Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 26

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) 18:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dixie, Iowa → New Boston, Iowa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Sources of dubious reliability ([1], [2], [3]) consistently identify Dixie as a location in Mitchell County, Iowa, an article that also makes no mention of the place. I'm thus leaning towards deletion over redirecting there, and would appreciate additional input. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An article in the Sioux City Journal also places it in Mitchell County, more specifically in Rock Township, Mitchell County, Iowa. That article (a two-sentence stub) also has no mention of Dixie, but I would guess the article I found is sufficient to add enough content to anchor a redirect there. I'll also alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iowa to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that place doesn't seem like there's much there[4] but could probably be mentioned in the township's article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. When there is a mention somewhere it can be created again. Jay 💬 13:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending a substantive mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 all except Shi'a and Islam which had no consensus. However, retargeting it to Shia–Sunni relations as a supported target better than the current, for which there was no support. Jay 💬 12:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Academic Bias against The Shia → Shia Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Misconceptions about the Shi'a → Shia Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Misconceptions about The Shia → Shia Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Misconceptions about the Shi'a → Shia Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Misconceptions about the Shia → Shia Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Views on Shi'a Islam → Shia Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Shi'a and Islam → Shia Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a series of redirects that formerly pointed to "Views on Shia Islam", a now-deleted article, which have been retargeted to the general article on Shia Islam. It doesn't seem like the general article covers any of these topics, so I would propose deleting most of these redirects.

However, I am not certain on the last two redirects. I didn't find a suitable page that may fall under Views on Shi'a Islam, though one may exist. In regards to Shi'a and Islam, retargeting to Shia–Sunni relations may make sense, however this is only about the interactions between Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni and Shia are definitely the largest branches by a significant margin, but one searching for "Shi'a and Islam" might be searching for more general relations between Shi'a Islam and other branches, such as with Ibadi or more historical branches. Randi Moth (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the last two redirects Views on Shi'a Islam and Shi'a and Islam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• comment' The redirect Sha and islam is pure nonsense: shia is a branch of islam. it is like "Birch and tree" Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "And" can be used to signify a connection between the two, specifically as a shortened form of saying "Connection between Shi'a and the rest of Islam", such as United States and the United Nations which still exists as the title despite the USA being a part of the UN. Similarly, Shia–Sunni relations outlines the relations between Shi'a and Sunni Islam, as well as briefly touching on some historical branches of the religion. It can be a plausible redirect to there, but as before, it's more "Shi'a and Sunni" rather than "Shi'a and Islam". However, it might not be that plausible of a search term for that, as shown by the redirect barely getting any views. Randi Moth (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except Shi'a and Islam which should retarget to Shia–Sunni relations as most likely what someone searching this is looking for. Academic Bias against The Shia could plausibly target Anti-Shi'ism but there is no discussion of academic discrimination so that would need to be added first, and I don't know if such an addition would be appropriate. The others just seem like they should have been deleted when the main article was deleted. A7V2 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 26 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Journal of Medical Research → The American Journal of Pathology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is a current, less reliable Journal of Medical Research, as well as a number of "X Journal of Medical Research" publications. It would be better to let the search results handle this, than risk misleading readers based on a name this journal abandoned 98 years ago. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems reasonable as an alternative name. Is the less reliable journal notable? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's encyclopedically notable, but in 2023 I'm guessing it's more likely what someone's thinking of when they search this term; note the hatnote on the target article. Usually in such cases we delete the redirect. That's probably what we should do for a lot of the redirects to pages with {{confused journal}} on them, as that template is not actually in compliance with WP:HAT and should probably be deleted; redirect deletion is the better solution for cases where a non-notable usage may have grown more prominent than a notable one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a former name of a notable journal that was in use for nearly 25 years and represents the vast majority of cases (everything pre 1950 is definitely this journal. The X Journal of Medical Research journals started popping up in the mid 1990s). The modern predatory journal isn't notable, so it makes no sense to point that redirect to an article that shouldn't exist. If there's confusion that needs to be addressed, you can use {{confused journal}} to clarify things, e.g.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I'm unconvinced that that template is acceptable under WP:HATNOTE, as it does not actually disambiguate from any other article. Like I said above, the solution is to delete the ambiguous redirects, not add a noncompliant hatnote. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are notes, they don't exist solely to disambiguate to existing articles and aren't required to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The journal that appropriated this title is most certainly not notable and most likely will never be (unless they commit such stupid errors that they'll get coverage in the main press). It looks like an OMICS clone. I think that it is important to make clear that this title was a reputed journal before it got its current name. Headbomb's hatnote seems to do that very well. HATNOTE specifically states that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one such case. --Randykitty (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Randkitty, to help readers find good info, and understand different meanings, without giving over-exposure of current but poorer topics with the name. DMacks (talk) 22:11, 27 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. However, retargeting to Inca Empire as a target better than the current, for which there was no support. Jay 💬 08:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Andean man → Indigenous peoples of the Americas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Maybe retarget to Culture of South America (the most suitable potential target I could find after some digging) or something similar, but probably delete as unclear and unhelpful. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I was expecting this to have some article history, but having none and being an odd term with little usage, deletion seems preferable here. TartarTorte 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Andean Peoples redirects to Inca Empire; Andean culture is a dab page (tagged as being in need of a broad concept article) listing six different indigenous groups; Andean civilizations is an article about the pre-Inca cultures and societies. I think any of these would make a better target than the present one (I don't have a preference between that and Culture of South America). Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The are also some articles about gender roles in various cultures, which would probably be the best choice except we still are lacking one for South America/Inca Empire/Andes/Peru/what have you. If such an article were created, this redirect would be slightly more appropriate. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget: to Inca Empire; otherwise delete. ¹⁴¹Pr 17:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:45, 26 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 Duke of Argyll. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Marquess of Lorne → John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Duke of Argyll. Campbell was not the only person in history to use the title, and in fact there is a current holder. I would be amendable to simply making a disambiguation, that the title most commonly refers to the 9th Duke, but may also refer to the subsidiary title in general.--Estar8806 (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.

2601:249:9301:D570:4F3:6CDC:2AEE:CEE3 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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