Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7

August 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2023.

Surprise WikiProject redirects (A–D)

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 Trainwreck.
Don't let this discussion go off the rails.

Different redirects make different levels of sense. Some of them seem plausible, some of them look like they ought to go to navboxes, and others are just confusing. Renominate individually, because any blanket close over these would be either too complex to implement or not actually solve any problems at hand. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These templates redirect to a WikiProject banner, but typically navboxes (or sometimes sidebars) get the subject as the template name. (See Category:Navigational boxes by topic.) Because their targets are (in effect) a surprise, I suggest they be deleted. If a shortcut is desired for any of these, it's been standard to prefix a shortcut with "WP" to indicate a WikiProject template. I'm testing a small number of redirects for positive consensus prior to considering others. SWinxy (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all Super helpful and deleting would cause far more problems than keeping. Do you have any evidence of problems or issues with any of these? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all No real explanation for why these are problematic or a surprise. Handy shortcuts, not a surprise or a problem. Mburrell (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is the redirects are inconsistent with the larger pattern of template names. Take the navboxes on Astronomy, which are all the subject names... except for the subject of astronomy, which is Template:Astronomy navbar. SWinxy (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I do not understand your point. So I go to Astronomy, and it has a navbox at the bottom of the page, plus others for related subjects. Astronomy navbox can be viewed at Template:Astronomy navbox, Major subfields of astronomy can be viewed at Template:Astronomy subfields, Natural science has it's own page, but at the bottom of the page is it's navbox, Template:Natural science. Solar System has it's own page, but at the bottom of the Solar System page is its navbox Template:Solar System, and so on. Are you expecting the Astronomy page to link to itself in it's navbox hyperlink? The purpose of the navboxes are to provide links to additional articles, hence the full name of navigation box. This is true of all major articles. If I go to The Rolling Stones, the article has a navbox to Template:The Rolling Stones, plus links to some of the articles for members of the band, but the Mick Jagger article also has a navbox Template:Mick Jagger. I guess I don't understand what the issue you are describing, because I don't see a problem. Mburrell (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nononono, I'm saying that Template:Astronomy navbox should be Template:Astronomy, consistent with the other navboxes on that page and the ones you linked to. It's inconsistent to have the word "navbox" in the template title. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Some of these redirects, such as {{Christianmetal}}, are banners left over from inactive WikiProjects which have been subsumed into their parent WikiProjects. While it may be less confusing to editors to use the currently active WP's name in the banner—and it clearly did confuse some people; I just finished removing all this WikiProject's duplicate talk page banners where both redirect and target banners were used—using a redirect instead of the target template makes absolutely no difference to the banner's actual appearance. It's only different "under the hood", so to speak. So, unless you have a bot ready to go that will overwrite these thousands of links to the redirect pages with links to the target templates, then you, as a responsible nomimator, will have a long slog ahead of you as you fix all the red links created by deleting the redirects. Deleting these redirects before removing every link pointing to them is putting the cart before the horse. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 05:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it kinda is putting the cart before the horse, but I reckon a trip to WP:AWBREQ would be sufficient. Replacing them first without a discussion here feels like an icky backdoor way of getting them deleted. SWinxy (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, handy shortcuts = timesavers. They will surprise nobody, because they are used by people who know them, and others don't see them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Several of these, such as Template:Business, are redirects left by moving the page. These are rarely deleted, see WP:R#KEEP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I doubt my vote will change the outcome but I agree with the nom. Having shortcuts is ok, but even shortcuts should follow a naming convention which makes sense. Template names like Template:COMICS can be a valid "shortcut" for a large number of templates, not the least the infobox itself. Gonnym (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's certainly confusing that {{Carnivorous plants}} is a navbox and {{Carnivorous Plants}} is a redirect to {{WikiProject Carnivorous plants}} (and there is no {{WikiProject Carnivorous Plants}}). But the redirect has 864 transclusions that would need to be fixed before deleting it. Plantdrew (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rethink. Per some comments above, most of these are probably fine, but there are some that logically should be the title for a template on a topic area rather than for a WikiProject, and in particular we should not have template titles leading to different places based on one letter of capitalization. BD2412 T 02:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this is headed for trainwreck territory. I agree with BD2412 – some might be worth retargeting, some might not, but in a grouping like this figuring out the difference is hard. Also, I would guess "typically navboxes (or sometimes sidebars) get the subject as the template name" is because many navboxes have no correlating WikiProject; the linked category makes no distinction on those grounds. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, trainwreck. This proposal has been disruptive to my work, as it's elevated something that's "not broken", strictly speaking, to make it bump above many long-term broken things in priority, by making it "broken". See Template talk:Redirect for discussion#False-positive error transclusions, and please respond there if you can answer my question. Lua module coders are taking the complexity of Wikipedia maintenance to 11, on a scale of 1–10. I suppose I can support the goal of bypassing these template redirects as that makes bot coding easier for someone like myself. But the first step should be to get consensus that these bypasses are not WP:Cosmetic edits which run afoul of the WP:COSMETICBOT policy. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that the RfD template halted your workflow, but it's not my fault. The RfD template shouldn't be doing this, and I had no idea it would. I'm sorry. I had hoped that this discussion would be that consensus for the cosmetic edits necessary. SWinxy (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and renominate each redirect individually - Each of these redirects likely needs to be evaluated on its own merits, without the more than dozen of them grouped together. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 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).

