May 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2024.

Bobita

2033 World Men's Handball Championship

Hemang Raval

Wikipedia:Articles for destruction

Wikipédia (disambiguation)

• Wikipédia (disambiguation) → Wikipedia (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Because of the presence of "(disambiguation)", is an unlikely misspelling. No inbound links on Wikipedia. Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Wikipedias. The current target does not include any titles with the accented é, but when this was created it targeted Wikipédia, which at the time was a disambiguation page listing the four (again, at the time) language editions natively titled with the accented é. Later that page was briefly retargeted to French Wikipedia, then targeted back after this RFD. The list of Wikipedias "serves a disambiguation-like function" so this is valid redirect, and even if it doesn't get much use it's harmless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipédia is a redirect to List of Wikipedias. Given that, is there a need for "Wikipédia (disambiguation)", which itself has no history of being a disambiguation page? --Bsherr (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was originally created as a redirect to a disambiguation page which did not have the (disambiguation) disambiguator. At one time that was considered reason enough to create a redirect that we had a bot do it, I don't know if it still does though. Redirects generally shouldn't be deleted without there being a reason to delete them, and being redundant generally isn't a good reason on its own. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Jam (mixtape)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 8#Culture Jam (mixtape)

Kawaii Leonard

Nba allstar 2007 mvp

• Nba allstar 2007 mvp → Kobe Bryant#2006-07 season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (though it should be refined to Kobe Bryant#Scoring records and playoff upsets (2004–2007), as the current target no longer exists). Bryant was indeed the MVP in the 2007 NBA All-Star Game, so this is not an implausible search term IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly retarget to 2007 NBA All-Star Game _pbp 15:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, random conglomerations of terms are a better fit for a Google search, and will not help readers. "MVP" is only mentioned once in the sixth paragraph in the section, not a useful redirect or precedent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes. Not a useful redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Utopes. --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the odd use of capitalization makes this a very unlikely search term. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the first n would be lowercase too. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; cheap and unambiguous. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Taylor Swift

• Draft:Taylor Swift → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pointless redirect from a supposed draft article. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally pointless for inclusion and drafts are rarely or not at all linked on any articles on Wikipedia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and delete the extra text): Actually, Swan, drafts do redirect to the articles once they get approved, that's a regular part of the process. In this case, it was out of process, because the draft was created in 2019 for an article that exists since 2006. However, having a "draft:article" redirecting to "article" is commonplace by now across the encyclopedia, so there's hardly a point in deleting this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SRE, this is the standard way of dealing with these. There is no benefit to deleting, but there is benefit in avoiding RFD discussions for them. Extra text should be deleted and then the page should be tagged with Template:R from Draft. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cambalachero's explanation. This was never a viable draft, so it should have been deleted instead of redirected. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hang on, Cambalachero's explanation indicates this should be kept from that user's view, so it looks like both arguments are presented above. The removal of the extra text should not be a problem either way. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware. Cambalachero's explanation is a good summary of why it should be deleted. Cambalachero then pivots a bit and says there's hardy a point in deleting it, which is agreeable, but I think while we're here we might as well delete it—there's also hardly a point in keeping it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not an WP:RDRAFT. The draft was created 13 years after the fact (in 2019) and never should have existed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ... ish. Someone created a draft under this redirect prior to it being nominated. If need be, disable the redirect and then send this to WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the desire to send this to WP:MFD? There is clearly not any salvageable material in the draft so there's nothing to discuss on that front. If the redirect is disabled, it would become eligible for WP:G13 deletion six months later. (Although, I don't see the point in waiting that long given that it's already been nominated for deletion). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2023 IP edit should just have been reverted. But now that we're at RfD, Delete per Tavix. What I understand from SRE is it is applicable at MfD. Any draft may be boldly redirected to a corresponding article, and this avoids an MfD, such as this draft under discussion, hence was not a case of SRE. Jay 💬 17:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reason given by Tavix. --Bsherr (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is all pretty pointless. The reasoning for keeping RDRAFTS isn't magically entirely invalidated by the fact that the redirect was created later and had no links. And yes, this comment is also pointless. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RDRAFTs are defined as redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace. This redirect was not the result of a page move, so this is not an RDRAFT. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that this is an RDRAFT. I'm saying that the reasoning behind keeping them applies to this redirect as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. For what it's worth, RDRAFT redirects should be retained because they show where drafts have been published. That does not apply here because the underlying draft was never moved to mainspace and was never viable, magically or otherwise. That said, I do appreciate that other rationales that can apply here came up during that discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were several other reasons, including:

1. Prevent accidental re-drafting of published articles
   • including by showing the draft redirect title in search results for skins that aren't Vector 2022
   • including by blocking the article creation wizard due to having an existing page
2. Redirects being cheap and such redirects being not harmful

I don't see any benefit at all for this redirect being deleted. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I've seen a fair number of drafts create for long existing articles and redirects like this are harmless. If having a redirect from the draft name to the article reduces that at all and gets the editors to improve the article, it'd be a net positive. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originaldo

• Originaldo → Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No page links here, also an implausible misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Nickname as reference to disambiguate from Cristiano Ronaldo.Homei (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it could be used to disambiguate him from Cristiano Ronaldo, but it should be a widely known nickname I think, like "R9" for example. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this unmentioned, unsupported portmanteau of a nickname. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: is used in many places e.g. reliable sources [1] and [2], and the less reliable Irish Sun. As such, plausible nickname and search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Joseph. Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Marradonna

The King of Football

DZHH-AM

• DZHH-AM → Philippine Air Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If deleted, incoming links from 75 pages need to be fixed if we don't want this to be a redlink. Jay 💬 09:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP an old station that Philippine Air Force has been dated back in 1970s. It was mentioned on YouTube like this one, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjKYgmgMZB4. 2001:4454:733:4100:9DA9:E768:BA8B:C7CB (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's irrelevant if the target includes no information on the station. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT instead. 2001:4454:718:9400:1038:10E0:F21A:D6EE (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sourced and WP:DUE information can be added at a target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Best cite that I got was it exists with address at the former Nichols Air Base. With that said, I don't think we have any material to work with to warrant a mention in any related articles. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - a redirect from a radio callsign to relevant information like where it broadcast[s|ed] from is useful, like if you saw it on an old navigation chart or something. It's not very useful but it's also harmless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Ivanvector. This is the only source I found about the station's ownership. Though, I don't know which part of the article this piece of info can fit. Nonetheless, a redirect is deemed harmless. ASTIG😎🙃 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep per Ivanvector. Although it is not mentioned, it gives information about where it broadcasts from. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not appropriate to mention it at the target (for reasons Lenticel and others said) then why is it appropriate to subtly hint that it is in some vague way related without explaining how and leaving people confused. That's just mentioning it by the back door. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Seena

Scorsesi

Scorsezi

Japanator.com

• Japanator.com → Destructoid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Japanator → Destructoid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually tried digging around, including the history of the (now community banned) person that created the redirect. Maybe a troll creation? No valid reason can be found, so Delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, not a troll creation. I found this redirect by a link from another article. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Japanator should be bundled as well, I think? Not a super simple history. It was a sibling-ish site of Destructoid for quite awhile,[7][8] then was merged into Siliconera [9]. And so was part of Enthusiast Gaming (a possible retarget since it's mentioned there) but then Gamurs acquired some sites from Enthusiast (including Siliconera). So I think retarget to Enthusiast Gaming since it's mentioned there, including the transfer to Gamurs, and most of its system was part of that. Gamurs would be a fine (future) retarget if it's expanded. And open to other ideas if people know more (sadly lots of noise from the, hm, particular era that impacted gaming sites). (Pinging Neocorelight and Dennis Brown.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skynxnex Please do the bundling. I don't know how to. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neocorelight added (I think, oddly this is something I haven't done a ton of). Skynxnex (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Gamurs would be an ideal target, but if no one's gonna write a mention of Japanator then I'm fine with retargeting to Enthusiast Gaming. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirecting it to an article with an unsourced single line mention is a good idea. For the redirect to stay, somewhere there needs to be a cite at least demonstrating it existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is currently a sourced mention of "Japanator" at Enthusiast Gaming
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Enthusiast Gaming#Former; only place this is mentioned. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in Bahrain

