February 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2024.

England YYYY (Association football event) redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11#England YYYY (Association football event) redirects

Sheinhardt Wig Company

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 tagged as ((R without mention)). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheinhardt Wig Company → 30 Rock (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

For fans of the show, this redirect's connection is obvious as Sheinhardt is mentioned throughout the show; however, a fan of the show would also know to search for 30 Rock if looking for information on the show. For others though, this redirect targetting 30 Rock without mention could confuse people who are looking for information on Sheinhardt only to see that it redirects to 30 Rock without an explanation as to the connection between the two. It seems that at List of 30 Rock characters#C. C. there is an explanation of Sheinhardt, but it's an odd target and if the page is restructured, which seems to happen often on list of character pages, then it could be back to not being helpful. I think it might be best that this redirect is deleted. TartarTorte 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm actually doing a rewatch of the show right now and it's hard not to notice how often the name of the company is brought up. It's the fictional subsidiary of GE / parent company of NBC in 30 Rock. My gut says it's a useful redirect because I actually planned on looking up whether it was a real company or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, I've been rewatching the show as well, which is how I came across this redirect and nominated it because there was sadly no information about Sheinhardt. I almost think that there should be a page for things in 30 Rock that aren't characters but are notable elements of the show to have their own article. Maybe Fictional corporations in 30 Rock and there could also be a section on Kabletown? I'm not sure if that would end up being able to be notable enough to be its own article, but the 30 Rock article itself is too large to fit it into in my view, so I think an article like that could be helpful just for readability purposes. TartarTorte 14:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be mentioned at 30 Rock in some capacity, which would be enough to justify the redirect. It's not like the company isn't relevant to the show with just how much it's mentioned. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not very clear what resolution is being proposed here, considering the nominator seemed to have changed their opinion about what to do with the redirect after another participant commented???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirects are supposed to get people to relevant content when they can't remember the "right" name. Also, deleting the redirect now, on the grounds that the article content hypothetically might be re-written in a way that doesn't mention this exact name is borrowing trouble from tomorrow. Even if it did, "not mentioned" technically isn't a reason to delete except when the un-mentioned name is "novel or very obscure". It gives the example of the title being translated into a language that has no connection to the subject matter – this would apply, e.g., if someone created a redirect for the Amharic language from 30 Rock to 30 ሮክ, but not in this case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seeing how participants are on the verge of adding content, and tag as ((R without mention)). Jay 💬 12:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