World War II/Infobox

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. Participants did not settle on a single option out of the many proposed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful search terms. However, they contain useful edit history; if they are not deleted, they probably need to be moved without leaving a redirect elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on World War II/Infobox.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or histmerge for World War II/Infobox. I don't see the benefit in deleting it (it seems to be useful inasmuch as its deletion will break incoming links from older discussions, and I weakly oppose deletion on those grounds), but if we do, a histmerge is going to be required for attribution sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-tailed hawk (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge the /Edited Text redirect and then delete it. Weak keep the /Infobox title as the least-bad solution. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Graham to Talk:World War II/Infobox2 (since we already have an Infobox talk subpage) and Talk:World War II/Edited Text. A histmerge will only convolute the page history. This is from 2001 when we were still trying to figure out how to move pages and maintain history, the histmerge will be like rewriting history literally! Jay 💬 06:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for disucssion of Jay's move suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to the talk namespace. A history merge is not appropriate here because the history of this redirect was never a part of the main article - it was a standalone notes page for holding material that had been removed. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World War II/Infobox as is, as has relevant edit history for its corresponding talk page and means the standard article bar links to WWII as expected. Move World War II/Edited Text to Talk:World War II/Edited Text as there is no benefit to it remaining in mainspace. Moving doesn't seem to break any links as far as I can see. J947 † edits 02:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against a move here, but some of the suggestions do not respect namespaces. World War II/Edited Text is okay in the talk namespace, it's basically notes for the main article which is one of the uses of that namespace. However, I prefer 64.229's history merge suggestion better given there is no extant significant parallel histories. If World War II/Infobox is to be moved, it needs to be to the Template namespace because that is where infoboxes are housed. May I suggest Template:World War II infobox? -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. (Wow, I forgot all about this thing ... I was the nominator...)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Histmerge World War II/Edited Text, Keep World War II/Infobox. Per that /GA1 RFD (I don't feel like searching for it), I don't think there's a valid reason to remove World War II/Infobox from mainspace, as there is a talk page there and clicking "Article" will take you to the WWII article. 64 makes a good point on the Edited Text article; the only content related human edit after 2001 is the one converting the page into a redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close the June 22 logpage. (I can't believe that this is the fourth relist in as many months!) It seems that participants either want these two redirects to be kept, moved without redirect, or histmerged into the main World War II article, but it's unclear what we should actually choose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 22:44, 7 August 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).

Finnish redirects that turn ä into ae

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Finnish redirects that turn ä into ae

Hansik

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 Korean cuisine and added a hatnote pointing to the previous target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hansik is a commonly used English transliteration of 한식, which means Korean cuisine. See for example: [1], [2], [3], etc. :3 F4U (they/it) 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see the overwhelming usage as "Korean food" in this Google scholar search :3 F4U (they/it) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - was formerly an article [4] which appears to have been merged to the current target. If kept, I think refine to Cold Food Festival#South Korea which uses this name. If retargeted (presumably to Korean cuisine?) then a hatnote should be added to the original target. A7V2 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal is to retarget to Korean cuisine and add a hatnote yeah :3 F4U (they/it) 12:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to support that. Ideally if you have a particular outcome in mind you should state in clearly in your nomination statement. A7V2 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 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).

