Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2022.

Prime Minister of the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Prime Minister of the United States

Hatnote[edit]

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 regarding Hatnote, Hatnotes, Hat note. Delete for HATLINK. Legoktm (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unneeded WP:XNR that could possibly redirect to somewhere else. FAdesdae378 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: just added links to previous discussions. - Eureka Lott 02:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Hatnote (and maybe Hat note) to Listen to Wikipedia since the target's full name is "Hatnote: Listen to Wikipedia", so the title "Hatnote" could refer to the subject per WP:SUBTITLES. Delete the rest per Shhhnotsoloud. Steel1943 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Hatnote and Hat note to Listen to Wikipedia; delete the rest. Per Steel1943. Veverve (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Hatnote. Cross-namespace navigation is not out of bounds for very salient wikitopics (e.g. Create article -> Help:Your first article) or for widely used wikijargon (see links to WP:DAB at DAB, or to WP:NPOV at NPOV). Hatnotes are sufficiently common to warrant such a pointer, and I'm not aware of the term being used for anything that's not related to wikipedia. With Hatnote: Listen To Wikipedia, we have an uncommon short title of an obscure topic that's still firmly inside the wikirealm, so I don't think this could be any more eligible as a target, despite being in article space. I see WP:HATNOTE as the primary topic for the term, but prefer disambiguating because 1) the context provided by a dab entry can reduce the possibility of confusion when sent straight to the project page, 2) the dab can more easily accommodate a "see also" pointer for Headnote, and 3) the project page already has a lot of hatnotes, so we have an incentive to reduce them. Hat note and Hatnotes should be retargeted to the dab, with HATLINK deleted as it's too obscure to cross the mainspace threshold. Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Hatnote; I endorse every element of Uanfala's comment. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting any of these to Listen to Wikipedia as that is unlikely to bring anyone to the information they are looking for. The status quo or other already proposed solutions (except deletion) are superior. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the rather late disambiguating proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate at Hatnote per Uanfala. I think a link to WP:HATNOTE out of the article space is usefull when editing articles. Wikipedia:Hatnote is a usefull how-to page for newby editors who can use some help finding the wikipedia namespace. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala, who I find convincing. Headnote seems the most likely target in mainspace, so I would list that first with the cross-namespace options below. Modest Genius talk 16:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. delete HATLINK per Uanfala. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Hatnote to Listen to Wikipedia as it matches the software's github project name as well as website name, in addition to "Hatnote" being part of the application's name. Hatnote WP:Hatnote from there. Delete the other three. I don't see how we can create a disambiguation page with one entry. Modest Genius, I did attempt a draft at the hatnote redirect, and made WP:Hatnote a hatnote, and not the dab entry you suggested. At least this is how it's done in DAB and NPOV that Uanfala gave as examples. But if we have mainspace DABs having a WP page as a regular DAB entry, then you may modify the dab draft. Jay 💬 03:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was imagining the dab page has having two main entries: one for WP:HATNOTE and the other for the application. I don't see any reason why self-references should always by in hatnotes: for DAB that's probably done because of the assumption that many readers will be seeking the project page and so shouldn't be made to scroll all the way to the end of the dab page; still, there (and at NPOV), it will in my opinion be an improvement to move the WP: links to the "see also" section. If there's a dab page at Hatnote, then I prefer the link for WP:HATNOTE to be in the main body, because the term being disambiguated ("hatnote") is the proper name for the concept described there (unlike the case of NPOV and DAB, where the terms represent merely handy shortcuts). Uanfala (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dab page COI is a good example of how to disambiguate project and article links. Modest Genius talk 12:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That too is similar to how it's done at DAB and NPOV. If the Hatnote dab draft can be enhanced per Uanfala's suggestion, and there is support, then I'll support it too. Jay 💬 18:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first three, Delete HATLINK. "Hatnote" is Wikipedia jargon that a newbie is likely to encounter and may be confused what it means, and the redirects point to the correct place to answer the question. Due to the fact that the term is not used elsewhere, Wikipedia:Hatnote would be the overwhelming primary topic. I'm not seeing enough for a disambiguation. Wikipedia references in disambiguations are hatnoted (lol), so Listen to Wikipedia would be the only "valid" entry, even though it is a derivative use. Headnote would be in the see also, so it would look weird to me with one hatnoted entry, one main entry, and one see also entry. If anything, simply expand the current the hatnote (lol) to include both other pages. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no fundamental reason why a given WP: link should be in a hatnote. If a project page is an appropriate target for a mainspace redirect, then, upon the conversion of the redirect into a dab, it would make for an appropriate main body entry. Uanfala (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's convention, and I'm not keen to break that convention for what is essentially a WP:ONEOTHER situation. I prefer the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a convention or just the contingent result of applying independent considerations? If RS has a hatnote for WP:RS, then I believe it's because someone has judged that many new editors may come across the abbreviation on Wikipedia and will look it up without knowing to use the WP: prefix, and so they'd need a way to get from RS to WP:RS: this hatnote then is like the "Not to be confused with.." hatnotes in articles. If a dab page at Hatnote, on the other hand, needs to point to WP:HATNOTE, then that's not because people may confuse the mainspace and non-mainspace uses of the term, but because the topic (which happens to be treated in a WP: page) has been deemed to be of mainspace-worthy level of relevance. That's precisely what standard dab entries are for, and I really can't see any reason why one such entry should have to be pushed into a hatnote. Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see a difference, both cases would essentially be namespace confusion because I don't think there is scope for a mainspace article on hatnotes. Perhaps because "hatnote" is purely Wiki-jargon, someone would expect a navelgazy disambiguation at Hatnote but not at RS? However, that same logic is why I don't mind a cross-namespace redirect in this instance so I think it's better to bypass such a dab and go directly to the primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I see hatnotes as a topic that may potentially be covered in mainspace (within one or another of the subtopic articles for Wikipedia), and "hatnote" is the proper name for that topic (in contrast to jargony shortcuts like RS or ANI). Also, the two other ambiguous articles (Listen to Wikipedia and Headnote) are both in mainspace, and I don't like the idea of a mainspace-to-mainspace navigational path crossing into and out of projectspace. Still, your point about sticking to the primary topic is a valid one, and, though I disagree, I accept your view. Uanfala (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree the navigational path for someone seeking one of the other two topics is not ideal. However, I have a hard time imagining someone using the term "hatnote" to look for Listen to Wikipedia. It just seems too PTM-y since it's never referred to (AFAICT) as simply Hatnote. I can also see the confusion between hatnote and headnote, but I think that for someone to make that confusion they would have to be familiar with the Wiki-jargon so it would not be jarring to end up in projectspace. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to get August 15th closed due to it being 3 weeks ago. As a reminder, per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed by any uninvolved editor/administrator at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all for lack of any other acceptable solution; the current target does not warrant a cross-namespace redirect, Listen to Wikipedia does not work for reasons explained above, and the disambiguation page does not work because it would contain only one entry. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep like the others said. 96.18.106.49 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first three per Tavix. I found this discussion via lazily searching for "hatnote" in order to land at WP:Hatnote. Plausible WP:XNR. I oppose retargeting or deleting. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Primal Instinct[edit]

