April 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2024.

Nick Desjardins

Grand Prize SNP

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Grand Prize SNP

Freeze, everybody clap your hands!

• Freeze, everybody clap your hands! → Cha Cha Slide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Freeze! Everybody Clap your Hands! → Cha Cha Slide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The addition of "Freeze" means that it can't be confused with Live at Tokyo Dome, but despite that, without a mention of this lyric, we don't have anything for readers that search the specific lyric of "everybody clap your hands" instead of the song itself. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an ((R without mention)). This line is basically the only one in the entire song, and I don't see any other likely target. FWIW, I didn't know the title of the song for several years but knew this line. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  basically the only one in the entire song Wa-huh?? The Cha Cha Slide is basically nothing BUT lyrics, associated dance moves, a backing beat, and after the line Cha-Cha now, y'all, a short funky sting. Have you been listening to the same song I have??

  The main issue is that the song isn't referred to as the "Cha-Cha Slide" in the lyrics-- it's referred to as the Casper Slide Part 2.
  ...Wait, why isn'twasn't THAT a redirect...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing my preferred tag to ((R from lyric)) as suggested by Ivanvector based on the discussion below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In addition, tagging a redirect with ((R without mention)) places the redirect in a maintenance category, Category:Redirects to an article without mention, that is cleared by adding a mention to the target article, deleting the redirects via WP:CSD, or nominating the redirects for WP:RFD ... meaning tagging the redirect as so then "keeping" the redirect is akin to kicking the can down the road, which is unhelpful since we are literally having the discussion about the redirect right now. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Y'know, maybe we should edit R Without Mention to more clearly state "hey, this is a maintenance category akin to ((template:Citation needed)), it's not meant to be kept on a redirect that intentionally doesn't have a mention on the target, don't tag it as this and then keep". Seems like I see quite a bit of people erroneously using R Without Mention's existence as an rcat as proof that Rs without mention are Okay in certain circumstances, akin to ((template:R from non-neutral name)). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Or maybe the maintenance category should be seperated from the tag, because there are plenty of situations where we don't need or want a mention at the target, but the redirect is still helpful to have. Incidentally, I agree with Presidentman above that this should be one such. Imagine if I get knocked down didn't redirect to Tubthumping... how would people find it? (yes I know Tubthumping does reference the line, but even if it didn't I'd hope this redirect would exist!) Keep. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue with that is that there would be nothing left to populate said maintenance category. ...Maybe there should be two separate rcats? ((R without mention)) and ((R intentionally without mention)), perhaps. (also rq: editing my first comment here to link to a relevant essay) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag ((R from lyric)), which doesn't put the page into a maintenance category. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "R from lyric" is a template for "lyric redirects that point to a source that describes the lyric". Redirects should not exist for every lyric that people can think of. The long-established metric applicable for all of the actually-valid "R from lyrics" is based on whether or not there is a mention in the article (and thusly a reliable source that can be attributed to and corroborate the lyric mention, in practice) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirects that are not mentioned are not useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PPP Okmrman (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean vocals

• Clean vocals → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Clean Vocals → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Clean vocal → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Clean vocalist → Singing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mentions of "clean" at the target page. At the target page, the act of singing is never implied to be "clean", or even consist of "clean vocals". The primary justification for this redirect existing is that unclean vocals is a redirect to death growl. Yet, its antonym has no mention at the general page for "singing". If clean and unclean vocals are antonyms, and both are redirects, this seems to imply that the concepts of "singing" and "death growl" are also "antonyms" in regard to vocal quality? Likely true, but never addressed (nor does it need to be imo). For someone specifically looking for information on the topic of "clean vocals", it seems to be preferable for these readers to end up at a topic that is directly pertinent to vocal quality. If people wanted to end up at Singing instead, they'd type singing, a concept everyone would have already been familiar with. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, an RfD for Clean vocals closed as retarget in 2015, but was pointed back to Singing after its conclusion three different times by two users, citing different material at the page for Screaming (music) (the resulting retarget). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with the nominator that someone searching for "Clean vocals" or "Clean vocalist" is looking for more than the page on singing, and wants to know about the quality of the voice instead. I've been searching around, and the best page for information on vocal quality appears to be at Vocal pedagogy, but that page is super technical and seems a bit more deeply theoretical and broad topic than someone looking for information on voice quality. I'm not sure we actually have the perfect article to target for these... in which case maybe WP:REDLINKing it (that is, deletion) would be appropriate to encourage article creation. But I'm on the fence, so no formal !vote from me as of now. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clean vocals is a highly likely search term Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This thing is really begging for a WP:RA, isn't it? Bwrs (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget ... somewhere. The term "clean vocals" is only relevant in the context of certain genres of music which use vocal techniques commonly called "unclean". Singing doesn't describe any of those techniques and is the wrong target; the word "clean" doesn't appear in the article at all. The problem is that this makes sense as an ((R from antonym)) to both screaming (music) and death growl, which are both different techniques, and both of those articles describe "clean vocals" in context. There's a former article in the redirect's history ([1]) which was prodded many years ago for having no sources at all. We shouldn't restore that, but maybe a short set index/disambiguation, to give the term context? Or else expanding the very bare section on those two vocal styles at Extended vocal technique#Distortion and then targeting there? As an antonym to unclean vocals and harsh vocals, which probably should get the same treatment as this redirect. I can find a few sources to draft something but I'm about to be in meetings for the foreseeable future (ugh). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll note that R From Antonym is not a "categorize this kept redirect" rcat, but instead, a "populate this maintenance category" redirect. I don't know WHY, but it IS. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector, any chance you've got the time to throw a quick stub/section together now? -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han (state)

Antisemitism in the Australian Greens

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Antisemitism in the Australian Greens

Mimi from Rio

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Mimi from Rio

Wikipedia:UKR

Umbrella Security Service

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Umbrella Security Service

Umbrella Trashsweepers

Umbrella corp.

Umbrella, Inc.

Las Vegas Umbrella Facility

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Las Vegas Umbrella Facility

Umbrella Corporation

Positive cone

Detective constable