Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22

April 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2023.

Pandas

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. Clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Estar8806 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retarget either to PANDAS or Panda (disambiguation), as {{R from alternative capitalization}}. Leaning towards the latter as 'Pandas' has a number of alternative terms that refer to something other than Giant panda and PANDAS such as Pandora Digital Archiving System, pandas (software), or Pan-Andromeda Archaeological Survey. Bonoahx (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Giant panda is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Panda, and this is the {{r from plural}} that reflects the primary topic. The target article already has the necessary hatnotes to avoid confusion. - Eureka Lott 23:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. Fill in the blank: the reader who searches up pandas most likely wishes to go to ...
    The hatnote is there for the minority, which seems like it could be sizeable -- but it's dwarved by the primary use. J947 † edits 02:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: EurekaLott said it just right. UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add an amplification and expansion of Shhhnotsoloud below: WP:PLURALPT links the destination of the plural redirect to the singular. If the desire is to redirect the plural somewhere else, then the singular should also be redirected. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to divert from WP:PLURALPT: "the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - though perhaps we should amend that to say "...to its singular or the destination its singular redirects to" to be clearer. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a useful redirect. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Panda (disambiguation) - "pandas" could also refer to red pandas as well as giant pandas, among other things, so there is no clear primary topic. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Panda (disambiguation) for the fact alone that Pandas (software) has grown in notability to a point where it could rival the plural panda word. I guess a good comparison would be the situation with Windows: Sometimes, the plural of a word could refer to another notable topic. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PLURALPT. Gonna need some evidence if people want to claim that Pandas (software) is popular or notable enough to put the primary topic in question – Microsoft Windows gets two orders of magnitude more hits and isn't in any way a useful comparison! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also: giant panda gets 6 times the hits of window, although the latter is used in the plural form a higher individual percentage of the time. J947 † edits 00:16, 29 April 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).

Daniel Shulman

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 30#Daniel Shulman

Matroyshka

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 Matryoshka doll. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the target of Matryoshka, I don't see why this needs to redirect to the disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Ⲕրⲁիօրետ (tɒk) 16:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom Dronebogus (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see what the problem is. This is an R from misspelling and is applicable to most if not all entries at the current target. The request at the talk was to redirect to the doll or disambiguate, and I think User:BlazerKnight's (he's not with us anymore) decision to retarget to the dab was proper. Jay 💬 13:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a misspelling not just for "Matryoshka" but also for some of the other, differently spelt terms that are disambiguated at the target dab page, like Matroesjka's or Matroska. – Uanfala (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: {{R from misspelling}} - though the trickster in me really wants to mispell that template... UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all see what Uther did there? Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matryoshka doll. I think this is a much more likely misspelling for that term than any other; there's not enough variance to override the general primary topic for Matryoshka here. J947 † edits 01:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matryoshka doll. If Matryoshka doll is the primary topic of "Matryoshka", it should also be the primary topic of "Matroyshka". V27t [ T • C ] 20:54, 12 May 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).

Zambian Space Programme

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. Jay 💬 09:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that this was a government-endorsed programme, as the name implies (quite the opposite, in fact). There doesn't seem to be a suitable retarget available, from what I can see. Tollens (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misleading and unlikely search term Dronebogus (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Keep per the sources Pharos cited. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though inaccurate, this is a likely search term, see this page.--Pharos (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: misnomer, but plausible as a search term. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:11, 22 April 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).

Epistolae Pavli Lingva Hvngarica Donatae

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. Jay 💬 07:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this redirect supposed to exist considering Letters of St. Paul in Hungarian is a redlink at the target? 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, the question is, does it help the reader get to an appropriate article that gives information about what the reader was searching for? This Latin title is the name of the book that the reader is likely to see, or they may copy it off the image of the book cover, and it does bring them to an article where it is relevant. Had they searched on Commons, they would have ended up with an image of the book cover, and a dead end, but it's much more likely they'll search at Wikipedia. Although there is not yet much about the book there, it is mentioned (in red-linked English and Hungarian) and is the logical place to send readers, for now, until that red link gets expanded and someone writes the article.
Depending how determined they are as a searcher, if they want more info about the book, the interlanguage link provides a link to the Hungarian article about the book. Given that the redirect is the en-wiki reader's best path to getting the information they want, it seems like an appropriate use of the feature to me. The fact that the English part of the {{interlanguage link}} is still red because we don't have the article (yet) but hu-wiki does, is only incidental to that, and does not stand in the way of getting the reader to the best content for their search. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., I've added another redirect—this one—with the 'V's switched to 'U's, as the reader might type it that way if they're familiar with later developments in the Latin alphabet. This is tacked on to the header at the top, and should also be deleted if the original redirect results in "delete". Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The interlanguage link provides a good link to the Hungarian article which is the best we've got. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 23 April 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).

Siwierski

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 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete apparently a surname. The two mentions of people by this surname in Wikipedia probably aren't worth a WP:SETINDEX right now. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unhelpful. Search covers the same ground as a set index would. Don't suppose this needs to be sent to a deletion discussion. We're effectively PRODding here anyway. J947 † edits 01:33, 29 April 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).

