Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 17

December 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 17, 2021.

Shimanamikaido

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 Nishiseto Expressway. Consensus is this is much more likely a reference to Shimanami Kaidō than the minor planet, thus making Nishiseto Expressway the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A hatnote will be added for the current target as well per recommendation by multiple participants. (non-admin closure) snood1205 01:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should target Nishiseto Expressway which the planet is named for. Any search for Shimanamikaido on google will lead to other parges about the expressway rather than the minor Planet Tai123.123 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator as obvious WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and add hatnote for the current target. Far more likely to be an alternative spelling of Shimanami Kaidō than to refer to minor planet. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I also support the hatnote suggestion.--Lenticel (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Simple englihs

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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is very implausible that someone would misspell “English” as “englihs”. 2. There is no corresponding redirect for “Englihs”. 3. The creator of the redirect has been gone for six years. 4. Less than a hundred page views in over a decade. 5. One page view in the previous thirty days. The Tips of Apmh 16:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bad redirect. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:BC3F:ED78:C130:2209 (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bad indeed. Azuredivay (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, common typo with a non-negligible number of pageviews. No benefit in deletion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems implausible to me too, but a quick Google search shows that it is indeed made occasionally. It's doing no harm, and redirects are cheap, so I'm disinclined to !vote delete unless a better reason can be given. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't believe anyone would type this and not immediately realize their error. Redirects are cheap but not free. MB 22:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and all of the delete rationales above. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad redirect indeed, since Englihs do not exist. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:D541:3AD0:42F2:6326 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Strike dupe. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete to many errors to be a plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep {{R from typo}} there is a single simple transposition error, and the entire link is stylized lowercase. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fascism in Thailand

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Fascism in Thailand

Gerchowder

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or any other article. Appears to be a very rarely-used term for a German Shepherd/Chow Chow crossbreed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless or until that word is used and defined somewhere in a Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added it at List of dog crossbreeds#Gerchowder. Jay (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: I'm not necessarily opposed to retargeting this there, but would be more comfortable with that solution if a better source could be found. The book cited at the moment is self-published and seems to contain content copied from Wikipedia, so is a possible WP:REFLOOP. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I did see that it was self-published, but did not know that it references Wikipedia. Where did you see that? For the section in the book which I have cited, it does say the reference is Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., 2004. Jay (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. The edit was reverted with the comment that the book copied this revision from Wikipedia. Jay (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Newsletter

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 disambiguate.

This and Wikipedia:Newsletters should probably redirect to the same target. —GMX🎄(on the go!) 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added the previous RfD to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

B.1.167

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. ✗plicit 13:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history, the redirect originally pointed to the "Lineage B.1.617" section of the Variants of SARS-CoV-2 article (note the misspelling), but now points to the main article on variants without specifying any section. However, the "B.1.167" variant (if it exists) is a different variant from B.1.617, and is not mentioned in the article. I'd say this redirect should either be deleted (as it wrongly suggests the article has information on a variant called "B.1.167"), or retargeted to SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.617 while noting it is a redirect from an incorrect spelling. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mudminnow

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 Mud minnow. All in the discussion argued to retarget to Mud minnow with no objections including after being listed at Talk:Mud minnow. (non-admin closure) snood1205 20:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umbridae only contains three of the seven extant species of mudminnow. Muskellungelounge (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate or Setindexify and update the Mud minnow dab page. There are the three species of Umbridae as well as the two species of Novumbra and Lepidogalaxias and perhaps others. Make sure to retarget Mudminnows and reconcile other redirects as appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the plural here to be considered together. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified of this discussion at Talk:Mud minnow.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Artists pointing to lists of number-one hits/albums

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 Node (rapper) and Kunz (musician), keep Behm (singer) as article, delete all the rest.

Delete as per WP:RFD#DELETE condition 10. It makes no sense to have these artists redirect to lists of number-one singles/albums, as these destination pages contain no detailed information about the artists themselves. They should be deleted to encourage article creation. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Node (rapper) to Node (singer) and Kunz (musician) to Kunz (singer)-yes, some of their singles and/or albums, "Super Mario" and Förschi respectively, appear on the pages of their respective targets, so it doesn't make sense to have these terms redirect to the chart articles. I'm not sure about the others yet, as while there is no detailed information about them on the targets, a bunch of them seem to be getting A LOT of pageviews, and some might even have links in other articles (I haven't checked through all of them, but it might be worth considering). Regards, SONIC678 05:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that a draft has been created at Behm (singer). Jay (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget those that Sonic identified, accept draft of Behm (singer), and Delete the rest per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Once deleted, redlinks can be inserted into these lists to show that articles should be created on these artists. By definition, anyone appearing on these lists are notable per WP:NMUSICIAN criterion #2. I would also surmise that they would most likely be mentioned in multiple articles/lists/discographies of other artists, so search results would be more beneficial than a redirect until an article gets created. -- Tavix (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Europeans only