New Year's Day earthquake

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Day earthquake → 2024 Sea of Japan earthquake (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are a number of major earthquakes which happened on January 1, such as Galilee earthquake of 1837, 1996 Sulawesi earthquake, 1980 Azores Islands earthquake, and 2000 Kipawa earthquake. The redirect might cause confusion and should be deleted. Prefuture (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nominator is obviously correct. This isnt a WP:NATURAL or WP:COMMON either. — Smuckola (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't have anything to add to the above statements. This simply isn't useful. — CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate and add those earthquakes listed by the nom as entries there. Readers are likely to use this search term and a dab page would be most helpful for them. I agree the redirect might cause confusion, but I don't see any reasons why a dab shouldn't exist. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate wouldn't cause confusion, perhaps an opportunity to highlight other notable earthquakes on this date Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, if there is to be confusion, make sense to make a DAB for readers as a likely search term. Dank Jae 02:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: As stated above. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 05:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per the above. Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mean, it's just a day? There's nothing significant about the fact that it's on a day of the year. It becomes incredibly inconvenient to maintain (every time an article is written on a January 1 earthquake, it needs to get added to the disambiguation page that people might not even know about). Earthquakes happen on New Year's Eve, Christmas and Valentine's Day too, but I wouldn't expect there to be pages dedicated to those topics, much less "January 2 earthquake", "January 3 earthquake", and etc. Then there's the other natural disasters, or even ANY recurring event that takes place on ANY random day. My stance is that there are no "New Year's Day earthquakes", just earthquakes that take place on January 1st, just as they take place on any other day in the calendar. I don't think this is a good dab-page precedent; search engines are built for these terms. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig. Utopes' stance is a reasonable one for them to hold, but it's not one that is particularly relevant. What matters is that people, rightly or wrongly (and it is irrelevant to us which it is), do call an earthquake that happen on 1 January a "New Year's Day earthquake" and so that term is used to find articles on Wikipedia. They also do this with other named days, c.f. Good Friday earthquake, Boxing Day tsunami, etc. It is our job as Wikipedians to enable readers to find the content they are looking for as easily as possible when it is clear what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair as well, thank you for the links to parallel examples re:Good Friday earthquake and Boxing Day tsunami! I'm willing to retract my !vote in favor of a disambiguation at this title, as it seems that we do have other instances of disasters with the named date in front. Those look to be brought about by exceptional circumstances, and I can imagine this too being an exceptional circumstance as a major earthquake. Admittedly I'm somewhat worried about the implications that "as long as someone calls something [X], we must enable that term to find articles." because it justifies the existence of some nonsensical redirects for the sole reason that X people call something Y. People call things a lot of other things, but not all things need to be redirected. In any case, I can agree that disambiguation may be the safer play after all. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in enwiki. ~~Creating a disambiguation at this title will be inventing a new term.~~ If we are looking at a list, we may create it with a title such as List of earthquakes on January 1, List of earthquakes on New Year's Day, List of New Year's Day earthquakes or similar~~, and retarget to that page as an ambiguous redirect~~. Jay 💬 13:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as primary target per Russell and hatnote if we have another page with other Jan 1 earthquakes. Jay 💬 08:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Disambiguate. The phrase is in use[1]. Several of the arguments here against are just odd, including one that amounts to an argument against disambiguation pages generally. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at consensus. Seems that "disambiguate" and "delete" are the front runners at this time. (Someone may want to consider drafting a disambiguation page.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. I drafted the disambiguation. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per the above. A7V2 (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Chinese New Year. At the beginning of the Year of the Dragon, or at least one of the years of one of the dragons, noticing that there are different "New Year's Day"s should roughly double the identified abiguity. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there are are any (notable) earthquakes that have happened on Chinese New Year that are called "New Year's Day Earthquake". Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no ambiguity regarding New Year's Day being January 1st. The primary topic of New Year's Day is the day as per the Gregorian calendar. Jay 💬 13:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Μa

The result of the discussion was no consensus. No prejudice against individual renominations, but this clearly became a WP:TRAINWRECK. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Μa → A (disambiguation)#Quantities and units (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Μb → B (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Μh → Hour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ΜS → Siemens (unit) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Μt → Gram (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not sure what the optimal outcome for this title is, but this redirect doesn't seem to make any sense. For example, it could also be referring to something at wikt:ma, or anything at MA. I think it would be best to retarget it to MA or delete it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microare or microannum JoshuaAuble (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to MA per nom; this is the obvious target Duckmather (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC); struck 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added four more redirects created by the same user for similar reasons; the units are not the only target for any of these. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that what appears to be a Latin letter "M" is actually a "Μ", a Greek capital letter mu. (The second letter in these redirects is a regular Latin letter.) Given this, I believe it would be best to delete all of these as implausible redirects. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
μK redirects to kelvin so I don't see why we should delete redirects for any other units. JoshuaAuble (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol for micro- is μ JoshuaAuble (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshuaAuble, see Metric prefix — the symbol for mega- is the Latin capital letter "M", not the Greek capital letter mu. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia auto capitalizes the first letter. JoshuaAuble (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it looks uppercase. JoshuaAuble (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; thank you for explaining. In this case, I'm not certain that all of these should be deleted, but I'm still unsure about some — for example, I highly doubt anybody actually uses "microtonne" to refer to grams. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Since it has been made clear that this is about mixed Greek-Latin titles μa, μb, μh, μS, μt, which unambiguously refer to some units of measurement (though which unit would be ambiguous for a and b), with the only reason to delete being that they're varying degrees of obscure (though JoshuaAuble seems to find them useful), I don't really think it's worth spending another μa (~31.6 seconds) of editor time discussing. SilverLocust 💬 20:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget μa, μb, μh, and μt to Ampere, Barn (unit), Henry (unit), and Tesla (unit) respectively; μS should continue to point to Siemens (unit). My reasoning is that sometimes unit symbols are capitalized incorrectly, and that these units are the only ones listed (on the letter disambiguation pages) for which base-10 unit submultiples smaller than ~~deci-~~ milli- are either mentioned in the articles as valid terms or appear to be in common use (e.g. see Decibel#Definition regarding microbel). Note that the current target of μS already mentions that the unit symbol for the second differs only in letter case. Also, μa should match μA rather than point to Angstrom or a disambiguation page, because that other unit's symbol differs in more than just capitalization. PleaseStand (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I looked at Hectare and Tonne again, and centiare and millitonne are in fact mentioned. Also, Bar (unit), which is not listed on the disambiguation page, lists b and mb as deprecated symbols. I still think, however, that since microare, microtonne, and microbar are not in common use, it is more likely that the unit symbol is incorrectly capitalized. PleaseStand (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at consensus, given that I'm not sure that a "no consensus" close will resolve this discussion due to the minimal support for a "keep" option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