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. There was some support for disambiguation, but concerns regarding whether that's appropriate remain unaddressed after 3 relists. No prejudice to people continuing the disambiguation discussion on a talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 16:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was formerly an article for the episode of the tv series before being BLARed by TTN as a result of a discussion that I could find (not that I looked very hard) in 2008. I have two issues with this redirect. The first is that this is a highly generic term (and right now primal instinct doesn't exist) so it is a surprising place to end up for searchers (I note many redirects to the same list article are possibly in the same boat). But even apart from that I'm not at all convinced this is the primary topic amongst the numerous non-notable proper nouns which use this name with capitals which can be found in a wikipedia or google search, such as on Simon's Cat, By Way of the Drum, Angerfist and List of programs broadcast by Investigation Discovery. So I'm not really sure what to do with this but I don't think the current status quo is suitable. A7V2 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate with the other uses mentioned. This redirect is the top search result in Wikipedia but the next five are not useful. Peter James (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per nom's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Move the redirect edit history to Primal Instinct (Yu-Gi-Oh), to keep having an episode redirect around -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is a dab of just mentions really what we want? I should point out my list above is not necessarily exhaustive, I think there were other mentions around the place as a proper noun. There is apparently also a band which had an article that was delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal instinct). I find it surprising given there are usages of the term (in the actual instinct sense) both on wikipedia and wikitionary that there is no wikitionary entry for it. If disambiguation is the way to go I think Instinct and Instinct (disambiguation) should also be included, even if only as see also. A7V2 (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't instinct by definition, primal? I guess primal is used as an adjective, for embellishment only. Which may explain why there is no wikt entry. Jay 💬 04:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particular about a disambiguation page, vs having the search results doing the job. Similar DABs like Primal Fear and Basic Instinct (disambiguation) also do not have a corresponding lowercased article, but at least they have entries with articles, unlike only mentions in the case of Primal Instinct. However if the outcome is to dabify, I won't oppose it. Jay 💬 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to seek a firmer consensus on disambiguating and also for closing the August 21 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been no discussion since the last relist and I know a third relist is not loved, but it seems that this is heading towards no consensus otherwise, so hopefully this could help to gain consensus on an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 20:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Anjan district[edit]

