Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:06, 3 February 2024

< February 1

February 3 >

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

England 2022 (Association football event) → UEFA Women's Euro 2022 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
England 2021 (Association football event) → UEFA Women's Euro 2022 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous term which could refer to a number of different events (see Category:2020–21 in English football, Category:2021–22 in English football, and Category:2022–23 in English football). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "England 2022" - sports events are known by their country-year shorthand name, and this was the only major football event to take place in England in 2022. Like other redirects of the same format, this should be kept, it's not ambiguous in the sense that nobody will mistake it (especially disambiguated with "association football event", emphasis mine) for any generic match.
Create disambiguation for "England 2021" - even though this event still has the England 2021 branding, it took place in 2022, while the Men's Euro 2020, which held most of its matches in England, in fact took place in 2021. Because of the possibility of confusing these similar events, the redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: "sports events are known by their country-year shorthand name" - I'm quite the sports focused editor and very active at redirect reviewing and this is not standard practice in my experience. You mentioned branding, do you have anything that supports "England 2022" as the branding used? Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do you have anything that supports "England 2022" as the branding used? - the logo at the article in question, for one. Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a portion of the logo, I did find "Euro England 2022" when looking prior to and after this nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you go to the UEFA website for the Women's Euro, you will see that "UEFA Women's Euro" (the rest of the logo) is there by itself in the top corner. Hence, the branding for the event is what remains. Just going to also note that Euros also get called "Euro YEAR", which I have to assume is another redirect, but we're talking about this.

Trying to avoid the search results talking about England winning, there's e.g. this headline Will England 2022 be the best Women's Euros ever?. Useful redirect. IMO. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, I'll dig into it a bit more when I'm back on PC. The entry for the FA Cup is coming up for me when searching but that doesn't mean you're not correct that it was used as a common name for the event. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite the sports focused editor and very active at redirect reviewing and this is not standard practice in my experience. - that seems... nigh-impossible, unless you only edit sports that do not have international tournaments. I considered maybe North America does not use such names and that's your blind spot (not a reason to delete, just a reason you wouldn't know), but then I typed in the first event I thought of (Qatar 2022) in a private tab, and CNN (North American) was the second non-Wikipedia result (A year on from Qatar 2022, what’s the legacy of a World Cup like no other?). It's how it is. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a blind spot for me and I'd prefer you not jump to conclusions about me. On my phone England 2022 actually brought up results for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't jump to conclusions, and I referred to a continent, not you, with one of the possibilities I considered. Good chat, man. Well, no. If you're trying to suggest that people would search "England 2022" to find out about Qatar 2022, I don't know if you're being facetious or you want to continue trying to deny the shorthand name's existence, but it's past the point of anything needed to be said. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that England 2022 should refer to the Qatar 2022 World Cup, I was just mentioning that it brought me a lot more results about the World Cup and didn't bring me to the target article. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. As for the RfD, I don't think that excludes it from being a relevant and useful redirect. Keeping the redirect might be helpful, in fact. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep "England 2022" per Kingsif. Delete "England 2021" The event was still called "Euro 2020," so I doubt this is a likely search term. England was also not mentioned on the logo like for the women's event. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or delete for England 2021 (Association football event)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: England 2022 (Association football event) was not tagged until after the relist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Because this happened 2 days after the redirect was nominated and originally tagged. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheinhardt Wig Company

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]

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]

New Year's Day earthquake

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]

Μa

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]

Seed Money

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

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]

Deep state in Russia

Deep state in Russia → Deep state#Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer mentioned at target, although Deep state § Chechnya is there, so we could retarget there? Or just delete. ^Queen of _Hearts 06:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra short-term memory