μA -> ampere, μg -> gram, μJ -> joule, etc exist so I don't get why we shouldn't delete these either. JoshuaAuble (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PleaseStand, does a (the lowercase) really get used for amps? I thought that was always the uppercase letter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed Money

The result of the discussion was retarget to Seed money. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed Money → Seed Money: The Chuck Holmes Story (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I created this as a redirect, but I don't know if this is the primary topic. Opening up for discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The generic meaning has 3,127 views compared with 50[[2]] for the film so per WP:DIFFCAPS it may be a good idea to disambiguate the upper case version. Crouch, Swale (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the generic meaning article Seed money talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Swale. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Seed money. I've added a hatnote there for the film, which is a good idea regardless of the outcome here. DIFFCAPS allows redirecting to the film, but does not require it, and the film is a relatively minor topic. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more consensus attempt...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Seed money per BDD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía of Spain

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía of Spain → Queen Sofía of Spain (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Dabify - WP:NOPRIMARY. We should consider both pageviews and long-term significance. I would agree that Queen Sofía undoubtedly wins the latter factor, but she does not have consistently more pageviews than her granddaughter [3]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify Per the graph, it appears that there are no primary topics here, and per WP:NOPRIMARY a disambiguation page can be created even for two pages. So policy-wise it is possible. Keivan.f^Talk 02:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per WP:NOPRIMARY as both topics receive a similar number of pageviews. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro Azerbaijan-Denmark-England-Germany-Hungary-Italy-Netherlands-Romania-Russia-Scotland-Spain 2020; FIFA World Cup Argentina–Morocco–Paraguay–Portugal–Spain–Uruguay 2030

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro Azerbaijan-Denmark-England-Germany-Hungary-Italy-Netherlands-Romania-Russia-Scotland-Spain 2020 → UEFA Euro 2020 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
FIFA World Cup Argentina–Morocco–Paraguay–Portugal–Spain–Uruguay 2030 → 2030 FIFA World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely search term that does not aid in navigation. UEFA Euro 2020 is part of this title. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible search term. Check out FIFA World Cup Argentina–Morocco–Paraguay–Portugal–Spain–Uruguay 2030 too – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Implausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, nonsense. Giant Snowman 12:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as completely implausible search terms. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FIFA World Cup Argentina-Morocco-Paraguay-Portugal-Spain-Uruguay 2030 should have also been included in this discussion. If we're deleting the version that has en-dashes, which would be considered the proper title, then we should also delete the one that includes hyphens. I understand if the closer does not want to delete this redirect as well though. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Belgorod incident

