Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31

< January 30

February 1 >

January 31

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2023.

DayQuil

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 7#DayQuil

Great Privy Seal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8#Great Privy Seal

The Sasquatch

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sasquatch → Bigfoot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Completely unnecessary redirect due to the article "The". Does not need to exist in any capacity, and it says an overwhelming precedent for any noun on Wikipedia to have redirects utilizing "The", "A", or "An". Please delete. TNstingray (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The Sasquatch" is an older term used to refer to the target. See, for example, the 1,300+ hits on Google Scholar. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Presidentman, wouldn't the use of articles such as "The", "A", and "An" create a concerning precedent tripling the number of redirects to nouns on the encyclopedia? Of course there are going to be tons of hits with "the [...]" as a normal function of the English language... does that mean we should have redirects for "the monkey", "the ape", "the humanoid", "the yeti", ad infinitum? TNstingray (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is different from "the monkey" etc. as (according to some) there's only one Sasquatch. So this is more like The United States, The Universe, The Moon, The Analects, or, for that matter, The Yeti or The Loch Ness Monster, all of which we have redirects for. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bigsquatch

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 05:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a real search term. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero hits but for a fictional creature in an obscure universe. BhamBoi (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a commonly used term. Carpimaps (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused combination of Bigfoot and Sasquatch.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Rickmat

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 7#Rickmat

Free term

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 7#Free term

Bharti surname

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti surname → Bharti#People (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is in a non-standard format (should be "Bharti (surname)"), but in any case I think it's unnecessary. Bharti is a DAB, and there are only 2 people listed with Bharti as a surname on it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more surname entry to the target. Actually it was at Bharati#Surname and I moved it from there. Jay 💬 11:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CHEAP, plausible search term that now has three relevant entries at the target. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Vallavanukku Vallavan (2016 film)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Vallavanukkum Vallavan. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vallavanukku Vallavan (2016 film) → Bobby Simha (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

That was never the title of the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely misspelling or incorrect transliteration of Vallavanukkum Vallavan, which was not released in 2016. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Vallavanukkum Vallavan which has a mention of the alternate name and year. Tag as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}. Jay 💬 11:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Jay. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Little Hobbit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 05:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Hobbit → The Hobbit (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely search term. Could maybe justify redirecting to Hobbit, but this really is just an unnecessary redirect. TNstingray (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Phrase not mentioned in the target article, feels unnecessary. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unnecessary redirect. Timothytyy (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. While hobbits in general are referred to as little, there's no "little Hobbit" character. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Granted Hobbits are little but they never have been referred to by this particular term.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

John (European rulers)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John (European rulers) → John (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, not a viable search term, especially in this strange plural form. Negligible pageviews. Lennart97 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see some merit on refining the target to the "Rulers and other political figures" of the target dab but I think it's still not that useful. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible disambiguator that has disagreement of grammatical number. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm guessing that someone using this would be looking for a list of European rulers named John, but it's a very odd way to search and we don't have such a list - the section of the dab page is not confined to either rulers or Europeans. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically target to John#Rulers and other political figures. The listing seems reasonable, and I see no merit in deleting an otherwise reasonable redirect. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 12:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe "John (European rulers)" is a reasonable search term if someone is looking for some specific ruler named John? Both "ruler" and "European" are very broad terms, and as noted the plural is nonsensical. Lennart97 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak more specifically target to John#Rulers and other political figures per Red-tailed hawk. However, deletion is possible if it is decided that the redirect is unnecessary. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Totally unnecessary redirect. Timothytyy (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Editors disagreed on whether "splinter group" is a derogatory term, but all participants other than the nominator agreed that it could be a valid redirect. Although this was not raised in the discussion itself, it is worth noting that from a guideline perspective, insulting redirects are allowed per WP:RNEUTRAL if they are plausible search terms that take the reader to a relevant article. Sedevacantism was suggested as a target but did not receive any further discussion from other editors. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group) → Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:R#DELETE, n. 3 ("(splinter group)"). Veverve (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm unsure what is meant by the rationale. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}}; the article in the redirect was an article for over 6 years during 2010–2016; the current redirect was the result of a WP:BLAR which was done in response to a WP:PROD tag. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To state that a group is a "splinter group" is derogatory and biased. Veverve (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the verdict may be out on whether or not the term "splinter group" is inherently derogatory. For the most part, I thought the term means that it's something that left or broke of from a larger group. With that being said, the undisambiguated version of this redirect, Latin Rite Catholic Church, is a redirect that targets Latin Church ... but it used to target Latin Rite ... which is now a redirect that targets Latin liturgical rites (the phrase "Latin Rite Catholic Church" is currently not mentioned anywhere in Latin liturgical rites), so it doesn't even seem clear where the ambiguous version should target. I think at this point ... my vote is keep unless action is also taken with Latin Rite Catholic Church (such as merging it into this nomination) since I do not agree with the nominator's rationale, but would consider different action if Latin Rite Catholic Church is bundled with this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: should Latin Rite Catholic Church be bundled? Jay 💬 03:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: no, I do not think it should. Veverve (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on sources like Webster, the term "splinter group" is not a derogatory term. (Nor has bias.) Its meaning is simply "a group of people that has separated from a larger group (such as a political party)." While some might see it as a negative term, it can be a valid one. The only concern I have is if there isn't a source saying that it is a splinter group. (And even then, I might be wrong in my concern.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Sedevacantism. There are a number of Latin Rite splinters from the Catholic Church, including the SSPX, the SSPV, and the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen among others. I don't think targeting a single one of these is appropriate in light of the existence of multiple such groups, and the general term for the belief held by those splinter groups that deny that the pontiff is indeed the Pope is generally labeled as Sedevacantism. The term Latin Rite Catholic Church probably should point to the Latin Church article, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this RfD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 12:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the late retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kepler-277

