Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30

September 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 30, 2023.

NATO Occupied Soviet Union

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 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NATO Occupied Soviet Union → Baltic states  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, does not serve any navigational purpose. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:28F1:A8E3:42D4:6357 (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible and WP:RNEUTRAL. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 23:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-neutral; not an established term and unlikely to be useful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even with being non-neutral, it's obscure enough that it doesn't meet the requirements for being kept under WP:RNEUTRAL. I also find it highly unlikely that someone who uses this search term views the Baltic States as the only so-called "NATO Occupied" parts of the Former Soviet Union. This is, non-neutral, non-ambiguous and rarely used. TartarTorte 17:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above-given reasons, it's a highly biased and useless redirect.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:33, 3 October 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).

NATO Occupied Serbia

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 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NATO Occupied Serbia → Kosovo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:28F1:A8E3:42D4:6357 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:RNEUTRAL. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 23:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to some page like Kosovo War or NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - NATO did fight Serbia during that war, though I don't really know (and the articles I've skimmed don't seem to suggest so) if NATO ever "occupied" Serbia during that period. Duckmather (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This seems very similar to the previously-deleted NATO occupied FR Yugoslavia (discussion). It may be useful to check out that discussion. Randi🦋TalkContribs 08:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-neutral; not an established term and unlikely to be useful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search term whose vague meaning may as mentioned refer to something related to the past war and NATO campaign. As that would be vague too, in the unlikely situation someone uses this term best not to direct them to somewhere they may not have wanted to go. CMD (talk) 07:40, 4 October 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).

Rudy Gobert positive test

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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion, as this is an implassible search term. In 2023 and beyond, readers are likely to either seek the athlete Rudy Gobert's article or the 2019-20 NBA season article for information on Gobert testing positive for COVID-19 in March 2020, which lead to the season's temporary suspension. In the past year, this redirect has a daily average of zero pageviews, and no pages link to this redirect created in May 2020 when Gobert's positive test may have seemed more important. This is the equivalent of creating a redirect called "J. Robert Oppenheimer button press" to the article Trinity (nuclear test), simply because a reader might search that exact phrasing of the cause for information on its effect. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:45, 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 no consensus. Sorry, there is just no consensus in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as vague as 👩‍💻 . Unhelpful and fails the existing precedent at WP:REMOJI. Furthermore, anyone typing this in to search bar is either a) doing it for fun to see what they get, or b) looking for emojipedia-style information on the emoji itself. They're certainly not looking for Information technology. Really, I'd like all emoji redirects to be deleted with that reasoning, but this one is so ridiculously vague that it even goes against the existing precedent WP:REMOJI. Delete with prejudice. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per 🛑👮🏾‍♀️🧯🌾🏮🎐🧿🧙🏿. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those redirects exist, though... Smite them with fire! Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All these emoji redirects are getting very silly indeed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's defined as "Man Technologist". The use of a laptop specifically refers to information technology, so this is a good target. Otherwise, I would think you'd be able to get no narrower than Technology, unless we went the literal route with laptop (which I'm okay with). -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input and to coincide with the other similar discussion below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to a better target. Oppose deletion. At a minimum the emoji block this comes from is a valid target. Gonnym (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too vague to redirect to any page Polyamorph (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague, even if going by the official name as identified by Tavix. signed, Rosguill talk 02:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm fine with redirecting elsewhere, but I believe that deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. That would make it the sole outlier among the thousands of emojis. We should seek consistency in our coverage. Enix150 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enix150: You keep making this argument, and, besides the fact that is isn't remotely based on policy, it isn't even true!. 🧙🏿 does not have a redirect, nor does 👯🏾. You say that We should seek consistency in our coverage, but that isn't an excuse for consistently bad coverage. As I said below, that's like saying "keep {unnotable article}, we need consistency in coverage of {topic}!" It's not remotely grounded in policy. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edward-Woodrow: the two examples that you posted are what are called "combined glyphs" that use multiple emojis combined. No one is arguing that every combination of glyphs should have a Wikipedia page, but all of the base emojis do. Again, deleting this one would make it the only base emoji without a Wikipedia article/redirect, and therefore inconsistent in coverage. Additionally, the votes have consistently been in favor of keeping/retargeting them rather than deletion. Enix150 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enix150 This is also a combined glyph. The Man Technologist emoji is a ZWJ sequence combining 👨 Man, Zero Width Joiner and 💻 Laptop. Not to mention there is no rationale whatsoever for why we should cover every single emoji. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? (The other emoji redirect was retargeted to Women in computing in the meantime.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree with the general sentiment that Wikipedia should be consistent in what gets deleted & what doesn’t, where possible. As 👩‍💻 has been closed as keep, I feel it may be a possible cause for confusion if the discussion for 👨‍💻 doesn’t end in the same way.
However - as I mentioned on my talk page - I feel it may now be beneficial for an RfC to be held on the topic of emoji redirects, after the issue has been explored/discussed enough (potentially at WP:VPI?) to create a formal proposal on the matter. Considering the emoji redirects that have come to RfD recently, I’ve started to come to the opinion that the subject of emoji redirects in general may need more thrashing out than can really be done in the context of time-limited RfDs.
Therefore, I suppose I’ll vote weak keep on this RfD — but without prejudice to renomination once there is more of a clear community consensus on the use of emoji redirects as a whole, if the nominator believes that the redirect goes against whatever consensus is reached. (I would also extend this lack of prejudice to other emoji redirects that have been recently nominated.)
All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC on emojis probably couldn't hurt, but tbh I'm not sure if I'd participate much. These RfD debates have fairly well tired me out on the emojis issue. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Technologist (a disambiguation page). This emoji is defined as "Man technologist" so we should take people using it to the same target as if they'd typed "technologist" (given that the gender is not relevant here). Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Technologist per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider retarget suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ivanvector, Edward-Woodrow, Tavix, Gonnym, Polyamorph, Rosguill, Enix150, and A smart kitten: opinions on retargeting to Technologist? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely better than current target, but I think the image is so fundamentally vague, and open to many interpretations across individuals, that no target is ideal. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I still strongly advocate deletion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, this has been open for two months. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great idea! -- Tavix (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion hasn't changed. It's too vague and pointless. Delete. Polyamorph (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This works for me, but should we then also change the redirect for the gender-neutral Technologist emoji, 🧑‍💻, to keep them consistent? Enix150 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think male, female and gender neutral variants of emojis should all point to the same place unless we have more specific articles for the given meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too vague. This is a person in front of a laptop. If a reader already knew that this officially means "technologist", they could search that term themselves. This is much more likely to surprise readers. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think taking people to the article about the subject of the character they are searching is "too vague" then why not take them to the article about that character? There is no case for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: What? The problem is that the emoji is extremely vague. It is a person sitting in front of a laptop. That could refer to hundreds of things. The case for deletion is massive. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The emoji has a single, precise, definition. We have a disambiguation page that lists all the articles that relate to the emoji's precise definition that would take readers looking this up to whichever of those meanings they are interested in. Alternatively, we have a page that details the information about the emoji itself, that also offers relevant information. As a third option we could create a disambig/set index that explains the meaning, links to the dab, laptop and anything else appropriate. None of these options will be reliably found by search results (which may be multiple clicks/taps away). I'm not seeing anything remotely close to a justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone already know this officially means "technologist"? The searcher is likely trying to figure that information out, so it's important to guide the searcher to the target that best matches the definition. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I meant that as an argument against retargeting to Technologist. But I'm not convinced that Information technology is any better a target than, say, Computing, Internet, Laptop, or User (computing), just to name a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to guess what a user might be looking for in a case like this seems like a losing game. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion should probably be temporarily suspended as this RfC was opened on the topic. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redirect which is more harmful than useful, because it's wasting too much editor time that could be spent on more useful work, like, writing articles. I'm open to changing my mind if someone can explain to me how the redirect is useful. If the redirect must be kept, then retarget to gender disparity in computing, as an {{avoided double redirect}} to men in computing, until someone writes the article – keeping usage consistent with 👩‍💻. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee you that this discussion has not gotten in the way of any article writing. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 27 October 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 Music Magazine