• Climate change in Bahrain → Geography of Bahrain#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Climate change in Qatar → Geography of Qatar#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Climate change in Iceland → Climate of Iceland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Climate change in Yemen → Geography of Yemen#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We currently have many "Climate change in country x" titles that redirect to either "Geography of country x" or "Climate of country x". The style guide of WikiProject Climate change describe many aspects that should be in "Climate change in country x" articles that do not belong in articles about the climate or geography of country x. E.g. an article about climate change in a given country is supposed to discuss the greenhouse gas emissions that the country produces and the policies around emissions reductions in the country. The presence of these redirects discourages the creation of more complete articles so I propose that they be deleted. There are many other redirects following the pattern but I am starting with four of them to get community feedback before mass-nominating dozens. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:RFDHOWTO says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly. Nickps (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot: Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country? Jarble (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Climate in country x" articles should describe the effects of climate change in that country. These redirects are not necessary to make those expansions happen. What these redirects do is leave no place to talk about the role of the country in causing climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild support. If the deletion of the redirects is likely to lead to creations of new CCC articles then I am all for it (CCC = climate change in country X). I've been disappointed myself on a few occasions when I followed a link of "climate change in Country X", only to find that I was being redirected to "Country X#Climate" which then had only minimal info on climate change in that country. EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Better a redirect to a good (or at least acceptable) article than a bad stub. In my (admittedly relatively short) experience on here, a hope that the community will passively take a hint and be nudged into doing something after a different action from you is not a plan. Good country-level climate change articles should be our goal - unfortunately, there is probably no substitute to either doing the work yourself and/or working with that country's WikiProject/most active editors if the WP is inactive. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iceland, delete others Climate of Iceland#Climate change is a whole section dedicated to climate change in the country, and so it's sensible to redirect there. For the other countries, the target sections are generally about climate in general in those countries, with little to no content about climate change specifically, and so it's a misleading redirect, and deleting to encourage article creation is better. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Iceland, delete others.--Snævar (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iceland per Joseph. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say keep only those that have substantial content (e.g. Iceland) but delete the rest. EMsmile (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry

• List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry → List of chief ministers of Puducherry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no such role exists or has existed -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of current Indian deputy chief ministers which has: ..one state (Uttarakhand) and one union territory (Puducherry) have never had a deputy chief minister. Jay 💬 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't really see the point of redirecting it to List of current Indian deputy chief ministers, since there's no list of deputy chief ministers of Pudducherry there, either. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is part of ((Deputy Chief Ministers of Indian states)). So we either remove the entry from there, and have readers wonder why is Puducherry missing, or have it as unlinked. The non-link entry will provide the only information that a deputy CM is "Not established", whereas the proposed target adds some more. Jay 💬 07:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget per Jay. The target explains the absence of this role. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adriel Jasmear Green

Flexes

J.

Kyra Tierney

Wikipedia:LITTLEORPHAN

Horse News

• Horse News → My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect survived CSD through a charitable BLAR. Not mentioned at the target, not likely to be mentioned at the target. Not a useful redirect in the page's current form. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was/is a site run by 4chan's /mlp/ board as an alternative to Equestria Daily. Break that down-- this is a fansite run by a subsection of the MLP fandom because the main, more-notable site used by the rest of the fandom didn't conform to that subsection's views (because... it's 4chan.) I challenge ANYONE to find a credible secondary source for this, which would be required to mention it on any of the possible non-mention targets of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, Equestria Daily, or 4chan#/mlp/. Send it to the moon. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hunterdon County Democrat#Sister publications. Jay 💬 09:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced fancruft. Also, do not redirect to Hunterdon County Democrat#Sister publications because there is no citation showing they have a "sister publication" with the name "Horse News", and search of their own website finds no mention of it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Karlomann

