this is eligible for WP:CSD#G7, so all you should have to do is add the appropriate template. Tevildo (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I've added that template and removed the RfD one. Thanks for your help. This request may be closed. Super Ψ Dro 09:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Britain and Great Britain redirects[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 procedural close. Balkovec has been blocked as a sock, and I see no way to unwind this discussion so it can proceed untainted by the sockpuppetry. If there is still some appetite for discussing any of these redirects, feel free to renominate a set of them (preferably not all of them in one discussion, it's bordering on WP:TRAINWRECK). -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should these redirects target the United Kingdom or the Kingdom of Great Britain? Balkovec (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All to Kingdom of Great Britain: it's more a more accurate target than United Kingdom. The current hatnote on Kingdom of Great Britain might need expanding to include links to its successor states United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom. Bazza (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Realm of Britain and Kingdom of Britain - they're the sort of terms associated with King Arthur and the associated mythology, rather than the eighteenth-century kingdom. Without an unambiguous meaning, perhaps Terminology of the British Isles would be a safer target for these two. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be the territory administered by the high king of the Welsh/Brittanians, before and during the Saxon invasion, and what existed at the end of Roman rule? We do have a kinglist for that King of the Britons -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article for that territory is Celtic Britons, which might fail WP:R#PLA if the redirects lead there directly. But I agree it's a possible target. Tevildo (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7, @Tevildo I expanded the hatnote on Kingdom of Great Britain. I bundled to this topic several similar redirects too. Balkovec (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Balkovec: Thanks: your split list is helpful. I agree that political "Britain"s should be redirected to the present-day United Kingdom (or, as suggested by Tevildo, the Terminology page). The political "Great Britain"s in the second list, though, all ought to go to Kingdom of Great Britain (with its nicely-expanded hatnotes): the current United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland and directing Great Britain countries, states, realms and anything else not geographical risks misleading on that fact. Bazza (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that most people looking for something Britain are probably looking for the modern day UK though I guess Kingdom of Great Britain is more accurate in a technical sense.--Llewee (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Logically most people looking for Britain would be looking for United Kingdom and it doesn't make any logical sense to redirect it to a pre-cursor state. If that is what someone is looking for they can click through from the UK article. WCMemail 07:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wee Curry Monster (just clarifying) do you want to target all of the above redirects to the United Kingdom article, even those that are now targeting the Kingdom of Great Britain? Then your vote "keep" can be read ambiguously. Balkovec (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear yes, all should target the UK article. WCMemail 10:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure because the Kingdom was officially called "Great Britain" while the UK isn't but I guess many people today will expect Great Britain (country) to go to the UK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundling several similar redirects. --Balkovec (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't create redirects merely for the purpose of bringing them to RfD. I've deleted those under WP:G7. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrKay I think those were valid redirects. I never voted to delete for those redirects. I didn't create them for the purpose of bringing them hereto. I have bundled them to this discussion because its outcome will affect their targets as well. Can you restore them? Balkovec (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that would depend on whether you were a sock puppet of a globally-locked LTA account. Are you[2]? DrKay (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have and did not have any alternative accounts. Those accounts which you linked above are not mine. That is what you were asking? Balkovec (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two: Realm of Britain and Realm of Great Britain as creations of a globally-locked LTA account. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrKay tagged these two as CSD G5. Balkovec (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with the exception of Great Britain (kingdom). The purpose of a redirect is to get the user to the article they're looking for, and none of these redirects, as search terms, enable us to determine what the user is looking for. Tevildo (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all/Redirect all to UK Readers who look for "Great Britain" or "Britain" are more likely than not indeed looking for the UK (the adjective is still "British", people, you realise?). And if they end up on the wrong one of the two, it's not particularly difficult to find the other one (in either direction). I might agree with a retargeting of some of these, but that would be a WP:TRAINWRECK, so I'm kindly going to abstain from making this discussion needlessly messy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If they're all going to one target, I think Terminology of the British Isles would be best. The article the user is looking for will be on that page, and we don't have enough information from the redirect name to determine which one it is. Tevildo (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