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 The Music (magazine). (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would The Music (magazine) be a better redirect? मल्ल (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a variant of Music Magazine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:29, 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).

Draft:Unbitrium

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. Harmless. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccesary. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – Per WP:RDRAFT, there's usually a consensus to keep redirects generated when moving a draft article to mainspace. The same applies here, however the article in mainspace was WP:BLAR'd as the results of its AfD, making this an {{R from avoided double redirect}}. This may also be a WP:RDELETE#10 case, since the target article contains nearly nothing that existed in the drafts and may prevent creating another draft of the article (presumably, with WP:GNG-meeting sources). Randi🦋TalkContribs 18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per obvious usage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems to be a valid R from draft, and would be the preferable place for Unbitrium information to be at, rather than recreating it in mainspace without consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:25, 8 October 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).

Alam, Quebec

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 14:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Alam" is not mentioned in the target page, and was not when the redirect was created. Google and Wikipedia search don't find anything relevant, only mentions of Saguenay and a person or unrelated place with the name Alam in the same page. Peter James (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirects are confusing if there's no mention at the target to tell you why you're there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is a typo for Alma, Quebec, which is in the Saguenay -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (or at a push, retarget to Alma, Quebec, though it seems an unlikely misspelling). Rosbif73 (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although a retarget to Alma, Quebec is better than the status quo we can't cater for every typo and I can't find any evidence this one is particularly common. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with second preference to retarget to Alma, Quebec, per the above. A7V2 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 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).

