Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11

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 💬 07:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ego and Non-Ego → Id, ego and super-ego  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no mention on "non-ego" in the target article, leaving readers potentially scratching their heads if they search this term. In addition, Non-ego and Non ego do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, current target makes no sense. The expression ego and non-ego appears to be used in a number of contexts:

• Fichte, e.g., this explanation or here, here, or here; although Johann Gottlieb Fichte says nothing about it
• phemenology or philosophy, e.g., here; although Phenomenology (philosophy) and philosophy don't mention it
• Jungian psychology, e.g. here, although 'Jungian psychology' ⟶ Analytical psychology doesn't mention it

and other contexts, but this is not particularly associated with Freud's oft-quoted tripartite expression. I'd recommend either a redirect to Fichte (and add some content there), or delete it. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Education sciences. Jay 💬 07:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Theory of education → Learning theory (education)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article does not make it clear enough why this redirect targets the target article. In addition, the redirect Education theory exists (which is a redirect to Education sciences) and could possibly be confused with the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think either retarget to Education sciences in line with Education theory, or instead target Outline of education#Educational theory and practice which gives a large number of articles that someone searching this could be looking for. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several targets have been proposed…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Education sciences It seems plausible that "education theory" and "theory of education" could be used interchangeably. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 💬 07:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hirsutissima → Millettia nitida  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Species epithets never stand alone; they are accompanied by the name of the genus (or at least an abbreviation of the genus). As such, this is not a likely search term. Wikipedia has articles on 5 species with this epithet, and there are additional red-links mentioned in genus articles. There are well over 100 plants with this epithet, not to mention various animals. A disambiguation page is not a good solution; in the unlikely event that somebody were to search for this term, there is no guarantee that they are looking for a species that has an existing page on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. After three relists, participants are split with regards to the three targets - the current one and two proposed ones. Jay 💬 03:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tory party → Tories (British political party)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure this is what most people who are going to search "Tory party" would be looking for here. More likely to refer to the Conservative Party (UK), but wary about redirecting there as other conservative political parties are known by this outside the UK. Perhaps Tory Party (disambiguation)? Gingermead (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Conservative Party (UK), of course, moving the current hatnote. There is Tory Party (disambiguation) but frankly I'm pretty dubious how often many of the list there are ever actually called "Tories" - the Coalition Avenir Québec for example. "Tory" is handily short for headline writers, and seems still to be used for some Canadian parties, but the Australian Liberals are "Libs". Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the Conservative Party of Canada called Tories quite often So at the very least one of the entires there is valid.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt - but there are 27 Canadian parties listed. If they are all commonly called "Tories", which I don't believe for a moment, it must be super-confusing! Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, with second preference to retarget to Conservative Party (UK). I think it is possibly recentism to say that the existing party is the primary topic for this. Certainly I don't think it's necessary to redirect to the DAB page, the hatnote (either as is or swapped over if target is changed) is doing its job, and I think some of the parties listed on the DAB page are quite dubious as to whether they are ever referred to as Tories. A7V2 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tory Party (disambiguation). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has the same target as Tory Party, and I don't see a good reason to invoke WP:DIFFCAPS here. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tory Party should redirect to Tory Party (disambiguation) too, given there are two major parties known by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 14:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget this, and Tory Party, to Tory Party (disambiguation). ¹⁴¹Pr 17:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Death of Sidney Poitier → Sidney Poitier#Death and tributes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, unremarkable death. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I'm not sure how his death being unremarkable precludes a redirect to the section discussing his death. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Where do we draw the line? Should we expect there to be a Death of Foo redirect to the #Death section of every person who dies in a given year? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, why not? I see no problem with it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rockstone and update the section to Sidney Poitier#Death per Dsuke below me. Just because Poitier's death is not up to certain standards of "remarkability" doesn't mean this redirect shouldn't exist. This redirect is unambiguous, not really hurting anything, and helpful to people who're searching for this event. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 05:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC), ammended 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rockstone. Consider that "Death of Michael Jackson" is an individual article about his death. I also redirected Death of Takeoff to Takeoff (rapper)#Death too!. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but update the target section, as it's now titled only "Death". This is a valid redirect from subtopic, it is unambiguous, and the section is fairly robust. If we were talking about a one-line section or an article which only contained the information "Sidney Poitier died on 6 January 2022", it would be different. But this redirect is harmless and perfectly reasonable. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no harm in this redirect. ¹⁴¹Pr 17:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a model redirect. J947 † ^edits 04:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bacak Obama → Barack Obama  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is very much an implausible redirect. I don't see anyone mistyping Obama's name this badly. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While C is next to R on the Dvorak keyboard, this also, even if Barak Obama, is still a misspelling of the name so the probability that someone using a Dvorak keyboard hits the wrong key and misspells this name is quite low. I guess it is in theory possible, but so are many other things. TartarTorte 02:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, an implausible redirect. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too many errors to be useful --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible cedirect. MusiBedrock (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very implausible, there is a very low probability that someone would misspell "Barack" very badly. ¹⁴¹Pr 17:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably could qualify for WP:G10 since "Bacak" could be a plausible representation of the sound a chicken makes. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:G10 specifies that redirects are not eligible for it, and there's precedent for defamatory terms being used as titles of redirects. However, the term must be verifiable and there should be a suitable target (as per WP:RCOM), which isn't fulfilled by this redirect, so I still support deletion. Randi Moth (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Immediate another comment: My mistake, I've misread WP:G10, as it says that "Redirects from plausible search terms" are ineligible rather than just redirects. This isn't a plausible search term, so it is eligible for WP:G10. However, I doubt that it's intended to attack Obama, and it being a typo seems far more plausible. Still, delete as an implausible search term. Randi Moth (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, somewhat helpful; harmless. Doubt an admin would create an attack page after all! J947 † ^edits 03:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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