National Instrument of Pakistan[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 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources about the claim that Pakistan has an officially chosen national musical instrument. The redirect is also vague (there are many instruments that aren't musical instruments) and the only one of its type [3] [4]. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, the word "instrument" can have many meanings. According to List of national instruments (music), with a source, the daf is the national musical instrument of Pakistan. Veverve (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there indeed was no reliable source to confirm this; and also per WP:PANDORA, as this is the kind of redirect that feels a lot like the "answer to a question" genre. Doubly so because we don't have any other similar redirects. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2022 Rome ePrix[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Redirect has been updated into an article, so rational no longer applies. (non-admin closure) SSSB (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion to promote article creation (WP:RfD#D10) SSSB (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)[reply]

  • Keep/close. No-longer a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Profa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expression, from what I get from Google search, is never used to refer to fascism or pro-fascism outside of this redirect. Redirects are cheap, but should be useful and reasonable. The expression itself is very, very vague; the first time I read it I thought about the ProPharma Group, it is also the exact same name as a Swiss sexual information centre. Veverve (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw: the redirect was first targetting Spineni, which is a Romanian commune that comprises the village of ro:Profa, Olt. The original target was restored so I withdraw. Veverve (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Left-wing fascism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Left-wing fascism

Fascismo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Fascismo

German fascism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the redirect should be turned into DAB. The reasons are that Strasserism is also a form of fascism associated with Germany, and that Nazism states: "Hitler presented the Nazis as a form of German fascism" with the article's short description being "German fascist ideology". Veverve (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People searching for "German fascism" are looking for "Nazism", which is the obvious and primary topic. Putting the "Strasserism" topic on the same level would put undue weight to it. The term "Strasserismus" is almost unheard of in Germany, and also the term "Strasser-Flügel" (tr. Strasser wing) is rarely used. The topic is considered so unimportant by comparison that the German Wikipedia does not even have an article about it. In the English Wikipedia the term is linked to from the "Nazism" article, and that's all what is needed. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather little ambiguity about the fact that most readers will be looking for the current target. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Para-fascism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Para-fascism

Sabji[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Sabji

Dot and Dash[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Dot and Dash

Clearstor(e)y[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely place for someone to type parentheses when looking for the target article; they are either search for Clearstory or Clearstorey, not this. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree: Yes, it is not likely, and as both Clearstory and Clearstorey exist as redirects, people will find the page. LynwoodF (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term given the alternate spellings. Used in reliable sources, for example [5]. No benefit from deletion. Someone searching this will be taken to exactly what they were looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless we use this kind of pattern in enwiki for specifying alternate spellings. Oxford Reference may make use of this notation for their purposes, but wikipedia doesn't have to follow. Jay (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