Phalaenea crataegella

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 8#Phalaenea crataegella

First finger (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 8#First finger (disambiguation)

Unreality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target page derealization doesn't actually use the term "unreality" anywhere in its prose (though it does use "unreal"). I had thought to move Unreality (album) into its place and add a hatnote, but after a discussion (which can be seen here), it seems that wasn't a perfect solution after all. Looking back on it, I'm still not entirely sure how appropriate the redirect is, and think perhaps it should be either my initial page move/hatnote idea or Dr. Vogel's dab suggestion (though as was noted at the time, there's only one exact match for it). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:21, 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).

Chandramukhi (fictional character)

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 Chandramukhi (character). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Chandramukhi (character) - "(fictional character)" and "(character)" are synonymous in this context as Chandramukhi (character) is just as fictional. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:24, 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).

Academie Le Tour

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 7#Academie Le Tour

La Fiesta Tech

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 7#La Fiesta Tech

Helena Mankowska

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 💬 13:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful: the target tells the reader very, very, little about Helena Mankowska. (NPP action) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the model and Helena Makowska the same person?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 02:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The model and the Helena Makowska are not the same person: [1]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target has information about Helena Mankowska, so the redirect is not unhelpful. There's no reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is little information of substance though. This looks like a WP:REDYES situation to me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Retarget to Helena Makowska as a {{R from misspelling}} - I concur the current target contains two little substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the current target does not contain enough information for this redirect to exist. I prefer deletion over retargeting because they are two different people, although I am not completely opposed to it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:42, 27 September 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! 03:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete rather than retarget: They are clearly two different people and I think the redirect would confuse readers looking for the model more than it would help those looking for the actress and making what doesn't appear to be a very likely typo. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Retargetting might cause confusion. --Lenticel (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to disambiguate between the 2 mentions. This is a bit of an annoying one; we can't satisfy both Mankowska and Makowska searchers. But it's much more likely the reader didn't make a mistake looking for Mankowska than made this specific one looking for Makowska, IMO. J947 † edits 05:58, 1 October 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).

Redirects to MV Lara

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 AIDAaura/MV Lara at the article now named AIDAaura. Delete Astoria bland. Yes, it was a messy bundle, but the result was clear nonetheless. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AIDAaura/MV Lara → MV Lara  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Astoria bland → MV Lara  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete R3 - completely inexplicable and implausible redirects. Davidships (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "AIDAaura" since it is mentioned at the target, and delete "Astoria" due to a lack of mention. Note: Bundled both nominations for a smoother discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 03:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @CycloneYoris:, I don't think these should have been bundled because while they target the same article, they are completely different titles in nearly every other capacity. Both look to be CSD candidates as well; created entirely in error via page moves. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Utopes: How so? They were both nominated by the same editor who wrote the same exact rationale for both nominations. The fact that both titles are somewhat different is irrelevant, and it shouldn't be an impediment for discussing them here. CycloneYoris talk! 20:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @CycloneYoris: Firstly, I do appreciate bundling as a general practice because it helps consolidate the discussion when the titles fall into the same category, and the ~same points apply generally for every title in the bundle. In this case, however, I would like to note this: Just because the nominator is the same, and the nominator's rationale is the same, and the page creations were made the same way... does not mean that bundling is always appropriate. In this case I'd argue that it was not, because the redirects are absolutely separate cases. The first redirect is the old title with a slash, while the second title is... I'm honestly not really sure to be honest. The titles being different is ABSOLUTELY relevant, because the titles have nothing in common which makes the discussions for either redirect segmented and mixed together, (because the rationale behind discussing the two titles I'd expect to be wholly separate, especially evidenced by what's been said so far). I also feel bundles should only be made if they are uncontroversial, and at this point I would like to revert to an unbundled state if it was plausible to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a completely tangential note separate from the bundling, at this point in time, I think both should be speedy deleted by CSD G6. R3 seems to also apply. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletion is no longer applicable since I have !voted to keep the first redirect, which I find highly plausible (even though it was created via page move disruption). CycloneYoris talk! 20:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • To this point, before this RfD, I would have personally tagged both of these articles for CSD G6 because both were clearly created in error. You say speedy deletion is no longer eligible for the first redirect, which is fine as that's your !vote. Another problem with the bundling is now it confuses the line about what arguments apply to which; nobody has said anything in favor of Astoria Bland so I'm CSD tagging it because that redirect was still clearly created in error. (Struckthrough R3) Utopes (talk / cont) 15:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the paired name redirect is not useful, and the other name is not used -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first, delete the second. Paired former name/current name is a plausible search term. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the meantime MV Lara has been moved to AIDAaura. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget AIDAaura/MV Lara to AIDAaura. Delete Astoria bland : a mystery. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it not standard practice to post a notification of an RFD discussion on the page creator's User talk page? This editor is responsible for a lot of redirects resulting from page moves and it might help if they were included in this discussion. I participate more in AFD where page creators are typically notified via Twinkle. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I seem to have rushed rather clumsily into my first time here, perhaps because it was one in the morning. And now it is again, so please say whether I should just withdraw this one and start over à-deux when my tomorrow comes. Davidships (talk) 01:06, 2 October 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_30&oldid=1182838992"