Odiogo

• Odiogo → History of podcasting#Timeline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirected to the history of podcasting after an AfD, because there was no sourced content worth merging. However, it doesn't appear at the target any longer, if it appeared to begin with if the merge idea fell through. Does not seem to be a useful redirect in the target's current form. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/add mention to target. The site isn't mentioned at the target article because an editor disregarded the outcome of the deletion discussion and WP:BLARed the article instead of merging it properly. - Eureka Lott 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging BLARer Aircorn and the participants of the AfD - @Ansh666, Northamerica1000, Kvng, Nakon, MSJapan, Davey2010, Coffee, Enterprisey, and SwisterTwister:. Jay 💬 15:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/add mention to target per EurekaLott - The AFD was closed as Merge so why Aircorn decided to go against consensus and do whatever they please I will never know, Obvious keep. –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Not going to dig into a decision I made 6 years ago too deep. Judging from the timeframe, editnotice comment and content of the article at the time I would hazard a pretty good guess that I was working through the merge backlog and came across an article that closed as merge nearly 2 years previously, but had no mergeable content in it. A case of a bunch of editors saying merge, not providing info on what to merge and then being closed as merge without any guidance on what to merge (see Wikipedia:Merge what?). Its perfectly fine to redirect that in this case and is not ignoring consensus. Hopefully someone commenting here that it should be kept will follow through and add sourced content to the article if that is the consensus reached. Aircorn (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target at this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look how they massacred my boy

• Look how they massacred my boy → The Godfather  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is categorized as follows: A meme quotation from film and television, that is not mentioned at the article. Wikipedia is not an infinite compendium of unmentioned memes. Not a helpful redirect as people who want to read about The Godfather would search for The Godfather. Specifying a meme implies a search for specific content that we don't have on WP. Delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, how often do people search for films via quotes? Regardless a simple search engine search will tell them the film's title and they can search for the title from there. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - stats show utility (WP:RFD#K5) and this is the correct target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ivanvector; people could be searching this redirect in order to find out what the quote is from. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a meme, people are attracted to the novelty, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of memes to gawk at. Searching for a phrase on Wikipedia to see the movie it comes from is an absolutely unreliable method that works 0% of the time. A google search is more effective in 100% of situations due to the usability and predictability it offers, which are two things that "typing a quote and receiving a redirect coupled with no context at the target page" does not provide. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Utility Utilization per page stats is does not necessarily indicate usefulness. Readers looking for the meme, or a context of it, will be disappointed. Jay 💬 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No mention at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you're looking for this, knowyourmeme or google are going to get you the answer. Wikipedia will not; we don't mention it at the target. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hornless unicorn

• Hornless unicorn → Horse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general WP:SYNTH explanation for horse. Unicorn, Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated horse with a horn (which points to unicorn). We also have horned horse and magic horse for consideration. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with Unicorn and Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.

• Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
• Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead

If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly^{[by whom?]} "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn. Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as incorrect and unused. A hornless unicorn is not a horse. Maybe it's a unicorn whose horn has been cut off, or one which was [fictitiously] born without a horn (an anomaly). But it has nothing to do with a horse. Horse article doesn't mention unicorns. If you must keep the redirect, send it to Unicorn. Leaving it as a redirect to Horse is an uncited definition (WP:OR), which is also an incorrect meaning. If it was in Wiktionary, I'd say redirect it there, but it's not. There is no article in Wikipedia which uses this redirect. There is a single article which refers to a "hornless unicorn" (linked to Unicorn), and it is a creature on a tomb monument, which can be seen here. Delete.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this isn't ambiguous whatsoever. "Unicorns aren't real" is not a reason to delete this redirect; what matters is that people know what a unicorn is, and more importantly, know what a unicorn looks like and how that appearance relates to horses. My mind goes to the word games that non-fluent people sometimes resort to when they don't know the word for something-- the anecdote of someone in a grocery store, wanting chicken, not knowing the word for "chicken", picking some eggs up, heading to an employee, and asking, "Where's the mother?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a description in Unicorn article: "depicted as a white horse-like or goat-like animal with a long straight horn with spiralling grooves, cloven hooves, and sometimes a goat's beard" and often "an ox tail". Far from a horse; closer to cattle. If someone wants to know what a "hornless unicorn" is, they can go to Unicorn and figure it out. Going to Horse won't help them at all, since horses don't have cloven hooves, horns, beards, or tails like that.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Huh. That's... not usually what I think of when I think of unicorns. In the modern day, unicorns really are depicted as "just slap a horn on a horse"-- after all, if you need a live-action shot of a unicorn, getting cloven hooves and an ox tail is a tall order, and the thing people notice first has always been the horn anyways. There's also the My Little Pony franchise, where unicorns are simply ponies with horns, but given a pony is just a horse with dwarfism...