La Mega[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Mega is used for La Mega Media, and also a Radio Station goes by la mega, WOXY.and the 97.9 version on the Pacific Coast KXOL-FM also uses La Mega just like WSKQ,yet we are only letting WSKQ use it. I’d propose making it into an disambiguation.Danubeball (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "La Mega" (Spanish and French: The Mega) to Mega and add entries there -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we should do that. The Mega doesn’t redirect to Mega,so why should La Mega redirect to mega?Wikipedia:THE discusses it further. Danubeball (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the disambiguation page Who (disambiguation) which includes an entry for The Who, so disambiguation pages can support having entries which use the definite article, and plural forms, and plural forms with definite article attached, and alternate capitalizations, like allcaps (such as the entry for World Health Organization (WHO), and variant punctuation, like the entries for "Who?" Also WP:THE doesn't mention redirects nor disambiguation pages. As for why The Mega doesn't exist, if there's no need for it to exist, then it wouldn't exist. No current entry at Mega are called "The Mega" per WP:THE, so there's no redirect. If there were entries that had that construction, then a redirect would exist. Since I am suggesting that we add "La Mega" items to Mega, the redirect would therefore be supported, with the uses found that are "La Mega" terms as additional entries. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time though,there are seperate pages for stuff like The Voice and The Wolf.Now I realize that we need to do something about the fact that while some have separate disambiguations, Others don’t. Danubeball (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guiding principle should be size. If the dab page gets too large to easily read/navigate, then split it off with "The X" off of "X"; or vice versa. If there are few entries, then "The X" or "X" doesn't need to be separate from the other one. After all, people outside of Wikipedia will attach or remove definite articles willy-nilly, and search for things that way. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per Sammi Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per the above; there are enough uses isolated to this phrase. BD2412 T 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation draft will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arabic and islamic philosophy[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 (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Islamic Arab philosophy includes Christian and non-Abrahamic sources, so reducing it to Judeo-Islamic overlap 800-1400 doesn't seem appropriate. Based on Google scholar search results, "Arabic and Islamic philosophy" appears to be a term of art to refer to the philosophical tradition created by Al-Kindi, which we cover as Islamic philosophy. Thus, either deleting this redirect or pointing it to Islamic philosophy seem feasible. I considered Middle Eastern philosophy, but it provides no information on Arab philosophy other than Islamic philosophy and is a rather poorly written grab bag article that would not help a reader searching for this term. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Islamic philosophy says Islamic philosophy refers to philosophy produced in an Islamic society. Because it is not necessarily concerned with religious issues, nor exclusively produced by Muslims,[3] many scholars prefer the term "Arabic philosophy."[4], which frames the two as synonyms. The redirect, OTOH, implies that the two are distinct concepts, contradicting the sources cited.
The current target only discusses the interaction between Jewish and Arab philosophy, a subtopic of the redirect.
Conversely, Middle Eastern philosophy is a supertopic of the redirect, casting too wide a net.
Unless there is some place that discusses (based on sources) the distinction the redirect implies, it has nowhere to go, therefore needs to go. Paradoctor (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor all articles, or delete the redirect I'll review the articles in the coming weeks. The lede for Judeo-Islamic philosophies (800–1400) could also be more inclusive. Perhaps this could be renamed "Arab-Judeo philosophies" to credit the precedence of Al-Kindi, since there is already an article on Jewish philosophy
Also according to the Islamic philosophy article: "Islamic philosophy refers to philosophy produced in an Islamic society. Because it is not necessarily concerned with religious issues, nor exclusively produced by Muslims, many scholars prefer the term "Arabic philosophy." (2 citations given)
And I'll stipulate to this opinion, which makes it a candidate for renaming as well, or merging.
If we don´t get a consensus, I recommend deletion over changing the redirect, and for the same reason you adduce for changing it: inappropriate reduction of scope. Jaredscribe (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just submitted a WP:BOLD rewrite of the lede to Judeo-Islamic philosophies (800–1400), which i myself had written a few months ago, to credit the precedence of Arabic philosophy. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When Paradoctor wrote, I was in edit mode and didn´t see his opinion till afterward: significant that we independently of each other quoted the proposal for renaming that was already given in Islamic philosophy article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target has undergone a lede rewrite and there is a suggestion to retitle it. While this may or may not affect this redirect discussion, I'm relisting for a third opinion about the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Londongrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 21#Londongrad

Saint Peter's Peacocks basketball "Template:" redirects[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 12:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now-misleading redirects since the "Saint Peter's Peacocks" have both a men's and a women's basketball team. (These redirects have no transclusions.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SF author[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. Added hatnote with the consideration of the current target being the primary topic. Any further discussion regarding the primary can be continued at the talk page, or at the disambiguation page when (and if) the draft is accepted. Jay (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SF is a disambiguation page, and there are some subjects listed there that could reasonable have an author associated with them in one way or another. For this reason, deletion may be the best option here to allow search results to provide more assistance to readers instead of pigeonholing them by directing them to a specific page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "SF" is a widely-used abbreviation for science fiction, particularly written science fiction. Unless someone can show significant usage of "SF author" to mean anything other than "science fiction author" (which takes up the first page of Google results), keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the term is not "SF" it is "SF author", Showing that "SF" means many things does not show that "SF author" is the same -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Primary topic for this combination and a natural search target. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of San Francisco Bay Area writers. SF is known more as San Francisco over science fiction. -- Tavix (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a global view. xD Paradoctor (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It sure is! -- Tavix (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    🙇 Paradoctor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay, the outlier I couldn't find with an existing article! I was hoping one existed ... and obviously failed to find this one. 😅 Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "SF" may refer to San Francisco more often than to science fiction in general, but beside the word "author" I'd be shocked if that's the case. @Tavix: Can you point to usage of "SF author" to mean "author from San Francisco", on a level comparable to its usage to mean "author of science fiction"? I see that it's occasionally used that way in headlinese, e.g. [6], but authors from San Francisco aren't widely referred to as "SF authors" in the same way that science fiction authors are [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. (Which sense was intended here? We may never know.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (drafted at Draft:SF author). "San Francisco author" and broad-sense SF "speculative fiction author" combined seem sufficient to displace narrow-sense SF "science fiction author" from WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT status. Google News has plenty of hits meaning "San Francisco author", but not enough to make List of San Francisco Bay Area writers the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT either. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as clear primary topic. SF may well be a common abbreviation for San Francisco (not the whole Bay Area which the alternative describes), but not in the context of authors. A hatnote to List of San Francisco Bay Area writers can be added to List of science-fiction authors. A7V2 (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with A7V2 here. I did immediately think "San Francisco" before even getting to the top of the discussion, but I don't think that equal weight is justified here. Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Harry Potter's[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 21#Harry Potter's