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 23:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A long-standing redirect, but I believe an error. The comment in the source leads to a dead link, but see [1] Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that this comment was changed after my !vote. It was formerly a recommendation to retarget to Anjan, which my !vote was partially in response to. Anythingyouwant, if you change your mind, please use the WP:STRIKE formatting so it is easier to follow the discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I didn’t realize you were responding to me. The two consecutive edits where I changed my !vote are here and here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is evidence of a district named Anjan. A village is not a district. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no explanation has been provided for why it is not error. Also delete Anjan’s district which was created during this discussion as mentioned above. We don't have redirects pointing from village name to its corresponding district's name. This could be setting a bad precedent. We don't use possessives even for the state's disctrict names, but have it in the form List of districts in <State>. Plus it uses a curly apostrophe (see MOS:APOSTROPHE). Jay 💬 19:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Baja, California[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Baja, California

Modernist architect[edit]

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 Modernist art movements to Modern art#Art movements and artist groups. Keep Modernist architect and Modernist architecture. No consensus on Modernist art.. Jay 💬 06:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the three should target the same topic, since something modern is no necessarily modernist. Veverve (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the four should target the same topic, since something modern is no necessarily modernist. Veverve (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep* Modernist architect - While I agree that "modern" doesn't imply "modernist", the article content at Modern architecture is specifically about modernist architecture. Perhaps the article should be moved to Modernist architecture? That title is explicitly included in the lead sentence. Regardless, Modernist architect should point to that article and not the others.
  • Retarget Modernist art - As for the other two, I think they should both target Modernism since Modern art does cover a variety of art movements. – Scyrme (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scyrme: sorry, I had forgotten one redirect (I have added it at the bottom of the list). Veverve (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My view remains the same. Modernist architect and Modernist architecture should both point to the article presently located at Modern architecture since the content in that article is explicitly about that topic. I don't object to moving the article to Modernist architecture to make things more explicit, but moving the article is beyond the scope of a 'redirect for discussion'. The other redirects should target Modernism. – Scyrme (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except Modernist art movements, which should be pointed to Modern art#Art movements and artist groups. In art and architecture, the terms modern and modernist are synonymous, as noted in the first sentence of the Modern architecture article. - Eureka Lott 01:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I agree. The section "Art movements and artist groups" lists the Pre-Raphaelites and romanticism. Do those count as "modernism" in the artistic sense? (Maybe they do, I'm not an art expert, but I've never heard them described that way personally.) It also lists photography and feminist art. The list seems to use "modern" broadly synonymously with "contemporary" or "relatively recent" rather than in the sense of modernism. The lead of the article seems to support this, the actual content of which refers to the modern era ("period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s") rather than to the art movement properly called modernism, although as the lead section notes the two are related topics. I still think Modernism is the better target. – Scyrme (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modernism is the WP:broad concept article for the topic, covering art, literature, architecture, music, etc. Modernist art movements should direct readers to more specific material, which we have at Modern art#Art movements and artist groups. If you have concerns about what's included there (and the article explicitly draws distinctions between modern art and contemporary art), that's an issue you can raise for that article, but it isn't a problem with the redirect. - Eureka Lott 22:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It distinguishes them in that it defines "contemporary art" as the era from the 1940s onwards. The distinction provided is one of time period, not art movement. I don't have any problems with what's included. My point was that what's included makes it a bad target for these redirects. However, it could work as 'r from related topic' and I now see that it could be interpreted as a search for a list. I'm changing my vote. – Scyrme (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale given in the above discussion. The retargets are effectively a swap. – Scyrme (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep three, retarget one. As described above, the art community uses the words “modern” and “modernist” synonymously and in contradistinction to the ordinary word “contemporary”. I think that’s stupid because they should have left the word “modern” with its common meaning, and doing otherwise was totally unnecessary because they had the word “modernist” to use as specialized jargon. But that’s the way it is, we shouldn’t try to right great wrongs. I don’t support retargeting Modernist art from Modern art to Modernism, because the proposed target seems more about the movement than the art itself. However, I do support retargeting Modernist art movements (notice the “s” at the end) from Modernism to Modern art#Art movements because the current target seems to emphasize the single overall movement, whereas the proposed target deals more with many sub-movements (plural). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cowboys[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Cowboys