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Moot. Redirect has been converted into an article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-277 → Kepler-277b (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The planet Kepler-277c in the same system also has a standalone article, so it is impossible to redirect the host star to planet b. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Maybe change the redirect target to a star list. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a third (unconfirmed) planet, it could be retargeted to List of multiplanetary systems. Otherwise a Disambiguation page could possibly be made. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why there should be an article on the whole system, instead of separate articles on the individual planets. Maybe Kepler-277b and Kepler-277c should be merged into a Kepler-277 article. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two planet articles have enough information, maybe make an article for the star but not redirect the planet articles to the star one. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig. Neither planet seems to be primary over the other. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per above. Seems to be the best course of action --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that violate WP:PTM? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguation, this is not an ambiguous topic. Kepler-277 solely refers to the star of Kepler-277b and Kepler-277c. Instead, Kepler-277 should be treated like Kepler-174 and an article should be created on the subject. If no one volunteers to create such an article before this is closed, WP:REDLINK it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose disambiguation per LaundryPizza03 (comment on WP:PTM) and Tavix. Does not fit DAB guidelines. Suggestion: Delete. Timothytyy (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against article creation per LaundryPizza03, Tavix, Timothytyy and WP:REDLINK. A7V2 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with drafted article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now a standalone article --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Oil (road)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oil (road) → Bitumen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems in regards to the current target, this redirect may not be accurate. The more accurate target may be Asphalt concrete, but even then the redirect may still be inaccurate. Either target is not about a road made of oil, even though oil, specifically petroleum, is either where the product is derived (Bitumen) or one material of various materials used in the topic (Asphalt concrete). Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the idea is that it is a verb used in several old newspapers. --Rs chen 7754 01:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be redirected to the Asphalt disambiguation page? Garfie489 (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little research online, and it seems like "oiling a road" can refer to several different practices - either applying an actual oil such as used engine oil to a road, chiefly to reduce dust, or applying a fluid asphalt compound to a road surface in order to improve the smoothness and durability of the surface. Given that, I'm not sure there is an appropriate redirect for this. Perhaps a short article on these practices would be better? Brianyoumans (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the usage per Rschen7754 (also the redirect creator), the point of the nomination is that the target does not talk about the process of oiling. Perhaps the redirect can be moved to oiling (road) to make the part about the verb clear, but we still need to find a target that makes the term helpful by mentioning how the oiling is done. There is some mention at Road surface#Thin membrane surface, which I believe is what Brianyoumans was talking about. Jay 💬 11:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing a good enough target for this. FWIW, my first thought was an "oil slick" on a road (I'm actually surprised, but the linked article is categorized at Category:Road hazards). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Asphaltum oil wells