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Belgorod incident → 30 December 2023 Belgorod missile attacks (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous and euphemistic. There were many other things that happened in Belgorod this year, I don't see this being useful to readers. HappyWith (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The target article has been moved so now it is a redirect to 30 December 2023 Belgorod shelling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or retarget to Belgorod#20th and 21st centuries. Either will help readers find the content they are looking for when using this plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people are looking up stuff like 1942 Stalingrad incident or 2001 New York City incident to read articles. The redirect is not practical and we don't have the obligation of accommodating it if it is giving us problems. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that people are not using plausible search terms to read articles? Why is this redirect not practical? Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"2023 Belgorod incident" is not plausible. "2023 Belgorod incident" gives a grand total of 2 Google results, both related to Wikipedia. "incident" is an ambiguous word which I seriously doubt anyone will use to find a certain event unless it is popularly known under such word. Which is not the case of anything that has happened in Belgorod this year. We can't gift everything to readers, they will have to put a minimum effort into looking up the article they want to read. 2023 Belgorod event, 2023 happening in Belgorod, 2023 Belgorod occurrence would be just as useful and they really shouldn't exist. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambiguous and problematic redirect. Just delete it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the page and it was initially titled that because I wanted to avoid calling it “strikes” or “shelling” because it was not confirmed if that was what it was at the time, because both Ukraine and Russia have blamed each other for it. So instead, I titled it “2023 Belgorod incident”, so that is the reason why it redirects to the current page. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: There appear to be two major incidents RE Belgorod in 2023 that have Wikipedia articles: 2023 Belgorod accidental bombing and 30 December 2023 Belgorod shelling. It's too soon to know which is the primary topic, as the latter just happened. This is an ambiguous, reasonable search term, so we should disambiguate per NOPRIMARY. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Super as vague and made up. It is harder to justify a disambig under this title. We have redirects 2023 Belgorod airstrike and 2023 Belgorod shelling. I'm good with even 2023 Belgorod attacks. "Incident" was poor wording, and we needn't accodmodate it just because a redirect was created. Jay 💬 08:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Belgorod#20th and 21st centuries—or better yet, to a new anchor for the paragraph that mentions these incidents. In a vacuum, disambiguation makes more sense, but I'm hesitant because this isn't a great title, but I can't think of another one that would encompass both topics. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at forming consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an ((r from move)). Deleting it will make certain bits of article history harder to trace in the logs. It may only be a little harder, but it would be 100% unnecessarily harder. We should just leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Are you suggesting that any ((r from move)) should not be deleted for the same reason, or did you see something particular about 2023 Belgorod incident? How is deletion making it harder to trace the history in the logs? If you are referring to the move / rename history, it's all captured in the target page's history as edit summaries. Jay 💬 06:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of some ((r from move)) redirects, such as (but not limited to) typos and capitalization differences.

The reasons for deletion (e.g., "euphemistic" and "made up") are reasons to not have the page at that title any longer. They are not reasons to delete a redirect, break incoming links, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Made up" could indeed be a reason to delete a redirect (WP:R#D8). I agree that it is unwise to delete R from Move redirects that are externally linked and getting good page views. But what I was more interested was the .. certain bits of article history harder to trace in the logs. and I think you have acknowledged that this may not be a reason to keep. Jay 💬 06:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Disambiguate: Either delete it as too unspecific or disambiguate per voorts. Keeping the history is normally a good reason, but I don't see any important history that would make keeping it for that reason make sense here. Nobody (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peakin'

The result of the discussion was retarget to Peaking. Opinions were split between retargeting and deleting, but since there was a clear consensus against the status quo, this should be the most productive outcome of this discussion. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peakin' → UK Singles Chart (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is not helpful to redirect to a target that has no mention of the subject in question. These redirects do imply that these songs charted, so they may be notable per WP:NSONG. Deletion to encourage article creation may be desirable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Peaking is a disambiguation page and could be a plausible target (and the song could be a plausible entry on the dab as well). No opinion on most of the rest. Duckmather (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Peakin' at the Beacon as an ((R from incomplete name)), and possibly add a hatnote to the DAB. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose this unless there is evidence of Peakin' at the Beacon being referred to in this manner. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no mention on enwiki, and no suitable target(s). Jay 💬 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Peaking as a harmless alternative to deletion; other song/album possibilities can be added in the dab's See Also section if wanted, but totally optional and doesn't affect the decision (equating peaking and peakin', with the latter being a variation of the former). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it extremely unlikely a user would search any of the topics on the disambiguation page this way; they'd almost certainly be looking for a topic we don't cover, presumably this song. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Peaking per above. For those of us here in the U.S. South, dropping the "g" at the end of a gerund is a common speech pattern. No other suitable target has been suggested either. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Southerner too, so sure, I've heard this frequently, but how often do you see it sincerely used in writing (as opposed to eye dialect, etc.)? --BDD (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely plausible that someone could look this up after hearing it aurally if they're unfamiliar with the dialect. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no content about this, and I don't believe a searcher would type this if they meant "Peaking". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genderphobia