My point is that that article needs some work, clearly-- it completely fails to talk about contemporary understanding/depiction of unicorns. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann: Reminder... WP:NOTFORUM. This RFD is about whether or not to delete or change the redirect Hornless unicorn. You're welcome to edit Unicorn to add whatever you can appropriately source, but based on your edit history you don't actually do any content editing, but just post comments on RFDs. I can't even imagine being holed up here. You really should branch out and get more experience around Wikipedia. It's much more fun.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this falls under NOTFORUM, as people's impressions of unicorns are indeed relevant to the deciding factor of this discussion. Though I agree that one might have a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think My Little Pony ponies are horses either: they have no separate hooves at all, and you can't really distinguish if that's an ox tail or a horse tail, so you can't see if they're unicorns that fit the article's description. I agree that you should probably get a really reliable source that says that hornless unicorns are just horses. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since any other action appears to be ambiguous guesswork. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A unicorn is a horse with special features, so when you eliminate those features it reverts back to its original state. The whole unicorn belief is based on the supposed magical powers of the horn. In fact, the horn is what makes the unicorn, not the horse. I rest my case. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding about this subject which is not supported by reliable sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, you just have to apply common sense here. Not everything has to be used/supported by reliable sources. Urban terms are a thing. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take your word that unicorns are perceived as just horses with horns, and most people above seem to disagree. Evidence much? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: To suggest that people will search for a member of an empty set such as a hornless unicorn is laughable not an argument which has a solid basis. Incorrect search term that is not remotely likely to searched for. TarnishedPath^talk 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath: Laughable is an obviously extreme interpretation. I might avoid disparaging others with comments such as these. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh apologies I didn't mean disparage. TarnishedPath^talk 05:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, I understand if it wasn't meant that way. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how it "is not remotely likely to searched for" when it does have pageviews (and substationally more than the similar pages horned horse and magic horse linked above if you think this RfD is the cause of those pageviews). Doublah (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning delete but consensus could be clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pretty much for Hey man im josh's reasoning. Redirects don't need to be reliably sourced; they need to be useful for navigation. This is a term others have used, clearly to refer to horses; there's no reason to not direct our readers there. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: An important purpose of redirects is to be useful for navigation and search engines, considering the substantial results on search engines for hornless unicorn in reference to horses does prove the usefulness of a redirect with no real downsides to such existing (And no, "Unicorns are not real" is not an downside).

Doublah (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind that the purpose for a redirect as a search tool or a navigation tool is to arrive at an article which says more about the topic. The article Horse doesn't even mention unicorns, let alone hornless ones. So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. (As a member of the WikiProject Equine, I can assure you that any content about "hornless unicorn" would be unlikely to survive in the article Horse, should anyone try to add it there.) To make matters worse, since there is no source which says a hornless unicorn is a horse, to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as verifiability, no original research and WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. – @Grorp: That's quite the lofty claim, and an argument made in bad faith. ...to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as verifiability, no original research and WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more). – That's factually incorrect, it wouldn't violate any of those policies as a non-derogatory redirect. It's about expected result and possibility of usefulness (even if minor) when a redirect is searched. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)"hronel[reply]

Keep but no prejedice to "retarget" a better target can be found. For example in Runescape there are unicorns but no horses. The in universe mythological "hornless unicorn" is clearly a meta-reference to the horse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Cat:NN

