Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 15

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Dave Cohen (studio musician and producer) → Dave Cohen (musician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-space redirect. I find that to be a particularly unlikely disambiguator for someone to search, but I can't imagine anyone using it and entering "Draft" at the front.

I'd also like to ask the admin a question: am I correct in thinking that this would not fall under WP:CSD R2? Not sure what isn't clicking in my brain but I keep doubting myself. Sock (tock talk) 18:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update (9/17): After seeing the responses below, I understand the value in keeping this redirect and withdrawal my suggestion to delete it. Thank you all for the helpful replies! Sock (tock talk) 02:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not an admin, but it doesn't qualify for WP:R2. That would apply if it were Example targetting Draft:Example, but for Draft:Example targetting Example. TartarTorte 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: harmless (linked from one place). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a published AfC draft from its former name in draftspace; its existence is beneficial for the purpose of successful AfC article tracking. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You learn something new every day, thank you! I've not actually come across this before and wasn't entirely sure where to look, but I'll commit it to memory and I'm happy to withdrawal the suggestion. Sock (tock talk) 02:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sock: Draft redirects are typically kept if they were a title of the draft while it was in draftspace, unless there's a specific reason not to keep them. They may be linked to from other pages, or bookmarked, etc., and (apparently, I didn't know this before Utopes' comment) they are used in AFC tracking. (This norm may be a good fit for WP:RFDCO, now that I think about it.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Bamboo textile. (non-admin closure) J947 † ^edits 02:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bamboo socks → Rayon#Controversies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This isn't really mentioned in any great detail anywhere on wikipedia. There is a passing mention on bamboo socks at Bamboo textile but nothing on it beyond that. There is no mention at the current target. TartarTorte 16:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Bamboo textile per nom. Duckmather (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bamboo textile per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bamboo textile as the only place where this is mentioned. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Petrushene, Mykolaiv Raion → Kinburn Peninsula  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Supposed village in Ukraine, without an article on Ukrainian Wikipedia (which has articles for practically every single village) and without any results in Google Maps. I hardly find results both in English and Ukrainian. This feels like a hoax. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and AfD: there was an article at this title until this April. I doubt it'll survive the two references in the article don't seem to mention such a village (I used google translate for the first) unless I'm sorely mistaken. But it's a chance for any experts in Ukraine to determine whether such a village actually exists. Duckmather (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: Why would one "restore and AfD" and not just delete? What is the difference? HappyWith (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The logic goes that it is a violation of procedure for RfD to delete revisions that don't contain a redirect. Personally I don't follow that logic - we can pretend that the BLAR-er had PRODed instead and allow the article to be restored at WP:REFUND if someone wants to contest the original BLAR. It's even more ridiculous that this discussion has been left open for more than a month because of this dogmatic dispute. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the target and the creator pages. Jay 💬 06:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There is nothing at the target about this village. Undo the BLAR, send to AfD. Jay 💬 07:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If you doubt that something would survive an AfD, then it's pointless exercise in bureaucracy to recommend sending it there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 restore and AfD. If editors really want this page deleted, AfD can take care of that as well. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Tone → Google Chrome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a google-made extension for chrome that was at a point mentioned on the chrome page, but has since been removed. I cannot find a mention elsewhere on wikipedia, so it seems best deleted or restored and AfD'd as it was WP:BLARred. TartarTorte 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no target text in the article, so just misleading and a bit bewildering to readers. - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D8. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a D8. "Google Tone" isn't a synonym for Google Chrome, nor is it even intended to be interpreted as such, it's a different product which can be installed into Chrome to add functionality. It could, however, be a D10, assuming there's no agreement to restore the article from before you blanked and redirected it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert redirect and send to AfD if the article's notability is in question. It's not mentioned elsewhere so there is no appropriate target to redirect to but deletion is questionable given that it was an accepted AfC submission. – Scyrme (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AFD if needed; an AFC reviewer thought this was notable enough, another editor thought it wasn't, and to me that's a near-dealbreaker on deletion. I would rather not delete a redirect with history with the potential for a notability debate. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article and send to AfD per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Female priest → Ordination of women  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please discuss at Talk:Priestess#Requested_move_25_August_2023. fgnievinski (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unclear what the nominator wants to be done at RfD. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh dear, I had kindly requested to discuss at another talk page, where a related discussion is ongoing. fgnievinski (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to priest The target is incorrect, not all priests are ordained, therefore the ordination of women is not the topic article for female priests. -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of priests who are not ordained? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if "ordination" is a technical term in certain religions, on the Ordination of women article, it is used generally to refer to anyone becoming a member of any religion's priesthood. It covers the entire scope of what might be meant by "female priest". RedPanda25 02:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment female clergy should also be bundled into this nomination, for the same problem -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "female clergy" is bundled in, then my opinion would be to delete' or retarget to clergy per the same reason, many clergy are not ordained -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Pending the nominator @fgnievinski's opinion, I believe that delete is better as having such genders would open up a WP:PANDORA of "gender+profession" redirects. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are tons of related redirects: [1] I'm not sure what's the best way to proceed. fgnievinski (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well since it's just one target, I think all of these that are just "gender+profession" should be deleted. Also, what's "Woman, Ordination of"? Is that some sort of sorting thing? I see no usage of that redirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The current target is the best. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: currently there is a move discussion at Talk:Priestess#Requested move 25 August 2023 which is related to this redirect. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shhhnotsoloud - if someone prepends "female" to this then the topic is most likely to refer to ordination of women.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Amakuru. Hut 8.5 18:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the current target article is the most likely to be useful to someone who searches that term, and the redirect averages 2-3 page views per month so it is being used. RedPanda25 02:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• So how is Female priest different from Priestess? Amakuru (who has voted Keep here), was the closer at the move discussion, and redirected Priestess to Priest, although the move request stated that Priestess should redirect (to Ordination of women) the same as Female priest. Also pinging fgnievinski who is the nominator of both this RfD and the RM, to check if he expected any kind of sync in both outcomes. As commented by Edward-Woodrow, this RfD nomination was not clear. If the purpose of this RfD was to only notify of an RM, then this could have been closed procedurally as to follow the outcome of the RM. So now that the RM is closed, maybe retarget to Priest, or add hatnotes at Priest and Ordination of women, if Female priest and Priestess have different connotations. Jay 💬 11:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priest" is a term used primarily in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and some other Christian sects, while "priestess" is primarily used of paganism. Female Christian clergy are rarely referred to as "priestesses". I guess the wrinkle is that "priest" is also fairly often used in reference to pagan male religious figures, so there is not a 1:1 correspondence between the terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree that priest is primarily a Christian term. Jay 💬 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems like the most sensible redir target for what people are most likely to be looking for. Disambiguation hatnotes can be used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ✗plicit 02:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of people charged with Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT → Patriot Act  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of terrorists caught with Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT → Patriot Act  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no such list at the target. Also, there is a discussion with a moved version of this redirect that got deleted at RfD, here Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 27#List of people charged under Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT back in 2015 for being WP:MADEUP.TartarTorte 00:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This redirect exists as the result of a move, and the page it was (originally) moved to was deleted as made up. As far as I can see this redirect is not otherwise helpful, and may be confusing for people randomly stumbling across it. user:A smart kitten_meow 09:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no such list exists and there is currently no good reason to have these redirects. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).