The result of the discussion was retarget to Anti-gender movement. I think two months is long enough to leave this open. Though the consensus was very mixed, there were clearly more editors in favor of retargeting or deleting (i.e. a change in the status quo) than there were editors !voting to keep. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genderphobia → Transphobia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A term not mentioned at the target page. Thinking about this title from a literal perspective, I would imagine that genderphobia would be a "fear of gender" / "phobia of gender" rather than anything necessarily trans related. It seems as if these are completely different topics. Even if the definition of a "phobia of gender-nonconforming individuals" is taken into account, it's still not a very useful redirect if its use or definition is never discussed at the page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per wikt:en:genderphobia - Fear, dislike, or hatred of gender-nonconforming individuals or behaviour. with references there definitely linking it as a related to transphobia, so the redirect seems appropriate and a mention of the term could be added to the target article. Raladic (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Disambiguate~~ - Per Cambridge University Press 2022 publication [4]: Genderphobia must be understood in relation to homophobia and transphobia because they are easy to conflate but quite distinct. and from the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies 2015 publication [5] Homophobia is defined here as a specific subset of genderphobia... ~~It therefore might be worth considering a disambiguous page with links to Homophobia, Transphobia and Non-binary gender.~~ As suggested by Ivanvector, Retarget to anti-gender movement. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form - The term "genderphobia" is real and relevant. However, I have no strong opinion as to whether it should be a straightforward redirect to transphobia, or something like a disambiguation page that takes an extra mouse click. — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ ~~Retarget~~. But change (e.g. as a disambiguation page per CommunityNotesContributor and Quantling, or to as a redirect to Phobia § Non-medical, deterrent and political use, modified to include this as another bullet). Transphobia seems unsuitable as a target as it is just a subtype of genderphobia. —Quondum 18:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If transphobia is unsuitable as a target (which in its current state, I agree), then would your suggestion be instead to retarget to a different page? Wherever this redirect points to, I feel its a MUST to at least mention and define the word "genderphobia", else it gets inappropriately equated to similar topics. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apologies for the lack of clarity; by 'weak keep' I mean 'do not necessarily delete'; I do not support a keep as a redirect to its current target. I do not think the current target is directly suitable to 'host' the more general topic 'genderphobia'. Hence, either retarget it (to, for example, a DAB page, that lists all the existing subtopics, like homophobia, etc.), or retarget it to Phobia § Non-medical, deterrent and political use and include the term 'genderphobia' with homophobia, biphobia and transphobia as subbullets. —Quondum 21:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On review of CommunityNotesContributor's linked PDF, this is a nuanced term, and should not be assumed to include fear/dislike of non-conforming genders such as transphobia (which one might think from looking at the 'popular' online dictionaries). Since we do not have a suitable target, deletion might be considered. A DAB page would not really serve well either, under this interpretation. —Quondum 22:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to anti-gender movement, which describes the broad political movement opposing "gender ideology", which the article notes does not have a coherent definition. It can serve the function of disambiguation as it contains many links to articles on gender issues, including many that have already been brought up here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This probably makes the most sense for the time being. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trans is not a gender. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I am unconvinced that there is any article on Wikipedia that elucidates this term of art. If that changes, this could be recreated, or even an article could be created at this title (WP:REDYES). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Raladic. LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 20:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per Tamzin, and recreate as a redirect when an article has a description. Jay 💬 16:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per above, overlaps with Anti-gender movement and isn't referenced in the current target article. Dank Jae 01:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Anti-gender movement. I think that's the best we can do for now. Delete as second choice. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to anti-gender movement or soft redirect to wikt:genderphobia. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. This is not a novel or obscure synonym, which is the requirement for deleting a redirect on the grounds of not being mentioned. I think it's fine to either keep it or to retarget it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P:HVNY/DYK

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#P:HVNY/DYK

Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan

The result of the discussion was delete. ^Complex/_Rational 02:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan → War crime (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a previous title of Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes, which was redirected to the target at AfD in 2006. That redirect is of marginal utility, but this one is outright misleading: There are many metrics by which one can compare post-war Germany and post-war Japan, of which attitude toward war crimes is but one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd redirect... I don't think it has any value in keeping. There doesn't look to be any serious comparison of Germany and Japan at the War crime article. Moreover, you're right - war crimes are only one of the ways a "Germany vs Japan" comparison can be made.

Delete this redirect. If someone wants to make an article with an actual analysis of post-war Germany and Japan, they could do so - and maybe with a more encyclopedic name... PhotogenicScientist (talk) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Aftermath of World War II which deals with the post-war period in both countries with some limited comparisons between the two. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the others. I could not find a suitable target. The Germany section of Aftermath of World War II does not have a comparison with Japan. The Japan section has: .. the de-industrialisation programme in Japan was implemented to a lesser degree than the one in Germany. Japan received emergency aid from GARIOA, as did Germany., which does not add up to a worthy comparison. Jay 💬 07:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus hole