White noise (slang)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#White noise (slang)

Claiming Revolution[edit]

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. Legoktm (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent mistranslation of the subject's Spanish name, I can't find any evidence of use of this term for the current target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the user that moved the article. I moved the article to Revindicating Revolution seeing that is was a ore common name. Although I'm a native Spanish speaker, I don't think "Claiming" is a good translation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an article title unambiguously created in error. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellohi!: Can you show evidence this was created in error? I don't see anything of the sort. Perhaps if the original author was the one that moved the title with an edit summary of "oops" or something, but this is simply a difference of translation. -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had erroneously assumed that it was a mistranslation. Neutral now. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the target title as well. NoonIcarus can you provide a source for "Revindicating Revolution", or how is the target title more common than the redirect title? The reason this matters at this RfD is because the redirect has an incoming link from Venezuelan civil wars#Claiming Revolution. Deleting the redirect would involve changing the section title to the target title. That section has no mention of the English name nor the local name. Jay 💬 08:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: If I recall correctly, I confirmed the name before moving the article with encyclopedia.com's entry on Francisco Linares Alcántara ([2]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried looking for other online sources that discuss 19st century Venezuelan history, to no avail. It should also be mentioned that the Venezuelan civil wars article was created just minutes before the Revindicating Revolution article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    encyclopedia.com is an aggregator, and it appears the entry is from Cengage, which I guess is fine. If you remove the incoming links of the redirect, and make the related changes at Venezuelan civil wars, the close can be done faster. Jay 💬 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is no popular English name for this in English sources, and if Spanish native speakers think this is not a better translation than "Revindicating", then Delete. Jay 💬 05:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2023 South Korean music awards[edit]

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 💬 18:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All are music awards that would be held in January 2023 except 2023 Mnet Asian Music Awards which would be held in Q4 2023 in which the 2022 edition is also not even held yet as of this RfD filing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. As far as I can tell we currently have no content about any of these events on Wikipedia. The redirects can be recreated if/when that changes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Color Line (SF Muni) Ambiguous/Unused names[edit]

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 14:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the deluge of these bundled transit related noms, the Muni light rail lines are not referred to by color and in the case of a few of these, they could be confusing with other lines that are referred to by color in the same area (e.g. Blue Line (VTA) or Blue Line (BART)). TartarTorte 14:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Salazar Colleges of Science And Institute of technology[edit]

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 23:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. It really was a typo to begin with and clearly failed Wikipedia:Article titles. Santiago Claudio (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the redir has incoming links. Cabayi (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a declined G7 which is now eligible with no incoming links. Jay 💬 09:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. CycloneYoris talk! 18:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Бублик[edit]