Deutschgesprachen

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 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word. Utterly implausible, 10 results on Google (partly related to this redirect). 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's an interesting pageview graph. Near-certain it's irrelevant, but – huh. J947 † edits 00:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no such word in German; it's just a portmanteau morpheme jumble; highly implausible search term. Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 29 April 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).

Wie gehts

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:33, 22 April 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).

Air Battles: Sky Defender

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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect is a game that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the game it redirects to. "Air Battles: Sky Defender" is a game by Pilot Entertainment and Wild Hare Entertainment according to GameSpot and GameSpy. Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory is a game by A2A Simulations, Tri Synergy, and GMX Media. Only similarity seems to be the fact that they are flight simulations games from the mid-2000s. Mika1h (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I changed my mind, I found a PC Gamer review where it states that the game is "a stripped-down, newbie-friendly version of Shockwave's high-flying Battle of Britain II." --Mika1h (talk) 16:25, 22 April 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).

DeFacto

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 speedy keep. For help with creating a new article, see Help:Your first article (and also the notability guidelines for brands at WP:NCORP). (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple options to convert into an article:

1. There is a brand named DeFacto
2. Please create the draft page
3. Find all reliable sources
176.88.85.88 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason why this shouldn't keep redirecting to the disambiguation page since said articles do not exist. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the right venue as long as the article does not exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no reason a competent editor couldn't overwrite the redirect with an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No policy-based reason for any change to the redirect has been given, and the redirect itself hasn't been tagged with a substituted {{rfd}} as required. The proper venue for requesting an article is Wikipedia:Requested articles. Randi Moth TalkContribs 09:27, 26 April 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).

Disney Junior Dance Party!

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 Disney Junior – Live on Stage!. Jay 💬 13:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's just time-filler between shows no actual child cares about. The only ones searching for this are enthusiasts. Nate • (chatter) 04:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Disney Junior – Live on Stage! which covers this show. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not an exhaustive directory of random information Dronebogus (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget – As long as there is information (just the day of release and some of characters at the moment), the redirect should exist. Unless I'm misreading, the deletion !votes seem to just be WP:DOESNTBELONG based on the seeming "unimportance" of the show. Even if it isn't notable enough for its own article, there is almost no notability requirement for a redirect to exist. Randi Moth TalkContribs 18:16, 27 April 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).

User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config

List of J1 League football transfers 2023

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 no consensus. Come back soon. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 00:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear error. Will be wrong after "summer 2023" and "winter 2023-24" transfer pages will be created. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This was redirected only a week back. How about wait until the summer page is created? Jay 💬 09:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it will be created, though. I created these year's winter transfers articles on Japan, but have no intent of creating another four for summer transfers. ~~ SoftReverie (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pelmeen10, this redirect is effectively an {{R from move}}, as it appears to have been the title of the target article between November last year and the day before you started this discussion. I don't think it's likely there would be consensus for deletion now, but that would be much easier to achieve once the other list article is created and the redirect becomes ambiguous. Would you like to withdraw this nomination now and then start a new one once the situation changes? – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Why wait for something inevitable? These three [1] [2] [3] were already speedy deleted for the same reason. This is the last one standing. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until ambiguous. [2] and [3] were incorrect speedy deletions as CSD:R3 does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move. [1] is a more complex case (J1 vs J2) and involving a histmerge of the target, it was not deleted for the same rason. Jay 💬 13:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it can be misleading. Whoever types "List of J1 League football transfers 2023" is currently being redirected to the winter transfer article. But, the former content of the list was supposed to cover the whole year. Personally, i don't think anyone would actually purposely type "List of J1 League football transfers 2023" at all. Previous seasons always utilized the winter and summer as separate articles, so i believe this redirect is of little to no use or importance. ~~ SoftReverie (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wait until separate articles for the other seasons are created before anything needs to be done to this redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:45, 25 April 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).

Early 2023 execution of a Ukrainian prisoner of war

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 4#Early 2023 execution of a Ukrainian prisoner of war

Summer 2022 beheading of a Ukrainian prisoner of war

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 11:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summer 2022 beheading of a Ukrainian prisoner of war → Beheading of Szerhij Pataki  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In 11 April 2023, a video showing the beheading of a living Ukrainian soldier was released in pro-Russian media. His identity was unknown (and I chose this title for the article believing it would stay that way) and the date of his murder was too, but it was assumed to be the summer of last year. Turns out however that yesterday it was revealed that the soldier was Szerhij Pataki and that he was murdered actually in March 2023. So, this title is now inaccurate. Super Ψ Dro 07:39, 22 April 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).