• Cat:NN → Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cat:nn → Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cat:prod → Category:Proposed deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Honestly, I have no idea how this WP:XNR survived RfD. "Cat:" is not a pseudo-namespace. Looking at WP:Shortcut#List of prefixes, "Cat:" appears nowhere. It is not widely accepted, it is nowhere accepted. CAT:NN has existed since 2006. This lowercase version was created in 2020. The RfD said "keep because it is used widely in links" which is simply entirely incorrect. The search result provided then, showed usage of EXCLUSIVELY the uppercase variant. From a quantitative perspective, CAT:NN has 500+ links. Cat:NN has zero, besides the deletion notifications. If someone wants to campaign for the existence of a new lowercase "Cat" namespace, that should be done before the existence of these redirects. (Which as per Pandora's WikiBox, the existence of one has since introduced two more also bundled). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misleading, found no kitties inside the namespace. More seriously, having lowerspace variants of pseudo-namespaces would be unmaintainable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I only made this two because of the existence of Cat:NN and because using caps lock sucks on phones, you're more than welcome to speedy them under author requests deletion so we don't have to drag this out for a week. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment! I was kind of confused why those two came about. A discussion seems inevitable though at minimum for Cat:NN as that was kept a few months ago. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cat:prod averages about 2 pageviews each day, since it's convenient to just keyboard type lowercase stuff. However the search thing "redirects" capitalization already anyways Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:prod was created a month ago. I'm not surprised that it gets views because CAT:PROD also gets a substantial amount of views, and people type in lowercase expecting to autocorrect by the software (which it does). If redirects are meant to optimize view-numbers, we'd get rid of capitals entirely. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The lowercase spelling is not commonly accepted and would lead to a WP:PANDORA issue. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The last 2 have been deleted as G7. Keep, don't see any harm. Queen of ♡ | speak 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cat:NN per PANDORA per StreetcarEnjoyer who had created the other two based on the presence of Cat:NN. Jay 💬 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W2000

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#W2000

Neb-er-tcher

Halo 1 pistol

• Halo 1 pistol → M6D Pistol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

According to the halo wiki, there are "many different pistols used in the Halo universe". I don't think this is a useful search term, zero evidence that "Halo 1 pistol" is an alternate name for this pistol even if used by Master Chief. Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out "what's the name of the pistol that Master Chief uses in Halo 1". Not a great precedent for titles, i.e. based on MOS:POPCULT, and franchises that reference a real model of pistol. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Halo 1 also has the Plasma Pistol, making this an inaccurate term. It's generally referred to as the "magnum" to differentiate it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, this is specifically an alternative name redirect, intended for people who know about the pistol and it's significance, and call it this name. A google search gives a couple social media posts of people who call it that. I don't understand your last sentence. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 10:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as useful and redirects are cheap. I don't understand the nom's "Wikipedia is not a search engine" argument, and I'd love to see what policy/guideline that's based in. It certainly doesn't appear anywhere on WP:R. In fact, I might even argue that WP:R#KEEP #3 applies in this situation (and would be another reason to keep this page). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is a search engine; readers come here to search for information, and Wikipedia has long been one of the options you can choose as your default search engine in many web browsers. But this one in particular is ambiguous (per Zxcvbnm) and search results would be better (example). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish bath

• Turkish bath → Hammam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target of this redirect should likely be reconsidered. The most helpful solution may to turn this into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). Reason: The term "Turkish bath" in a Western context is fairly generic and might also denote other types of steam baths, in addition to the mainly Islamic ones covered at Hammam. Since this was last discussed in 2021 (see here), a more fully-fledged Victorian Turkish bath article now exists. Other articles might also be relevant to link. Note: This came out of a discussion at Talk:Turkish Bath (disambiguation) between myself and Ishpoloni. Feel free to read there for more context & explanation. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Hammam is the primary topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget: I don't know the correct Wiki terminology to use, but searchers from different communities seeking information on so-called 'Turkish baths' (which no longer appears as an article) could equally be looking for Hammam or Victorian Turkish baths and some type of 'See:' reference should offer these two clear redirecting link options.