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asphaltum oil wells → Bitumen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not sure how helpful this redirect really is. There is some mention once about oil wells in the target article, but not the specific phrase. Also, Asphaltum oil well, the singular version, does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Asphaltum typically designates a species of bitumen, including dark-colored, comparatively hard, and non-volatile solids; composed of hydrocarbons, substantially free from oxygenated bodies and crystallizable paraffin; sometimes associated with mineral matter, the non-mineral constituents being difficultly fusible and mostly soluble in carbon disulfide; the distillation residue yields considerable sulfonation residue" [1] - its likely we could add it as a type of Bitumen, maybe under production. Garfie489 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Garfie489: Is your argument in general about Asphaltum (which redirects to Asphaltite)? This redirect discussion is specifically about the oil wells about which there was an article (well, more of a journal entry). Jay 💬 11:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that we could add a section to bitumen discussing it in more detail, but if another article already exists then its likely more suitable. I was more addressing the term of what the oil wells produce as thats been a source of confusion in the past month. Garfie489 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existing page was written about the abandoned oil wells of Asphaltum, Indiana, so that is one plausible target. Jay 💬 12:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a plausible search term given "Asphaltum oil wells" only provides 2 Google hits. Otherwise, this is ambiguous between the general use and the specific use in Asphaltum, Indiana. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Cider Drinker

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cider Drinker → The Wurzels (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This presumably is in reference to the Wurzels' song I am a Cider Drinker; however, that article does not itself have an article (other than an article about a cover version at Remember Me/I Am a Cider Drinker that does talk some about the song's history). I was thinking this could go there to be consistent with I Am A Cider Drinker as it is currently or be targeted to Cider, or stay where it is and I am unsure what the best option is. TartarTorte 17:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's unlikely that anyone would expect cider drinker to have an article separate from cider, and no relevant content in other articles. There are no redirects from similar titles (whiskey drinker, vodka drinker, lager drinker); there is Absinthe Drinker but it redirects to a disambiguation page where it is the title of two paintings. "Cider Drinker" looks like a partial title match but it is a shorter form of the name, and is used in Stupidity (Bad Manners album). Peter James (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as creator of the redirect. I have heard this title used to refer to the song (and the Wurzels somewhat generally), and it's a plausible search term for it, so I think we're in keep territory and somewhere near the right target. There's also the Bad Manners example. As for the right target, the best option would simply be to create an article for the original cover. The current target (for the other redirect) was performed by BSP, and is really not well known, so I think that's less than ideal for a target. Less good than The Wurzels, IMO. I'd sum up my not-so-strong opinion as "keep and create an article one day." -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ctpr

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ctpr → Current tennis rankings (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No evidence found that "Ctpr" is ever used as a shortcut for "Current tennis rankings" Fram (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason I created ctpr is to speed up looking for Current tennis rankings, instead of having to type out the full name. I would just type ctpr and it would redirect me to it. I update the page regularly, and do not check my watchlist. Is this a sufficient enough reason? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I am concerned. Redirects in mainspace should be for alternative names or common misspellings, not for the convenience of one or two editors. You can always put a link to Current tennis rankings near the top of your user page if you regularly need it, that way you can acces it very easily from there. Fram (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no counter-argument. Delete per WP:SNOW. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerty284651: If you do want to do this, you can create WP:CTPR as a shortcut here. J947 † ^edits 20:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@J947:, isn't the WP: wikipedia namespace prefix reserved for wiki-related guidelines, not some regular tennis rankings page? The page in question would have to have the Wikipedia: prefix to be eligible for a redirect with the WP: prefix, right? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerty284651: it's an editor-facing namespace, and an easy way to make a shortcut. I remember suggesting this previously, and I don't recall anyone who have had problems with projectspace–mainspace redirects. You can simply make a browser bookmark of course, but creating WP:CTPR is completely fine as far as I know. J947 † ^edits 00:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget to Puerto Rico Tourism Company. CTPR is mentioned in two articles - Marteru where it is a code for a railway station near the village, and in a reference in Hacienda Lealtad where it's an initialism for the Spanish name of the Puerto Rico Tourism Company. Peter James (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CTPR has already been created. Timothytyy (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