Erlenmeyer rule

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Erlenmeyer rule

Cam The Ham

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) 00:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Really? estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pejorative. BLP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no connection to target. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely bizarre. Keivan.fTalk 04:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pejorative for a living person which is not mentioned in target article, redirect is barely used, and I can find no evidence of use of this nickname for Camilla outside of wikipedia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target or even a Google search. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 22:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned anywhere and a WP:BLP issue. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't make sense --Lenticel (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete – BLP concerns + above very clear consensus make it clear to me that this should be closed early; I'm also seeing no evidence at a glance of the name being used, for what it's worth. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 August 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).

Maria Pia of Savoy the younger

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 Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Parma. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Parma - Presumably the intended target as this redirect was created before that article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC (talk) 12:46, 9 August 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).

Beatrice, Queen

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 retarget. Uncontroversial with no basis to oppose (unsynced R from sort name). Calling WP:SNOW here. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Queen Beatrice - Ambiguous. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:01, 7 August 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).

Draft:Maarten Rijkers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Draft:Maarten Rijkers

Draft:Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill

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 💬 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft:Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill → Winston Churchill  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Redirect exists in main namespace. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's already a proper redirect under this name. Keivan.fTalk 04:24, 8 August 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).

The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG OM DStJ PC FRS HonFRSC

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 💬 10:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG OM DStJ PC FRS HonFRSC → Margaret Thatcher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, DStJ, PC, FRS, HonFRSC → Margaret Thatcher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Far too long to be plausible search terms. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think there's any particular upper bound for the length for a redirect to be useful. Weak keep per Wikipedia:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title since unlikely as these might be as a search term, they aren't totally ridiculous and certainly no harm comes from keeping. A7V2 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no problem with having redirects based on official names, but these are excessive and contain essentially all the honors bestowed upon her. Not only are they non-plausible search terms, they are also unlikely to be ever used in any texts as links. Keivan.fTalk 04:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term, and includes all postnominals, including academic and even honorary academic ones. Massive and unnecessary overkill. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a remotely plausible search term. It's reasonable to have a redirect from an official name but not to include piles of postnominals in that. Hut 8.5 11:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: implausible search term and unusable. Official names can make good redirects but not with an excessive list of honours straight after. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 9 August 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).

Edward, Elector Palatine

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. as an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 10:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence presented in the article, or found elsewhere, suggests that Edward was ever Elector Palatine himself. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:17, 7 August 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).

Prince henry of prussia

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 Prince Henry of Prussia per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 08:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify - With the other two Princes Henry of Prussia, Prince Henry of Prussia (1862–1929) and Prince Henry of Prussia (1747–1767). estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:09, 7 August 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).

Caroline of Nassau

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Caroline of Nassau

Frederick (1766-1839)

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! 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unhelpful search term as there was surely more than one person by the name of Frederick with those dates of life. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, unless there is evidence that he is not the primary topic for this search term. A7V2 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I doubt there was anyone notable, known by a mononym, with those dates (but I'm happy to be proved wrong...). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 8 August 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).

Giorgio di Hannover

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 💬 12:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:UE. Implausible and theoretically ambiguous search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name is in Italian (?) and the subject was not associated with Italy in any way, shape or form. If we were to create redirects for each article in all of its different languages, we would end up having thousands of redirects per page. We have to go with common names used in English sources. Keivan.fTalk 04:19, 8 August 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).

Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom

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 💬 12:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom → Marie of Romania  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Unlikely search term, particularly considering it should be and the United Kingdom. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is never referred to in this manner. It is not a plausible search term, cannot be used in text, and is grammatically incorrect (as nominator pointed out, "the" is missing before "United Kingdom"). Keivan.fTalk 04:16, 8 August 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).