Hammam is neither primary nor secondary. Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths only have in common that they are baths, and are both derived from the ancient Roman thermae. Victorian Turkish baths are not steam baths. Nor are they really, as the Hammam article states, "A variation on the Muslim bathhouse"—which is why in France and Germany they are called Roman-Irish baths.

The only guiding principle here should be: 'Save the time of the reader' Ranganathan's 4th law. Ishpoloni (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we follow our own policies and guidelines, not library science (for better or for worse, I can't say). The guideline for how to deal with ambiguous terms (like Turkish bath) is WP:D. The first step is to determine whether there is a primary topic. One way to do that is to look at page traffic. The page traffic for Hammam shows that most people get to that page via an "other-search", such as searching for the term "Turkish bath" via an external search engine, but that only 15% of people then click away to Victorian Turkish baths from that article. We can infer that most readers were, in fact, looking for Hammam when they searched "Turkish bath". We can also look at comparative pageviews, which shows that Hammam gets far more views than Victorian Turkish baths. Then, if we've determined a primary topic, the guideline tells us to redirect the ambiguous term to that page, with hatnotes to the appropriate disambiguation pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Having had time to familiarise myself more with the often complicated Wikipedia guidance notes, I now believe that the most equitable solution is the one suggested above by R Prazeres, ie, to change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This could either be based on the existing one or, perhaps preferably, like the Mercury page example given in the guidance notes. I believe this is a solution on which we should easily be able to reach consensus.

Reasons:

1. Of the 22 reasons for a redirect given on Wikipedia:Redirect the overwhelming majority relate to different forms of words, grammar, punctuation, etc. Not one exemplifies a redirect of one subject to another subject.^[a]

2. On Wikipedia:Disambiguation page the three important points seem to be:

(a) naming articles so each has an unique title, eg, Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths;

(b) making links so that a term points to the correct article;

(c) "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis)

Proposed resolution:

Change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation)

An allied matter:

In case there are Western European readers of this Wikipedia, there should be Redirects < Irish-Roman baths and < Roman-Irish baths > Victorian Turkish baths. Ishpoloni (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Turkish Bath (disambiguation) per nom. -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baak film redirects

• Baak (Telugu film) → Aranmanai 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Baakghost → Aranmanai 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Both of these redirects have no point. Both these redirects (Baakghost and Baak (Telugu film)) along with Baak (Telugu Film) were initially created by SenthilGugan as Articles for the Telugu dubbed version of Aranmanai 4. After seeing no need for another article, when there's already a primary article and an Afd the pages were turned to redirects. But, there is no need these many redirects, as not even the Google recognizes these names. I only included two redirects because, the other one has already been Rfded. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vestrian24Bio, what's the reason for nominating this redirect for deletion? I could be missing a potential problem with it; but, from what I can see, this title is mentioned at the target under Aranmanai 4#Release. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am typing it; please wait for me to post it. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, sorry - I was confused as to why the redirect was nominated without a rationale, but that makes sense. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's Baak. See this. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that the above !vote was made underneath the entry for Baakghost, before the two nominations had been combined - see [10]. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but make the target more precise to a section in the article: Aranmanai_4#Theatrical The title in the target section of this Telugu version of the film IS Baak. The second R was Redirected after an Afd and the first BLARed as ATD, so that the pages history and credits could be kept, which is always good. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with the first one, but the second R: A Google search of that name would give the results for Baak (Assamese folklore), so how much of an accurate redirect that would be? 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Then, in order to preserve history and credits for both, rename the second (but then the double redirect needs to be fixed) OR change target so that it redirects to the Assamese folklore page (which will preserve the history, only upon a different topic). A DISAMB page can also be considered. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I say we retarget to Baak (Assamese folklore) and move Baakghost to Baak ghost without leaving a redirect. You agree Mushy Yank? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure! Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Summarizing the above discussion, Keep and Re-target Baak (Telugu film) to Aranmanai 4#Theatrical while, Move Baakghost to Baak ghost without leaving a redirect and Re-target to Baak (Assamese folklore). Is that correct Kailash29792 and Mushy Yank? 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes you are right. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I’m concerned, yes, I think that’s a good solution. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Chavismo

