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 and converted Butanedione into a redirect. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Butandione → Diacetyl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be a typo of Butanedione so should probably redirect there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and turn butanedione into a redirect. Well Butadione, butandione and butanedione are all the same thing that is also called Diacetyl. So all these should redirect to diacetyl. Butanedione should just be a redirect, not a disambig, as Succinaldehyde is not a dione, but it is a dial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think Graeme Bartlett's analysis makes sense. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect the dab page as well. I retracted my own vote after noticing, too, that succinaldehyde is not a dione. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 1,4-butanedione is an accepted name for succinaldehyde, with diacetyl specifically being 2,3-butanedione. I almost lean toward keeping the chemindex and retargeting this redirect there, but would be okay with keeping this redirect, redirecting butanedione, and adding a hatnote at diacetyl. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokemon 2022 → Pokémon Scarlet and Violet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Sure it could refer to this game but it could also refer to Pokemon Legends: Arceus which also released in 2022. Pokémon Ultimate Journeys: The Series released near 2022. We also don’t have a Pokemon 2021 redirect nor a Pokemon 2019 redirect. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect is frankly unnecessary. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being an orphan redirect with little chance of being linked to. NasssaNser - T — Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neither of the two games that came in 2022 is known by this name.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not the name of any particular title. Weak retarget to Timeline of Pokémon as alternative but there have never been any pokemon titles that were named pokemon (year) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pokemon 1996, Pokemon 1999, Pokemon 2002, Pokemon 2006, Pokemon 2010, Pokemon 2013, Pokemon 2016, and Pokemon 2019 don't exist. MightyArms (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Timeline of Pokémon as it is the most fitting option for any year + subject with ambiguity. Skipple ☎ 04:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Skipple as a valid search term and a useful target for the search. Agree that similar titles don't exist, and I neither support nor oppose creation of similar redirects. Jay 💬 16:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ambiguous and/or wrong, and unnecessary. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague and unhelpful. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete its not even the only 2022 pokemon game.Muur (talk) 01:45, 10 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 New York bar which was converted recently into a DAB page, and therefore solving all of the concerns raised in this discussion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Bar → New York State Bar Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is the bar the same thing as the bar association? Same question for New York bar. Apokrif (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common way of referring to Bar associations. Slywriter (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm wondering is: can one be a member of someplace's bar without being a member of this place's bar association? E.g., in Simone Gold, should "New York bar" send to New York State Bar Association (was she admitted to the association and/or admitted to practice law in NY state?) Apokrif (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Bar_association#In_the_United_States. Apokrif (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New York State Bar Association is voluntary; meaning you can be admitted to practice ("admitted to the bar") without necessarily joining the association. I would suggest either retargeting, or taking care of it with a hatnote, except we don't seem to have an appropriate article to retarget or hatnote to. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between the state bar and the New York City Bar Association, with a note indicating that admission to the bar in the state does not require membership in a bar association. BD2412 T 21:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there an article or section about the NY bar? (which IIUC is different from the NY bar association, so we need to disambig between three things). Apokrif (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current target seems like the most plausible one to me. A hatnote can be added for the NYC group. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist. The redirect was not tagged for RfD and I have done it now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Taverns in North America#New York City. When I hear "New York bar", I think of bars in New York City, not a lawyer's trade association. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might make sense for New York bar, but not the capitalized form. Even then, it could refer to the state and not the city. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taverns in North America#New York City could be added to a disambiguation page. Apokrif (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apokrif inappropriately placed a hatnote at the top of this discussion. Besides the purpose of why it was done being unclear, it is also an inappropriate use of a hatnote. My guess to why the hatnote was placed is to show readers the existence of New York Bar Association, a disambiguation page which lists New York City Bar Association and New York State Bar Association ("City" vs "State"). Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you link to is appropriate. Apokrif (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that means. Can you elaborate? Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he retargeted the redirect to New York bar today, which I have reverted. Jay 💬 14:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as primary topic is the state bar association with the bar exam. Create disambiguation where Harry's New York Bar (formerly and also known as New York Bar) in Paris can be added and the PTM for New York City Bar Association and list of taverns. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have converted the New York bar redirect to a disambig per the suggestions. I had missed bundling it to this discussion (although it was mentioned in the nomination), and did not want to bundle it now and prolong the discussion by another week. Jay 💬 03:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this redirect (with the same target) was discussed at RfD in 2012, which I missed noticing during the tagging and procedural relist. However I have listed the previous RfD now. It was recreated 5 years after the delete, so wouldn't be fair to tag as a WP:G4. Jay 💬 14:59, 10 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Legoktm (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaycism → Homophobia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion. name could fuel possible trolls} AllanWiki123 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also WP:NEO AllanWiki123 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: We don’t delete redirects because they “could fuel possible trolls”. The redirect is already semi-protected. If you want to raise the protection level go to WP:RFPP. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor does the redirect have any use since I doubt anyone will actually use it allanwiki123 213.237.94.6 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It has gotten 199 page views[1] in the past month. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 20:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  199 page views isn’t notable. considering it’s pretty small compared to daily Wikipedia views 213.237.94.6 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also WP:NOTDICT doesn’t apply to redirects. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  199 page views out of 263 million average monthly page views on Wikipedia is very small. 213.237.94.6 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also on “Reasons for deleting” number 8 213.237.94.6 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Racism means a hatred towards a Race. Homophobia means a hatred towards LGBT. Makes sense to combine the “cism” of Racism and Gay to create a word that means a hatred towards Gays which Homophobia is the closest target for this kind of thing. So basically, redirects are cheap. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  i already know that. but Wikipedia isn’t an urban dictionary 213.237.94.6 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment only seen one media article that used it in the article section. [2] the rest have been mostly as user comments. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we aren't Urban Dictionary, we shouldn't have redirects like this just because they sound cool. We just deleted a redirect called Scholarcaust (real clever pun, because joking about 6 million dead people is the pinnacle of comedy {sarcasm, obviously}) MightyArms (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would have not voted if it weren't for the fact that it got over 100 views last month. Clearly this is a plausible search then. It is a likely combination of "gay" and "-ist" and takes the readers to where they want to go. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 00:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  like I said, Wikipedia isn’t an urban dictionary and the word “gaycism” is seen more as a joke in social media. 213.237.94.6 (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The view spike seems to be related to the page being edited back and forth between its state as a redirect and a page that says View talk page talk:gaycism. If we look at October, which didn't have that Nov 1 and Nov 4 edit/reverts, the monthly views are down to 18 for all of October. That is still > 0.5 pageview/day, FWIW. TartarTorte 14:49, 24 November 2022

• Delete or Soft Redirect to Wikitionary [3]. As noted in the previous discussion, this is an ambiguous term but it's not mentioned on wikipedia. A7V2 (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:gaycism per A7V2. The only mention of this term in Wikipedia is in an article title in Racism in the LGBT community § Further reading; that seems less useful than Wiktionary at the moment (though of course in the future it could be expanded to discuss the term in the article body). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and MightyArms. Not mentioned anywhere (except at wiktionary, but I'm not convinced that a soft redirect there would be appropriate). I understand where the nom is coming from, and how this term could be viewed as derogatory, so deletion seems best IMO. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:49, 6 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. The nomination rationale was regarding the use, or rather abuse, of redirect titles of the form "Y-ian Z", in the lead of politician biographies. However participants found them helpful, without touching upon their use as links. With regards to usage value, one participant found them similar to the non-nominated exceptions (American politician, French politician, etc.) which continue to be used as links. The discussion about the practice of linking "Y-ian Z" titles in the lead of biographies can continue in a different forum, and need not be limited by this close. Jay 💬 08:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulgarian politician → Politics of Bulgaria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Liberian politician → Politics of Liberia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lithuanian politician → Politics of Lithuania  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Mongolian politician → Politics of Mongolia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• South Korean politician → Politics of South Korea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Vietnamese politician → Politics of Vietnam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete all. These are recently-created redirects which link a pair of words, neither of which needs to be linked (a common country or nationality, and a common word), and direct them to the article on the country's politics, which is unlikely to be any use to the readers. I find that a similar redirect exists for British politician: it is used in just 9 articles, similarly English politician in 2 articles, French politician in 20, and American politician in just over 250, in every case being a tiny proportion of the articles on people of this kind, so the established precedent is not to link the words when they occur in the standard lead of "X is a Y-ian politician". I suggest that these 6, which I have already unlinked, should all be deleted as redirects which are never going to be appropriately used. PamD 21:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment by nominator: I had a look at the use of American politician. It's linked from 420 pages including some talk pages etc, but clicking on a small sample finds only articles in two categories: (a) articles created 2008 and earlier where the term was linked in the lead in the initial article creation, and (b) articles created recently by the same editor who has created Bulgarian politician etc. This again supports the view that linking "Y-ian politician" is not current practice, and we should probably move to do something about those American politicians. PamD 08:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. They target where they should. These terms could be considered helpful, considering that these phrases are used in disambiguators. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to categories comprising politicians from these countries. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is usually only done if there is no applicable page in the article namespace which to target these redirects since WP:XNRs from the article namespace are best avoided. And, in this case, the applicable pages in the article namespace are the redirects' current targets. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel1943. I'm also a bit confused by the nomination showing how similar redirects are used. Since they are used, that makes them useful, no? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: My point is that almost every biography starts with "X is a Y-ian Z", but we do not link "Y-ian Z", either as individual words or as a term. The existence of these redirects encourages their unnecessary use in leads of articles, indeed they were created, in the last few weeks, to be so used. Looking at the uses of American politician suggests that it was used in Wikipedia's early days but is not generally used nowadays, suggesting that the current consensus is not to link the term, or, by extension, any other "Y-ian Z" term. PamD 22:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see the problem with using these redirects. If I wanted to know what an "American politician" was, I'd be helped by reading the Politics of the United States article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: So should every article which starts "X is an American politician..." have those two words linked, even though both come into the category of "common words which should not be linked"? Would you extend it to every nationality+occupation pair, like Indian author (recently created) or Belgian architect which could redirect to Architecture of Belgium, to pick a random example? PamD 09:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per Steel and Tavix. These are helpful redirects that target where they should. I honestly don't see how deletion would be beneficial. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Somewhat plausible search terms, no good reason to delete, and a WP:XNR isn't necessary in this case. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 08:18, 6 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 02:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Crystal Sea (Masters of the Universe) → Masters of the Universe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fictional element not mentioned at target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Another useless User:Neelix redirect. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another pointless dig at Neelix. He redirected it to Eternia which would have mentioned it at the time. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:36, 5 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. However pointing them to Color-blind casting as a suitable target replacing Racism for which there was no support. Jay 💬 12:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blackwashing → Racism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Blackwashing in film → Color-blind casting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Racebending Color-blind casting as ((R from non-neutral name)). Neither term is used/mentioned at its respective target page. However, most of the current uses of "blackwashing" on Wikipedia refer to a form of color-blind casting in film & TV. "Racebending" appears to be a synonym and is the only page that currently mentions the term. Merriam-Webster lists "blackwash" as a synonym of "defame" or a literal black coating on a surface (cf. whitewash). No mention of racism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC) edited 14:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per OP's rationale. Racebending is the general term here. Blackwashing should certainly not redirect to Racism, which appears WP:POINTy. Generalrelative (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the support here was for the original nomination statement referring to Racebending, now struck. Jay 💬 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the term has been removed from Racebending since it was apparently not in the cited source. Appears to have been a POV addition anyway. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The term is not used in a consistent enough fashion to overcome its neutrality issues. The additions to racebending were a violation of WP:NPOV, but they get to a deeper heart of the concept of blackwashing as identified in the redirects in that it's a very non-neutral term. Other than a few scholarly articles debating whether blackwashing exists, the use of the term seems to be in odd youtube videos and urban dictionary. It seems with a term this fraught and without substantial using in WP:RS other than specifically noting that the term has been used in reference to the remake of the Little Mermaid to justify WP:RNEUTRAL, it should be deleted. I, as well, in my research found a completely different definition for blackwashing as well (more comparable to the notion of pinkwashing) where a company uses statements without any actual change in support of causes like BlackLivesMatter. This seems to itself pose a WP:XY problem. TartarTorte 02:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect(s) are not ambiguous in the sense of being in the form "X and/or Y", but if they are that seldom used by RSes, then I think deletion is OK as well. Readers can use search to find the few relevant uses that do exist in cited sources (there don't seem to be any in the encyclopedia itself). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackwashing in film. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TartarTorte. Seems made-up and would rather just delete entirely. Second preference is to retarget as nom suggests. SnowFire (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Color-blind casting per nom, which appears to be the most suitable target for these redirects. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:57, 7 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).