February 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2022.

M. Sampath

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. plicit 00:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 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.

TROL

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 Trol, which is now a DAB page per discussion below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is, accoring to the template on the redirect page, a redirect from the international non-prorietary name of a drug, but this name isn't mentioned anywhere at the target and I can't find that it is a commonly used name. The google hits are primarily irrelevant or OCR errors for "control". An exception is a brand-name anti-acne product but vitamin A is just one of several ingredients (c.f. WP:XY). Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 12 February 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.

Trol

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling; ambiguous. Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 12 February 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.

Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law

Words (in Canon Law)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To state that words in canon law all relate to legal interpretations is already a big stretch, but to say that the very idea of words in canon law relates to how Catholic canon law is interpreted is a big Catholic bias and misleading. Furthermore, the capitalisation is wrong.
I recommend deletion. There is no good retarget, as no article on WP is about how words in canon law are, and there is the capitalisation error. Veverve (talk) 16:03, 12 February 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.

Housemartin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#Housemartin

Queen of England (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#Queen of England (disambiguation)

MOS:CAPTION

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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the shortcut must be retargeted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, which is its own guideline about "captions". The guideline is clearer than the rule seen in the current target. Furthermore, I think many editors must have used the shortcut to refer to rules about caption, right? George Ho (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is MOS:CAPTIONS not also being discussed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added MOS:caption to the bundle. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add MOS:CAPTIONS to the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be hypothetical sense to a preference of redirection to a dedicated subpage rather than to a section in a more general guideline, but I don't find "The guideline is clearer than the rule seen in the current target" to be substantive or adequate. What is unclear in the latter? Why could a lack of clarity not be resolved by editing? What consideration has been made of current usage and the current target's apparently unproblematic use for nearly 14 years? Where is substantiation of the implicit concern that this is not redirecting as users intend? I, similarly, do not see that sufficient basis for change has been presented. Эlcobbola talk 17:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, all right. Maybe "clearer" is not the right word. How about "more detailed" instead? To explain further, the current title describes how to format a caption and what captions are. The subpage describes that captions can be a case-by-case basis as well as "criteria for a good caption" and "special situations". Are those differences between the two targets substantial, or must I describe more? Whenever I used a shortcut, I must have assumed it targets to the subpage. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAPTION targets to the subpage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I still forget the distinction between the two, especially when "MOS" is used. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We have two different pieces of text about captions. One is simple and concise and starts "Photographs and other graphics should have captions..."

The other starts "A caption is text that appears below an image. [a] Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text." Embedded in this initial sentence is a note [a] that refers to "mathematical formulae, very small tables, compact family trees, small charts, and other templated, compact output of a graphical nature." Do we really want a novice editor to have to read this mind-boggling complexity when all you want to do is gently remind them that "photographs should have captions"?

The first text needs a shortcut. MOS:CAPTION is as good as any. Hallucegenia (talk) 18:36, 15 February 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.

Template:Infobox elections by state

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 13:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This title was not concise and proper, and thus I recently moved its contents to a more proper title as per the function served by this template, according to point 3 of WP:TG. And thus, I propose that this redirect be deleted as an implausible and improper redirect. (Targeted template is to be used only in 52 articles for the presidential elections in the 50 states + DC + Guam. All of the current incoming links from those articles are also changed accordingly.) ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 10:01, 12 February 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.

Double flute (disambiguation)

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 speedily deleted per G14. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a disambiguation page, and I'm not sure it's sufficiently "disambiguation-like" to retain this redirect, which in practice helps no-one. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 12 February 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 Novia

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is circular because La Novia redirects to La novia, and La novia redirects back to the same page, that is La Novia. Vitaium (talk) 08:05, 12 February 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.

Bicolor coat pattern

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. MBisanz talk 01:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned specifically in the target article. Without a specific reference to "cat" in the title of this redirect, readers searching this term could potentially be looking for some sort of Coat pattern. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 12 February 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.

Moggy

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 at Moggie. (non-admin closure) feminist #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦 (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to refer to a mixed breed cat; the term "moggy" is mentioned in the article once, but it's in a section that is not specifically about the subject. I'm also not able to find an alternative retargeting option for these redirects. For these reasons, I believe these redirects should be deleted per WP:REDLINK unless there's a more descriptive retargeting option I am apparently not able to find/determine. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:00, 12 February 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.

Beckton Riverside

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Beckton Riverside

Frozenness

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 Frozen. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that this redirect should point to Freezing, but at this point two editors have seen fit to point it to Fear so I'm bringing this here to seek a consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 16:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants disagree on what target would suit this best. Should we retarget to Freezing or to Frozen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 12 February 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.

Government Office

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 04:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be redirected elsewhere deleted since the words "Government Office" are too generic to be reduced to this particular Office. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, when I Google that phrase, it shows things about my local and national governments’ offices. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a plausible search but wikipedia should not have articles/redirects for all plausible searches. If we cannot target something useful it is better to leave the user with zero search hits, sending the signal they need to refine their search. In this case there's no chance searching for "Government Office" will give you what you want without further qualifiers. (Also remember: Wikipedia's search is much less sophisticated than Google's. I am sure Google can use your private data such as search history, previous purchases, ads clicked, location info and so on, to make a search such as "Government Office" useful to you, but none of that applies to Wikipedia (and what a good thing that is!) CapnZapp (talk) 07:42, 15 February 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.

Wikipedia:EE

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Wikipedia:EE

Lógica

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. plicit 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
02:18, 12 February 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.

Sottogioco

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 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italian game-theory WP:FORREDs with no affinity to target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
02:09, 12 February 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.

Unendlichkeit

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE: No affinity to German (though Cantor did invent some terminology for transfinite arithmetic, this term is older and not described at the target anyway). Unendlich does not provide any helpful targets either. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
02:05, 12 February 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.

Dezimalsystem

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 04:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE: No affinity to German. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
02:01, 12 February 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.

Physikalische Technik

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE: No affinity to German. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
01:59, 12 February 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.

Struktur

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. plicit 04:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE: No affinity to German. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
01:58, 12 February 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.

Mathematikhistoriker

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 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE; translates to the non-existent mathematics historian. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
01:50, 12 February 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.

Tammy Jo

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and unhelpful redirect from two given names. Other people with this name combination are described at Tammy Jo Kirk, Murder of Tammy Zywicki, Kimberly Frost, Rodney Atkins#Personal life, and sundry others. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
01:46, 12 February 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.

Risposta ottima

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 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. The concept of "best response" has no particular affinity for Italian. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 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.

Mathematikunterricht

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 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE Noting particularly German about mathematics education. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 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.

Equilibrio di Nash perfetto nei sottogiochi

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 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE No connection between this bit of game theory and Italian, mass created by a user using an unauthorised bot. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 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.

Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. No connection between this piece of game theory and Spanish 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 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.