Stolen election conspiracy theories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Stolen election conspiracy theories

Anti-white racism

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Both deleted last November after lengthy discussion (which the user who recreated the pages apparently missed, although they specifically noted the RfD before that one in their edit summary). AFAIK nothing has changed since then to make this redirect more useful or necessary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_16#Anti-white_racism this had consensus to redirect it to reverse racism and the article even calls it that --17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs)
    The article calls it an unsupported belief some people have. Not the same thing. And you're ignoring the more recent consensus to delete. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination,[1] is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism."

    good enough for a redirect--FMSky (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Users following the link or searching for "anti-white racism" should reasonably be able to expect landing at a page describing anti-white racism itself as a topic or subtopic, rather than a particular US-centric concept associated with opposition to affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs. In short, "reverse racism" may refer to purported "anti-white racism", but "anti-white racism" doesn't necessarily imply "reverse racism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about redirecting it to Racism instead --FMSky (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all the uses of the word "white" on the Racism page, and didn't see any description of anti-white racism itself as a topic, apart from a brief summary of the reverse racism article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to assume bad faith but what im getting from this discussion is that you're denying that racism against whites even exists, is that correct? FMSky (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the Racism article do you feel is describing the topic of anti-white racism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think there is much point discussing with someone like this any further --FMSky (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per last consensus and possibly salt. We don't need to debate this every year. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My reading of the last discussion is that, while there was indeed consensus that there was at present no satisfactory target, there was also a general view that that was because a focused article on anti-white racism (in the non-"reverse racism" sense) had not yet been written, though it is touched on in several articles (for example, regarding Britain, Africa, more specifically South Africa, and more obliquely in some ethnic conflict-related articles. It is clearly a legitimate subject that readers will search for and hopefully something will be written. In any case, I do not think that the criteria required by WP:SALT have been met. Davidships (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was even straight up called "anti-white racism" in the hatnote of the reverse racism article until someone recently felt the need to remove it from there too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse_racism&diff=prev&oldid=1169306647 --FMSky (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the non-hyphenated one per WP:G4, and the hyphenated one per the most recent discussion (2022). I had pinged all participants of the 2021 RfD to participate in the 2022 one for fairness, so I would see the 2022 outcome as a consolidated one. Agree with Davidships that salting will be harsh though. Jay 💬 12:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We really should have an article specifically at Anti-white racism. I would move these redirects to draftspace, stubbify that one, and point the other to it. BD2412 T 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Can you elaborate? These are newly created redirects (August 5). Why would you move redirects to draftspace? By "that one" are you suggesting to create a draft stub at Draft:Anti-white racism, or are you suggesting a mainspace stub? What is your opinion about our existing article of Anti-Western sentiment? (Also to note, the first title of Anti-European sentiment was Anti-White Racism.) Jay 💬 14:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was at one time an actual article specifically on the topic at Anti white racism; it was deleted as a content fork of reverse racism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti white racism, but not as an inherently unsupportable topic. Anti-Western sentiment and Anti-European sentiment do not have within their scope situations like the Ainu people of Japan, where a group perceived as "white" is discriminated against due to their physical and cultural distinctiveness from their local majority population. BD2412 T 16:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point of having an article at the title. I do not understand your two action items, even from this response. Are you suggesting to undelete the earlier version of Anti white racism and move it to draftspace although it was a content fork? Jay 💬 16:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of an appropriate target, and article creation should be encouraged (per Tamzin at the last RfD). I don't think it's necessary to salt, but if we have two consecutive RfDs leading to delete, I think we can revert additional redirection creations pointing to this consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:15, 18 August 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).

Augusta Charlotte

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 💬 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually called "Charlotte Augusta". This is an incorrect format which I've found no usage referring to her. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to add nothing of value.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The order of the names is wrong, so it is both an unlikely search term and not useable in text either. Keivan.fTalk 04:13, 8 August 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).

Olav VI of Norway

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) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not his actual numeral. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:04, 7 August 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).

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, LG, GCVO, CD

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 💬 13:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly unlikely search term. There is also the dispute over whether Alexandra is a "LG" or "KG" (Lady or Knight of the Garter). estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an unlikely search term, but it is also highly unlikely that it can be used in a text. And yes, there is also the issue of whether she is a KG (Knight of the Garter) or LG (Lady of the Garter). Keivan.fTalk 04:06, 8 August 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).

Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra Helen Elizabeth Olga Christabel, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, Royal Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order

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 💬 13:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra Helen Elizabeth Olga Christabel, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, Royal Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order → Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - In now way is this a plausible search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessive. Not a plausible search term either. Keivan.fTalk 04:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too long to be a plausible search term and not helpful. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one is ever going to type a title that long. JIP | Talk 09:39, 13 August 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).

Maria Henrietta Stuart I

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) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The addition of the roman numeral would make this a highly unlikely search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unlikely in the eyes of the nominator, perhaps, but this redirect has 3 incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to appear online, leaning keep. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What I did notice is that this redirect along with Maria Stuart II are used at 1001 Vrouwen uit de Nederlandse geschiedenis, a compilation of 1001 biographies of famous women of the Netherlands. Both redirects appear to have been created by User:Jane023 who also contributed to the article on that book. Maybe this is how those two names appear in that book, in which case they could both be useful. Of course I cannot comment on the matter myself, because I do not have access to that book but it is a possibility that needs to be considered. Keivan.fTalk 04:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That resource (in Dutch) is published as a book, but is also online. Jane (talk) 06:34, 8 August 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).

Friedrich Ludwig, Prince of Orange

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. (non-admin closure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sophia Dorothea's children were Princes of Prussia, not of Orange, so this makes no sense. Unless somebody else knows something I don't? estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Prussia claimed the Principality of Orange from 1702 and it was used as a courtesy title for his eldest son's eldest son. Opera hat (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I knew they had claimed it at some point, but I thought it was far later on. I'm going to go ahead and speedy close this as withdrawn. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:12, 7 August 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).

First Duke of Cambridge

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 Duke of Cambridge#Dukes of Cambridge. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Duke of Cambridge#Dukes of Cambridge - Could realistically refer to any of the first Dukes of Cambridge from any creation, including Prince William. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. This is ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. It's too ambiguous and could refer to different people. Keivan.fTalk 03:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: too ambiguous to point to a single person. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:46, 9 August 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).

Augusta Matilda Charlotte

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 💬 14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her actual name was "Charlotte Augusta Matilda" and the incorrect format returns no use at all referring to the subject. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The order of the given names is wrong, so it cannot be used in text and is not a plausible search term either. Keivan.fTalk 03:43, 8 August 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).

Regency Bill

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 Regency Acts. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Regency Acts - People using this specific search term are most likely looking for the laws rather than the crisis. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:29, 7 August 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).

Matilda of Wales

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 Caroline Matilda of Great Britain. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Caroline Matilda of Great Britain - Any results for "Matilda of Wales" I've found result in Caroline Matilda. This Maud seems to have been solely called "Maud" and never "Matilda". estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC (talk) 01:45, 8 August 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).

Albert, Henry William Frederick

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 💬 14:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If "Albert" were the surname this redirect could make sense. But it is not, so this is an implausible search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole thing is just wrong. Albert is one of the subject's given names, whereas the surname (which is rarely used for royals) is Windsor. The redirect is malformed, not useable in text, and not a plausible search term either. Keivan.fTalk 03:41, 8 August 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).

To do the needful

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#To do the needful

Doing the needful

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Doing the needful

Crack stem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Crack stem

Christe qui lux es et dies

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 💬 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to redirect a classical Latin hymn to the biography page of the compiler of a hymn book which includes someone else's setting of this hymn (by Johann Hermann Schein). Most information we have on wiki seems to be at Te lucis ante terminum, but a red link to encourage article creation might also be an option. Felix QW (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. With 10 mentions in Enwiki, Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of its use in multiple articles with no prejudice towards creating an article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above with no prejudice in creating an article --Lenticel (talk) 05:22, 14 August 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).

Urozhaine, Ukraine

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 Urozhaine. Some participants believe there is a primary topic, however this can be a separate discussion. Jay 💬 16:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect originally went to List of villages in Ternopil Oblast, however there are multiple villages named Urozhaine are located in Ukraine, one of which is been in the news recently due to the war. I moved the redirect to Urozhaine, Ternopil Oblast to disambiguate it from the other villages, and now propose we either delete the old redirect or turn it into a disambiguation page listing all of the Ukrainian villages called Urozhaine. Physeters✉ 04:56, 7 August 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).

Nantucket ferry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Nantucket ferry

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_7&oldid=1171765316"