5 ½ Weeks Tour

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to To Venus and Back#Tour. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 ½ Weeks Tour → Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Questionable redirect per WP:XY. If they are billed co-headliners, they shouldn't be BLARRED for that coheadlining tour. The outcome of this co-headlining tour should be deleted by the similar situation to the AFD, I don't know Aspects pointed which redirect would be a suitable target to, either Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie or To Venus and Back, however it indicates that it failed WP:NTOUR. As a result, it should be deleted, in which a co-headlining tours cannot be BLARed by without sending to AFD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:9DFE:C535:CFDA:2BAF (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can barely see a connection between this title and the redirect target. Per WP:PLA we should not keep it unless if the relationship is sort of obvious. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since there are not a lot of non-notable co-headlining concert tours that still have Wikipedia article, I did not think about bringing this article here or taking it to WP:AFD per the Maroon 5 and Counting Crows AfD. If necessary, I will take the article to WP:AFD, based on whatever consensus happens here. Aspects (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles have mention of the tour, but I would prefer retarget to To Venus and Back#Tour as having more information. The pre-BLAR content may be merged into both articles. Jay 💬 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to To Venus and Back#Tour per Jay. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget redirect To Venus and Back#Tour per Jay ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Color graphics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Color graphics → Computer graphics (computer science) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article. For this reason, it is unclear what subject this redirect is meant to identify. In addition, as a term without definition, this phrase came to considered rather vague, including describing color in graphics in general, not necessarily graphics in a computer sense. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redirect seems rather vague, and there doesn't appear to be any plausible target for it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably retarget to Color Graphics Adapter the lead of which says it established a de facto computer display standard. So where else are color graphics used outside of the computer sense? Jay 💬 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional discussion since last relist...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete per Cyclone as a second preference, if there is no suitable target. I don't see the generic graphics as a suitable target. Jay 💬 07:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Graphics Cryptopia (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist for clearing the backlog and to seek further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Graphics. Too vague to redirect to the computer-related topic, but the graphics itself would be rather clear. MusiBedrock (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Retargeting to Graphics has a similar problem that Steel1943 described in the nomination, namely that the term "color graphics" is not defined there. Yes, graphics usually involve color, but to give a similar example: it's why the redirect color art is not helpful—it's too vague and generic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eejit43: Per WP:RELIST: Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. This is a fourth(!) relist. Why are you doing this? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was the last open entry of the January 17 page, and I have removed that page from RfD. So if this was a procedural relist in order to close out Jan 17, this is fine, and I would suggest any uninvolved closer to close this now without waiting a week. Jay 💬 15:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize there were so many relists, but yes, I did that to close out January 17th. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I went ahead and reopened the discussion, as a "no consensus" close made no sense at all. Please do not close this Eejit43, as this discussion should ideally be closed by an uninvolved editor, and there's really no harm in leaving it open for the time being. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry I was just trying to go off of what Jay said- I wasn't entirely sure what to do but also didn't want to not do something that was requested of me. I guess I wouldn't qualify as an uninvolved closer anyway at that point. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eejit43: How do you not realize there were so many relists‽ Do you not read the discussion before deciding to relist? Also, responding to Jay's comment, I tend to find discussions in the back of the log get closed sooner than discussions that have been freshly relisted. This is the kind of discussion that we would much prefer to be closed (due to how long it's been open) over trying to squeeze out a little bit more fresh participation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Tom van Vollenhoven Cup

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom van Vollenhoven Cup → Rugby league in South Africa#Tom van Vollenhoven Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer mentioned in this article. Relevant content apparently removed in 2013, but without any clear explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and I can't find useful information about the Cup when browsing. Timothytyy (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ural District

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 7#Ural District

Spaceship explosion

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceship explosion → Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are two space shuttle explosions: the Columbia and the Challenger. Redirecting to one of them is incorrect. Also, spaceship explosion is too general - incidents such as Apollo 13 also involved explosion. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely a WP:XY issue. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be useful as a redirect to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents? Peter James (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there are two main possible options. Option 1 is to create a disambiguation page for all of these incidents. Option 2 is to retarget to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents per Peter James. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion but not to the current target per InterstellarGamer12321. I personally agree with both options. Timothytyy (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents per Peter James. If we already have a list, a DAB page would be redundant IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A disambiguation page or would be much better but it feels unnecessary.

Natalius (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents. Seems to be an probable enough redirect. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 03:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents. Has information on what the reader may look for. Carpimaps (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox terrorist organization

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox terrorist organization → Template:Infobox militant organization (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Problematic redirect, even for a non-neutral redirect. Template redirects like this should never be transcluded in a mainspace article. It will be interpreted as Wikipedia's affirmation of the contentious label 'terrorist' in regard to such groups. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Timothytyy (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it should not be trancluded and thus not useful.Carpimaps (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

January 31

DayQuil

Great Privy Seal

The Sasquatch

Bigsquatch

Rickmat

Free term

Bharti surname

Vallavanukku Vallavan (2016 film)

Little Hobbit

John (European rulers)

Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)

Kepler-277

Oil (road)

Asphaltum oil wells

Cider Drinker

Ctpr

5 ½ Weeks Tour

Color graphics

Tom van Vollenhoven Cup

Ural District

Spaceship explosion

Template:Infobox terrorist organization

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.