Ultra short-term memory → Short-term memory (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Ultra" is not mentioned at the target, and using Search for "Ultra short-term memory" will show Short-term memory in the results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a mention of "ultra" would be nice, I don't think it's a completely requirement in this case. People who use this search term will completely understand why they ended up at the target article, and might have previously thought that "ultra" is part of this subject's terminology. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, if I'm using this search term I'd be specifically wanting information on "ultra short-term memory", such as a definition or a time-span that qualifies for 'ultra'. In this scenario, I would already be familiar with short-term memory, so being redirected there does not help me find what I'm looking for. In fact, it would be even worse then not having a redirect, because there would be a time where I would assume the information I am looking for is there, only to end up disappointed after poking around the target for a time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems redundant. And as nom stated, typing it in the search bar it will already be the first result. There are thousands of these redundant redirects by the way. This one also has no incoming links from mainspace pages, (except for USTM (disambiguation)) which is again redundant as the page Ultra short-term memory was originally created as a redirect anyway so USTM (disambiguation) doesn't need disambiguation and can be deleted as well. -- œ^™ 23:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Redundant" is never a reason to delete a redirect, search suggestions are only available for a subset of ways people find Wikipedia content so are also not relevant to determining a redirect's utility and the existence and number of incoming links are explicitly irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Utopes. Nobody is going to be surprised by arriving at this target having used this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is misleading to redirect something somewhere that has no information on the term in question. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Utopes. Redirects are cheap. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Webware

Webware → Web application (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Webware (blog) → CNET#News (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Webware" is not mentioned at the target article Web application, and anyway is ambiguous. "Webware" as a blog is not mentioned at CNET but is mentioned at Rafe Needleman but I don't think that's a good target. I suggest delete both and use Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro Azerbaijan-Denmark-England-Germany-Hungary-Italy-Netherlands-Romania-Russia-Scotland-Spain 2020

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]

2023 Belgorod incident

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]

Peakin'

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]

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) 09:38, 2 February 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]

Genderphobia

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]

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) 09:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P:HVNY/DYK

P:HVNY/DYK → Portal:Hudson Valley/Did you know (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
P:hvny/dyk → Portal:Hudson Valley/Did you know (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Much of the contribution to this page was made in 2011, making this subpage more or less abandoned. This page does not seem like it needs to exist as a pseudo-namespace redirect, all while occupying mainspace with the rest of articles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first redirect has a surprisingly high number of page views, probably because it is linked from Wikipedia:Shortcut as an example. It does no harm at the moment, so keep at least until it has been out of use for a while. —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 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! 07:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the undue weight of page views caused by linking the first redirect as an example. Either pipe the existing link or link it to Wikipedia:Example, and problem solved. Steel1943 (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan

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]

Bonus hole

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]

Airport MRT station

Airport MRT station → Changi Airport MRT station (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are several different Airport MRT stations that this title may refer to. This partial title match is often shared with other stations, and would otherwise be a generic title which can confuse readers, just as it confused me. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Airport Terminal 1 metro station and Airport Terminal 2 metro station on the Taoyuan Airport MRT or Songshan Airport metro station or Kaohsiung International Airport metro station on the Kaohsiung MRT can all be called "Airport MRT station". Delete as second choice. —Kusma (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig either at this title or retarget to the existing List of airport stations (the Airport station dab doesn't cover stations named more specifically so would not be a good target in this instance). Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potential entries for any disambiguation page are all WP:Partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of airport stations is not a disambiguation page, and but the PTM guideline really should not be allowed to get in the way of disambiguating plausible but ambiguous search terms for the benefit of readers - where a redirect would be fine if it were unambiguous we should disambiguate (or set indexify or listify) when they are ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domain separation (cryptography)

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]

Green Bay Packers first season

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]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' Disambiguate or delete for {{No redirect|England 2021 (Association football event)}}?<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 23:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>
 :'''Comment''': {{No redirect|England 2022 (Association football event)}} was not tagged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England_2022_%28Association_football_event%29&diff=1202532368&oldid=1199348563 until after the relist]. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 00:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
+::...Because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England_2022_(Association_football_event)&diff=prev&oldid=1199348563 this happened] 2 days after the redirect was nominated and originally tagged. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 ====Sheinhardt Wig Company====