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 Bublik. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the primary topic for the English spelling is considered the bread and both have the same affinity to the relevant Slavic languages, targeting this to that article too seems more appropriate. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bublik: Per nom and for the purposes of consistency. It's confusing if Bublik is the bread but the cyrillic for Bublik is the surname. There's no greater affinity for the surname in cyrillic to the bread, so we should go with the WP:PTOPIC. TartarTorte 12:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Extant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Template:Extant

GWR 1501 Class[edit]

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 GWR 645 Class. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to GWR 645 Class. GWR locomotive numbers were a long way from reaching no. 1501 during Gooch's term of office as Locomotive Engineer (1837-64), they had just about reached no. 350 by the time that Gooch resigned. The number 1501 was first used in 1878 when William Dean was in office (1877-1902), and no. 1501 was only used twice - one was a 645 Class loco, the other was of the GWR 1500 Class. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This could have been boldly retargeted. @Redrose64: were you expecting any opposition? Jay 💬 13:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Apocalypse[edit]

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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Last time I brought this up the template was restored from a redirect, fine, but the problem of "Apocalypse (character)" not being the main topic of Apocalypse remains. I have moved the comic characters template to Template:Apocalypse (X-Men), and changed it on the articles where it has been placed. ★Trekker (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you mean to nominate the talk page redirect or the actual template? While Template:Apocalypse redirects to Template:Apocalypse (X-Men), the talk page should either redirect to the talk page of the target template (as it currently does) or be a talk page for the redirect (which it will become when the {{old rfd}} template is added to it if this discussion closes as something other than delete). Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @StarTrekker: If you think that a certain template should be moved to a new name, you should use the WP:Requested moves process, not RfD. RfD is to discuss whether or not a certain redirect page should exist, and if yes, where to target. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the nominator made some mistake tagging the pages, but if the nominator actually wants to discuss about the "Template talk" page, I'd say keep as it is consistent with the main template's target. Per clarification below. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf and CX Zoom: The redirect, I want the redirect gone. I did not tag anything manualy, so not sure how something went wrong with the talk pages.★Trekker (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @StarTrekker which redirect do you want to delete - Template:Apocalypse or Template talk:Apocalypse? Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both, the talk page is just a leftover from the move. The comics character is not the main topic of Apocalypse.★Trekker (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apocalypse (disambiguation) can mean a lot of things and not just a comic character. On mainspace, the Apocalypse means something different. With no clear primary topic, I thought of deleting it as per nomination, but it would then start showing redlinks when viewing old revisions of an article with {{Apocalypse}} transcluded on it. I'm not sure if deletion is worth the hassle here. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because subject of discussion was not clear until a day in and there have been no arguments made for keeping or deleting other than from nominator but there has been discussion making it inappropriate for a soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 19:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per Tavix. I was unaware of this option in template space, but this is a good solution. This could also probably include {{Global catastrophic risks}} mentioned the previous RfD linked above in a "See also" section. -2pou (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a template dab below the redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 03:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 1#Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas

The midterm effect[edit]