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. ✗plicit 13:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Europeans only → Apartheid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a phrase used as a target, nor does it appear to have been an official classification within South African apartheid jurisprudence. Could equally refer to Racial segregation (which is the current target of the similar Whites only). I think that deletion to allow for internal search results may be the way to go here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to racial segregation, since it doesn't only apply to South Africa -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget since racial segregation is a more general and fitting term. Chumpih. (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term/phrase needs to be used and defined/explained in the target article, and no one has yet provided a target article which uses and defines the term. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Softlavender. The term is used in passing in a bunch of articles, but none of them would make good targets. This is a specific phrase that was used e.g. on signs in certain racially-segregated societies (e.g. apartheid South Africa, and some European colonies in Asia) and not really in others (e.g. the United States), but we don't have any article which explains all of this context to the reader, so search results are the best we can do for not. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Rake (creepypasta)

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 creepypastas#The Rake. ✗plicit 13:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the word "rake" anywhere in target article. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Candyman

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Draft:Candyman

Darul Huda Islamic University and DHIU

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. Note that during the course of this discussion, the target article was changed, first to Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and then to Darul Huda Islamic University. That seems to be in line with the consensus here, but further disagreements on the name of the article can be handled at WP:RM. -- Tavix (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The institution is legally registered as the Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Leading universities in India refer to the institution as "Darul Huda Islamic Academy" and "Darul Huda Islamia Academy". No university in India has used the term Islamic University to refer to this institution. Since 2009 the institution has been promoting the keyword University. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move/rename article to the current name. The institution is clearly called Darul Huda Islamic University, as attested by its official website: [1]. I don't know what the motivation of the filer is, but it clearly isn't encyclopedic accuracy or neutrality. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darul Huda is not a university! Because ..
  1. When it was registered under the Society Act in 1989, it was named the Darul Huda Islamic Academy.
  2. Darul Huda has been promoting the term university since 2009.
  3. Even when it registered as an NGO in 2019, the name was given as Darul Huda Islamic Academy. NGO Reg ID is KL/2018/0211502 and Registration date is 12-03-2019
  4. UGC has not yet recognized Darul Huda even as a Deemed University.
  5. Leading universities in India refer to the institution as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” and “Darul Huda Islamia Academy”. No university in India has used the term “University” to refer to this institution.
  6. When Maulana Azad National Urdu University approved the Madrasa course of Darul Huda in the 2019-20 academic year, it was referred to as the Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if those things were true, none of it would matter. What matters is their official name, which is very clear. There are also many Book references to it: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The major writers are alumni of Darul Huda. They are trying to build a new brand as a university. I'll share more evidences with you if needed. 1, Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your allegations about "branding" don't matter, Sabeelul hidaya. What matters is the institution's actual name, which is very clear and not in dispute. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender:
  1. If they have actually changed their name, why not change their legal name and their registered name as an NGO?
  2. Why don't leading universities mention Darul Huda as an university on their websites? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: Any reason? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the name of the institution, and therefore it must be searchable under that name on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: If yes. Can you answer the above questions that answered to your vote?? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. Please stop pushing your agenda here. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender:
  • Wikipedia is not mine or yours. Keep in mind that we spend a lot of time in this discussion trying to make Wikipedia flawless. What is my agenda here, and what is the benefit to me?
  • Why do you praise these university-named institutions that denigrate public education?
  • They know that institutions that are not accredited by UGC should not be used as a university. Even UGC-accredited Deemed Universities have no right to use the term University. Then how can Darul Huda, which is not even recognized as a primary school, use the word "university"? That’s why they didn’t change their real name. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because multiple reliable sources call it so. This is regardless of the registered name of the institution. Why they call it so is not for Wikipedia to judge. However, if there is any sourced information (positive or negative) about the institution's status as a university, it can be mentioned at the target. Jay (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as helpful search term. Whether it's an incorrect name or not is irrelevant. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or indeed Delete - this is a clear attempt to claim a status which they do not in fact occupy. Any source that repeats the claim is ipso facto unreliable on this point. Hunc (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not talking about a "source", we're talking about the institution's actual name and website. Please see their official website. It's clearly a member of the Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World (FUIW) and is listed as such on FUIW's website: [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are talking about a self-claimed status. The Indian Grants Commission doesn't list them, and FUIW doesn't even claim to have any legitimacy in recognizing universities as such. We don't need to legitimize this bogus claim. Hunc (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is another discussion going on here! Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to where? And why have you provided a link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? Jay (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to a yet-to-be-written section on the article Darul Huda Islamic Academy, documenting their claim to university status and, vitally for anyone likely to be duped by the claim, its lack of legitimacy. A couple of sentences should be fine, so long as someone keeps an eye on it to prevent further attempts at whitewashing. I agree with Softlavender that their claimed name should be searchable on Wiki, so I've struck my Delete !vote above. I've also removed the link to WP:COIN, not helpful now. Hunc (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • At this edit I have made appropriate changes to Darul Huda Islamic University. Unless anyone disagrees - I'll wait some days - I propose to change the article to a redirect to Darul Huda Islamic Academy which will have the new text. Hunc (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that while the discussion was in progress, Lennart97 overwrote the redirect with Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) (which was previously the target Darul Huda Islamic Academy as per the nomination). Jay (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The move was requested by Softlavender at WP:RM/TR. Lennart97 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not clear why Softlavender requested for it under the "Uncontroversial technical requests" while the redirect was being discussed, and they were involved; and also why the request was accepted, as prior to the move, the article/page history would have indicated that this redirect was under discussion. Jay (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_17&oldid=1062937628"