< April 9
April 11 >

April 10

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

Star (unicorn)

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]

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

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

Rock reptile (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Qyuandyq

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

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]
To be clear yes, all should target the UK article. WCMemail 10:57, 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.

National Instrument of Pakistan

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

Fascismo

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

German fascism

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

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

Sabji

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

Dot and Dash

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

Clearstor(e)y

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]
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

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

Saint Peter's Peacocks basketball "Template:" redirects

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

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]

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]

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

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

Furious Love

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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)

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

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]
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.
More