Pine Bowl (Stadium)

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating to delete. There is already Pine Bowl (stadium), the down case version with more substantial page history, which is sufficient as a navigation/search aid. – robertsky (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:RDAB. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per K4 – {{R from move}}s should not be deleted without good reason: it's redirect policy. In this case, the redirect looks to have indeed accumulated views stemming from old sites linking to this old title. In fact, this redirect has received thrice as many pageviews as it's current target. Deletion would evidently be harmful. J947 † edits 02:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The uppercase redirect was initially pointed at Pine Bowl (stadium) before the article was merged to DeGol Field. After the merge yesterday, it is currently being pointed to Pine Bowl. Therefore it is not appropriate to compare the pageviews to the current target.
    2. The uppercase version was linked 18 other articles on wiki before I have done the clean up (see my user contributions (API output)). Though the traffic is similarly low on these 18 pages, there will always be people clicking through these 18 pages. If the pageviews of the redirect is significantly higher, I might buy the argument that there are external/old sites linking this redirect directly.
    – robertsky (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. If the redirect had pointed to Pine Bowl the whole time, the 3–to–1 split for be extremely unlikely as a view on the redirect effectively results in a view on the dab page. The point was not that, but that this redirect is actually a more useful navigational aid than Pine Bowl
    2. While internal links do account for some, probably most, of the views, per this backlink checker there are 29 external links pointing to this redirect. I suggest, per policy, that it's a safer decision to keep this redirect than to run the risk of breaking links.
    J947 † edits 04:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm all for getting rid of redirects for non-standard forms in the disambiguator, but not when there are any reasons to keep. Having been the title of an article (in this case, between 2015 and 2020) is one of the strongest reasons to keep a redirect and usually outweighs much worse problems with the redirect than odd capitalisation. Fixing the incoming wikilinks was great, regardless of what happens to this redirect, but the external links we have not control over. – Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per J947. The handler of the fallingrain website may be asked to change it to DeGol Field. Jay 💬 07:23, 12 May 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).

Rules of the Senate

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Rules of the Senate

Cheery Littlebottom

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 Ankh-Morpork City Watch#Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 01:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing in Discworld_(world) about Cheery Littlebottom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just started updating Discworld (world) and was trying to reference and link to Cheery Littlebottom assuming she'd also have an entry in Ankh-Morpork City Watch after I saw the one on Captain Carrot. I was annoyed to learn it was empty and just redirected back there via see also. When I checked to see if she had a standalone article I saw the redirect and discussion here. I think the redirect should be pointed to Ankh-Morpork City Watch#Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom and, since it's currently empty, that subsection be significantly expanded so it doesn't just two step redirect you to Discworld (world). I added an expansion needed notice about that problem (and similar ones with other characters). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to the existing section Ankh-Morpork_City_Watch#Sergeant_Cheery_Littlebottom, which is no longer completely empty now that I've expanded it with one very short sentence. Given that the article has decent-size sections on the other characters, and that Ms Littlebottom appears to be a core character, I expect that this section is unlikely to be removed. – Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Uanfala. Jay 💬 06:00, 29 April 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).

Genital sex

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. Rough consensus that this term should be disambiguated. Support for either keep or a retarget was limited to one editor apiece following the drafting of a dab. signed, Rosguill talk 00:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Target term not mentioned in the article; the title could refer to any of various sex acts that involve genitals. A previous RfD for the redirect suggested targeting to the current target, but seeing that the target is not mentioned... I suggest either disambiguating or deleting. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible search term. Primary sexual characteristics mentioned at target page include anatomy of internal/external genitalia, which "genital sex" seems to be used for; see Google Scholar search results with certain partial matches omitted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: disambiguation is used when a term is mentioned at multiple target pages. Search results for "genital sex" show the phrase being used for either sexual characteristics, as above, or for sexual intercourse. However, Sexual intercourse does not use the phrase "genital sex", so a disambiguation link to that article wouldn't be very helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • setindexify -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sexual intercourse, largely per User:Jay. Came into this assuming I'd vote for some kind of disambig because it can refer to more than one thing, but if you trust major search engines to do their job properly, the overwhelming tendency is to bring up articles related to sexual activity, rather than different types of sex characteristic determiners; I was surprised how lopsided it was. In Google web search, it wasn't until result #11 that I found anything that wasn't related to sexual activity, whether intercourse or other types. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with basic search engine results is that they return both reliable and unreliable sources, whereas Wikipedia should reflect usage by just the most reliable ones. Partial title matches like "oral–genital sex" can bias the search results as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (drafted). Two-item DABs aren't ideal, and two-item DABs where the term isn't explicitly used at either target are even less ideal, but I think that would be the least worst option here, better than an {{r without mention}} that would necessitate a hatnote for an unlikely search term. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support this option compared to a redirect to Sexual intercourse. If there is sufficient mention of "genital" at both targets then why pick one? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) edited 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not justify it, but I went for Sexual intercourse as the primary. Jay 💬 18:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I went for Sexual characteristics as the primary, and did justify it using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense as per WP:CONSENSUS. So in the absence of a counter-argument in favor of Sexual intercourse as the target, the term should not redirect there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went by Mathglot's argument and thought it was good as the justification. But, now I see why different people may think their choice is the primary. I have changed my vote. Jay 💬 15:32, 18 May 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).

Kang Zhan

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. Jay 💬 05:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add in a {{efn}} footnote on "War of Resistance" (which is listed in the article's lead as a synonym). This is the pinyin transcription of the Chinese term 抗戰 meaning "War of Resistance". 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 22 April 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).

Southern District of New York

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 SDNY. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest retargeting to SDNY per this recent RfD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:23, 22 April 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_22&oldid=1156055511"