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Opinions were far too varied for one to choose a single option. However, I am creating Draft:Bonus hole to assuage the participants' worries about ambiguity and disambiguation. Duckmather (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus hole → Yaoi hole (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Tagged for speedy deletion as repost, but Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_24#Bonus_hole says the previous target was Vagina so I declined. In any case, I believe this is ambiguous and it has not been shown to be a reasonably widely used way to refer to the yaoi hole concept. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, disambig or soft redirect~~. I have not researched the term in-depth again, but if anything has changed since my comment on the last RfD in 2018 it's that using the term to mean "vagina" has become closer to the primary topic due to a news cycle of noise from the anti-trans press in the UK in October last year regarding a (not unlikely intentional) misunderstanding of guidance from a cervical cancer charity. Yaoi does not appear on the first two pages of my search though so it definitely isn't the primary topic. If anything should be here it would be a disambiguation page or soft redirect to Wiktionary, but I'm presently neutral on whether that would be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig or retarget. I'm also happy with MikuthoH's suggestion to retarget, and no longer support deletion, but I'm still not sure that this is the only encyclopaedic use of the term. As we do have encyclopaedic content though a soft redirect is no longer appropriate (especially as that target includes a link to Wiktionary). Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. a similar RFD resulted in retargeting Front hole to Transgender sexuality#Transgender men 2. Both terms are mentioned in the (sub)section. @Alextejthompson, Kusma, Thryduulf, and Utopes:. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is evidently ambiguous (and no-one here has considered the use in games), and use of Search would be better than a redirect which may be confusing. Consider WP:SALT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: if it's ambiguous, why delete then? The item on wikt:bonus hole would solve your problem with this being polysemous. Also, why salt if only two creations were made? The discussions are 6 years distant. Please check WP:NOTCENSORED. No abuse happened with such redirects. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MikutoH: ... because in a situation where a term is ambiguous and there is no clear target for a primary topic, Search is a better way of finding results, and Search is hindered by a spurious redirect. There are 4 mentions of the adjective-noun "bonus hole" in enwiki: three are about a computer game and pinball, one is about transgender sexuality. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Disambig with three entries - Transgender sexuality#Transgender men 2, Zany Golf and Pinball.~~ Jay 💬 07:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I actually started drafting a dab, I saw that the game-related mentions are not used as terms, but as a manner of saying that they are extra. So maybe Delete. The Transgender term may be recreated as Bonus hole (slang) or something such and tagged ((R from colloquial name)). Jay 💬 08:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airport MRT station

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#Airport MRT station

Domain separation (cryptography)

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domain separation (cryptography) → Random oracle#Domain separation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think that this redirect should be deleted. It is unnecessary and unlikely to be used, given that domain separation is not ambiguous. Evgeny Kapun (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is very generic. The most popular use AFAIK is in machine learning, see, for example, [6]. There is a gazillion other uses, see the search in Google Scholar: [7]. The NIST use of the term is actually fairly limited once the big world is considered. There is no reason to usurp the "domain crossing" for anything but a future disambiguation. Dimawik (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dimawik. Domain is ambiguous and so is Domain separation (just search for "domain separation" within enwiki). Qualifying the term with cryptography disambiguates it. Jay 💬 07:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers first season

The result of the discussion was no consensus retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons. No consensus between retargets, most conservative. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 02:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers first season → 1921 Green Bay Packers season (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, the redirect may cause confusion because the term "Green Bay Packers first season" could mean their first season ever (1919 Green Bay Packers season) or their first season in the NFL (1921 Green Bay Packers season). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons from where people can follow a link to whichever season they mean. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons. I don't remember making this. The target was the first season they were in the NFL but, as the target mentions, their third season overall. Not a good redirect josh, not good. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to 1919 Green Bay Packers season, which is unambiguously the first season of the Green Bay Packers. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons? Or to 1919 Green Bay Packers season?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons and let the readers select which season they want to look at. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons as an WP:ATD. Hey man im josh if you think just this is not a good redirect, look at the 30+ similar "first season" redirects you created on the same day! Jay 💬 08:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jay, I'll look over these today. The Packers should be one of the exceptions, as they're one of only a few teams that existed pre-NFL/pre-AFL. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you suggesting this @Jay because I've since retargeted 3 of those redirects. I know much more than I did back then and I see exactly how and why I made those mistakes. I believe it had to do with the dates listed at Lists of National Football League team seasons. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to 1919 Green Bay Packers season, per Tavix. That was the team's first season. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]