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. There appears to be a consensus that there should be an article about the "Midterm effect", but until it exists, there's no consensus on where the redirect should point to. Legoktm (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar search results for "midterm effect" "election" (without election the results are primarily medical) return papers about myriad different impacts of midterm elections, not just the six-year itch in the US. While the trend for US incumbents to fair worse during midterms is noted in this literature, it's identified with all midterm elections, not just the 6th-year midterm. Another consistent usage of this phrase is in papers about macroeconomic trends during election years, a completely separate phenomenon ([3] [4]). Articles on these various effects could likely be written, but until such time deletion seems more appropriate than this redirect to a narrow interpretation of the phrase. signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first impression when reading the nomination is that this is where we should have a broad concept article or dab giving an overview of the various midterm effects in US politics (everything else I'm finding is effects that happen to occur around the midterm of some thing, rather than a specific thing; and if there is any usage of the term in the politics of other countries it's completely drowned out by the USA). Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator) - Regardless of which term is more common, the six-year itch is really just a specific form of the "midterm effect". While the article's lead section is primarily about losses in a president's second midterm, it later discusses the more general trend of losing midterms in the second section ("Comparison with other midterms") and points out that the effect is almost just as pronounced in a president's first midterm as their second. The term "midterm effect" has also been used by a number of notable outlets, including:
  • Bowdoin College - "In the United States, midterms go poorly for the party controlling the White House. In the volatile and ever-changing world of politics, this tendency has been described as an “inevitability rivaling death and taxes.” This phenomenon is known as “the midterm effect” or “midterm decline”." [6]
  • National Conference of State Legislatures - "Seems likely, given the midterm effect. This will be the 30th midterm since 1902, and in 27 of the 29 previous ones the president’s party suffered an average loss of 412 state legislative seats." [7]
  • Carnegie Mellon - "the paper discusses the five most prominent explanations for the midterm effect, an empirical regularity of US Congressional elections in which the president’s party tends to perform poorly" [8]
The term is well defined enough in political discussion that if a person searches for "midterm effect", they're almost certainly going to be looking for this article, which makes it useful as a redirect.
--Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 17:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the additional edits made since the nomination, I think the current target is adequate, although we could probably still manage a full-fledged article on the topic. signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The midterm effect is a real topic but I don't think Six-year itch is a good target. Either the mid-term effect should become a full fledged article or the Six-year itch should become a subtopic under midterm effect article as all 6th years are mid-terms, but all mid-terms are not 6th years. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to United States midterm election. The current target is too narrow. (I thought about suggesting a retarget to Midterm election, but some online searching suggests the term midterm effect is mainly used for US elections.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, the midterm page barely mentions the trend of losing seats (just a very short snippet in the lead), so the existing target is a closer match. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 07:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikamander2: The United States midterm election article discusses the midterm effect in the "Historical record of midterm" section. It can also be expanded. That would be better than targeting an article that's about a different effect, significantly more narrow and less well-known than the midterm effect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Two more films[edit]

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 💬 09:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects' targets were moved to their current titles (in the latter's case, over to Arkar (film director) and then to the current title slightly later) over a year after a similar discussion with this misspelling in the disambiguator took place. These may need to be deleted as well. Regards, SONIC678 05:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The issue here is that the disambiguator misspells "film" as "flim" (I had to read the nomination a couple of times before I spotted that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous nomination. Though it does seem like a harmless (and barely noticeable) typo. I suppose keeping them might encourage other editors to create more of these, so best to delete. CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Diffabled[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Diffabled

Литва́[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Литва́

Biblija[edit]

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 💬 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is "Bible" in Serbo-Croatian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary to redirect every possible transliteration. This is not the only one created by this user. MB 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no particular affinity for Serbo-Croatian or Bosnian (the word is the same in both languages) and the bible. We do have Bible translations into Slavic languages#Bosnian, but the mention there is a partial title match for the name of a non-notable group so not suitable to anchor a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no significant connection between the Bible and Serbo-Croatian. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Birds flying high, You know how I Feel[edit]

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. And the proper-cased redirect created. Jay 💬 09:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The miscapitalization of two words makes this implausible. I would have no objection to a correctly-capitalized Birds flying high, you know how I feel, although targeted to the full article, not just the Bublé section. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also I can see keeping all of these oddly created redirects becoming a nuisance for content creation when you're just trying to find the right page in the visual editor. originalmesstalk 08:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't sound like a noteworthy lyric to use as a redirect. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As oddly capitalized. I do think that Birds flying high, you know how I feel as targeting to Feeling Good (with {{R from lyric}}) as suggested by nom should be created upon deletion of this, as it is, at least in my view, a pretty well known line from the song. TartarTorte 13:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Morbius (Film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Morbius (Film)

Color Line (Name of Line) NJT/MNRR[edit]

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 💬 09:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More weird naming of things with the color of the line then the name of the line in parentheses, but this time with NJTransit TartarTorte 00:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for these; they won't be linked to not searched for. (Also the incorrect description of the Pascack Valley Line as Metro-North when they only own three stations and the rest of the stations and entirety of the line are NJ Transit is a pet peeve of mine, but I digress). oknazevad (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unhelpful and implausible search terms. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with previous nonsense creations by this nominator. eviolite (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_6&oldid=1114537234"