Furious Love[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 Inseparable (EP). ✗plicit 11:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the redirect might cause confusion (Furious Love is the name of one of the band's songs, which isn't immediately recognizable from the redirect and thus makes one confused about why they are on this band's page). Furthermore, there are no pages that link to Furious Love and no notable revision history on Furious Love to be preserved. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine target to Veridia#Furious Love I added the anchor, I trust that will prevent any potential confusion? That no pages link to the redirect is not relevant, other places on the web might use the redirect. My personal wiki has hundreds of links to Wikipedia, many of them to redirects. Paradoctor (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to solve this. I am personally satisfied. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume that we can close as resolved, then. Absent some ambiguity, it is standard practice to redirect song titles to the album containing the song. BD2412 T 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradoctor and BD2412: This can be closed as resolved as far as I am concerned. Is that something that I need to do? Reading the "closing instructions" wasn't very clear to me. Also, should it be an anchor link to the song in the band's discography section (Veridia#Furious Love) or a link directly to the EP that the song is on (Inseparable (EP))? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not required to do anything here. If the closing instructions are not clear to you, it's probably best to simply wait for someone else to close the discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Retarget to Inseparable (EP). --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Inseparable (EP) as an {{R from song}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Special military operation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this really redirect here?

The term is only ever used in reference to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, I think 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is better here than an article which rather ironically is mostly talking about a NATO term.

It's worth noting that Special military operation in Ukraine redirects to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, so this would be consistent. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the expression is too general to refer to the Russian operation; the expression will likely gain its "generalness" back once a few months have passed. Veverve (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you do a books search, you'll find that there are a number of uses of the phrase pre-2022, so that argues for 'keep'. But if you look on Wikipedia now, you'll find that 37 of 39 uses of the phrase are to the current ongoing event, and the history of the link shows it was created with the current event in mind, so that argues for 'retarget'. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Veverve and the WP:Ten year test. A Google Scholar search for "special military operations" in quotation marks finds many pre-2022 results. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not a new term, but a synonym for "special operation", therefore this is the proper link target. What's new is Putin's euphemism to call a war a "special military operation", but this is already well covered by the hatnote in the "Special operation" article, which makes it clear to anyone who might be under the influence of Putin's propaganda that Putin is misusing the term and points them to our article on Putin's "On conducting a special military operation" speech, where they can find more background on this and also pointers to other article about the war. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Delta IV launches[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 wrong venue. As stated by Mdewman6 below, RfD is not the place to request or propose a page move. This discussion belongs at WP:RM. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this redirect and the article it redirects to is backwards. I want to delete it, so I can then move the actual article to have the name of the redirect. The current article uses the numeral "4" instead of "IV" which is incorrect, but the move is blocked because the redirect page exists already. Keavon (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Start RM discussion. Rfd is not for proposing or requesting page moves, use WP:RM. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Paramount Network (Australian TV channel)[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 soft delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct television network was never known as "Paramount Network". Speedy deletion attempts turned back as it didn't fit an exact SD category (redirect was Spike's article title for a couple months by someone making a WP:SYNTH guess which wasn't discovered until shortly before the network's closing, which is why I fathom it didn't fit an SD category). Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Everyeye.it[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 11:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOFTREDIRECT, Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers. No other plausible target exists. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was going to say "Delete per WP:REDLINK" ... er, rather, translate the Italian Wikipedia page, but upon reviewing the sources, I don't see a way to have its references verifiable for English readers. Steel1943 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_10&oldid=1085193051"