Aku Type

Pokédex (Sinnoh)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 10#Pokédex (Sinnoh)

Bird Pokémon

• Bird Pokémon → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bird Pokemon → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like corviknight and the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to missingno without a second or first thought cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to MissingNo. due to the unique bird type trait. Bird type doesn't equal flying type so it's not vague per se. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to MissingNo.#Characteristics per above "without a second or first thought". I'm putting that into my phrasebook. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Among Pokémon fans, this term is typically used to refer to the likes of Pidgey and Spearow, being weak Normal-Flying birds found early in the game. A redirect to MissingNo. would be too confusing, and this term doesn't have a good single Pokémon to send it to. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cogsan, Lenticel, and Aaron Liu: Pinging so that you can reconsider your positions. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not unlikely for people who heard of the missing type to search it. Hence, retargetting to relevant information at MissingNo.#Characteristics would be helpful. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  my opinion, after several minutes of questioning unrelated things like how hattrem can knock boxers out with punches when it has as much attack as an acorn and less than a mug, is that "bird pokémon" either doesn't narrow things down in the slightest or narrows it down to exactly one pokémon which has an unused type game freak forgot to completely remove. so i'm even more confused, and recommend deleting so i never have to think about it again :D cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also fine with deletion if we find the redirects too vague. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Leaning towards delete. Why isn't Ho-Oh or Lugia considered a bird Pokemon? Seems ambiguous to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Big One (earthquake)

• The Big One (earthquake) → San Andreas Fault#The next .22Big One.22  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#The Big One (earthquake). However, multiple sources prove that "The Big One" does not only refer to the anticipated mega-quake in Los Angeles, but also refers to a similar feared one that can devastate Metro Manila, the Philippines. Here are some of the reliable sources that prove "The Big One" is not just a U.S. thing: from Rizal Medical Center, from DOST, from Inquirer.net, from Manila Bulletin, from a World Bank blog, from Philippine Star, and from Manila Standard Today. This redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate: Agree with nomination. Not everything is about the US and if there are WP:RS demonstrating the terms usage in reference to other occurrences then this redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. TarnishedPath^talk 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Master

Legendary Pokémon

Yuno Miles

Hazeltown

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

This is not attested anywhere, and its addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history". 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just added a ((cn)) at the target. The article was titled Hazeltown and mention has been there right from the first edit in 2008 - Keep as long as the mention is there. Jay 💬 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any thoughts on keeping the redrect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of attestation; just because something has been there since 2008 doesn't mean it's right. (Of course, just because something cannot be cited doesn't mean it isn't true - but it does mean we should exclude it and the redirect from Wikipedia until we're 100% sure). --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Bessarabia

• The Province of Bessarabia → Budjak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Province of Bessarabia → Budjak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nonsense redirects. Bessarabia is a region in Eastern Europe. Budjak is a subset of it. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Bessarabia Governorate. "Province" appears to be an alternative translation (see [11], [12], etc.) - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on, The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:

  The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an Ottoman province from 1478 to 1812. Its size varied, however by 1600, it included the towns of Cetatea Alba, Izmail, Tighina, and Kilia.
  The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812, along with all Moldovan territory east of the Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of Bessarabia.
  The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.

  This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and "province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bessarabia given the ambiguity of several historical provinces being named "Bessarabia". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winged spear

• Winged spear → Bohemian earspoon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Between Corseque, Spetum, and the fact that this redirect is not mentioned in the current target, it's not clear which subject readers are desiring to locate when searching this term. (However, used to be a section at Polearm#Winged spear, a section which was present in 2012, but was removed at some point that year.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the Bohemian Earspoon is not the most obvious redirect. Winged spears are probably ancestral to the spetum and corseque too. If I were to plump for one, it would probably be spetum. But there is an argument that a separate article or article section on the weapon would ultimately be preferable. Be hard to make it above a start though. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, makes me wonder if the section I linked which existed over a decade ago should be restored, or even used to overwrite the nominated redirect with an article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link baiting

Battle of appommatox courthouse