Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10: Difference between revisions

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2022.

• Kennebunk Pier Light → List of lighthouses in Maine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created after a deletion discussion regarding a closely related article, this is not mentioned at target. It does not appear to refer to a current lighthouse, which is what the current target is about, and there is no other content on WP to target, so deletion is in order. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 4.5 → .177 caliber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest retargeting to 4½. This is too ambiguous to assume the user means 4.5 mm and is seeking the corresponding caliber diameter in inches. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 4½ is an article about a musical release, with no hatnotes. I'm not anything else obvious that would merit even a dabmention for either 4.5 or 4½. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add hatnotes to each aricle to redirect to the other. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without "mm" this is vague and/or ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Treat this as the 4-5 4/5 4x5 etc base name topic disambiguator page and list them here. Since typographic convention and personal style are different in different regions, there are several things that could be indicated. Start with these two indicated topics and merge in 4/5 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and treat as unambiguous long-standing redirect, because no alternate suitable targets have been suggested. 4½ is a musical release per Thryduulf. I'm not convinced with IP65's 4-5 4/5 4x5 argument, unless if we have other redirects of the form Day.Month that target to Day/Month. This is different from the case of 9.11 for example, which redirects to a famous event (not a month and day) article. Jay (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without a unit, "4.5" is not unambiguous by any means. I do however see it as a very plausible search term for 4½. That this article is about music and not a number or measurement or something else is irrelevant. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it irrelevant, when 4.5 leading to a music article will be surprising? Jay (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be WP:R#ASTONISHed if I searched "4.5" and reached 4½, even if it weren't what I was seeking. In contrast, if I searched "4.5" and meant anything besides 4.5 mm, I would be astonished to have reached .177 caliber. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone searching for 4½ may enter 4.5 as the former is hard to type. In this respect I would suggest disambiguate (rather than hatnote which may confuse) with the two entries of the current and proposed targets. Jay (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 4½ as an easier to type alternative or delete as vague due to a lack of units. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 4½. Per Mdewman6 arriving there is the least surprising option for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Abolitionism (prostitution) → International Abolitionist Federation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this should redirect here, as there are a number of other groups, some modern, that oppose prostitution / sex work and use the term 'abolitionism' to refer to their activities. AFreshStart (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Prostitution law#Abolitionism would be a better target. --John B123 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Prostitution law#Abolitionism. Veverve (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ln(2 → Natural logarithm of 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect due to an unclosed parenthesis, only 57 pageviews. 174.204.196.31 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Net carbs → Atkins diet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Net carb → Atkins diet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Net carbohydrates → Atkins diet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Net carbohydrate → Atkins diet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm honestly not entirely sure where this should redirect to because I am not particularly well versed in dieting, but net carbs is not even mentioned at Atkins diet and it confused me when I was trying to find out what the concept meant. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 02:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment added Net carb, Net carbohydrates, and Net carbohydrate. Currently we have no article which defines this term; if we can agree on a target where it would be worthwhile to add a definition, this might be useful as a source: McCleary, Barry V; McLoughlin, Ciara (2021). "Measurement of Available Carbohydrates in Cereal and Cereal Products, Dairy Products, Vegetables, Fruit, and Related Food Products and Animal Feeds". Journal of AOAC International. 104 (6): 1465–1478. doi:10.1093/jaoacint/qsab019. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify, seems like it could have a stub article on its own, so it's no longer tied to a specific diet. [1] but the neologism seems to have its origins in Atkins [2] so if it is mentioned there you can keep as is. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like stubify personally. That seems to make sense. What page do you think should be the actual stub? I would advocate for Net carb per WP:UCRN and have the other three redirect. snood1205 14:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snood1205, I would say net carb would be the most common term. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The terms only appears in one article, net carbohydrates, search result or net carbs, search result. The searches suggest a redirect to Western pattern diet. I could support WP:STUBIFYing , or adding something on net carbs to Western pattern diet. —¿philoserf? (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify at Net carb per Angus et al. Retarget the rest to the newly created stub. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now to WP:REDLINK it. While it would be nice to have a stub at the title, it's asking too much of a closer to stubify an article without having a draft ready to go. It's also not mentioned at Western pattern diet, so a retarget there would be just as confusing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Tavix notes it would be good if someone could actually draft a stub here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Characters (Wing Commander) → Wing Commander (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - Clearly malformed disambiguation that is an implausible search term. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but not per the nominator - as this is a very plausible search term, with appropriate disambiguation, for a list of characters from Wing Commander. The only problem is that we don't have any such list - we did have, at List of Wing Commander characters, but that was replaced with a redirect in 2017 and the redirect deleted in 2020 - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#List of Wing Commander characters (although had I seen that nomination I would have recommended reverting to the list and sending it to AfD given it existed to due consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Marshall and the redirection was never discussed that I've found). Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gladius fighter → Wing Commander (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as overly vague redirect that is not mentioned in the target article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert per BLAR. Most of the google hits for this exact term relate to Star Citizen or Renegade Legion which both seem to be unrelated to the Wing Commander franchise (and each other) and the term is not mentioned in either of those articles. However prior to redirection this was a very short stub article, which should be sent to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The original stub article is pretty obvious, unsourced, WP:OR fancruft. Sending it to AfD would be a technicality that would result in a SNOW delete. I think it's pointless and not worth doing. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  RfD does not and should not delete article content. The way to avoid technicalities like this it to do a proper WP:BEFORE and nominate the page at AfD first rather than waste time at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been chastized at AfD for doing literally that. However, be my guest to do what you are suggesting. I will gladly withdraw this RfD and vote delete at the AfD. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a "gladius fighter" could refer to a fighter armed with a gladius (like similar knife fighter, spear fighter, sword fighter, etc), ie. several Roman gladiator types or a Roman legionnaire -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Catalog of CSS classes → Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a cross-namespace redirect to a very backwater project space page (an attempt to catalogue and describe all the CSS classes used on Wikipedia) that definitely is not something readers or very new editors are in need of easy access to. I don't know if this is a plausible encycloapedic redirect (that CSS class redirects to CSS#Selection suggests maybe not, but I don't know enough about the subject), but if it is then I'd prefer retargetting over deletion. The equivalent page with British English spelling has never existed in the article namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget: either deletion, or retargeting to an article in the main space; in any case, the main space and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think it's a plausible intra-mainspace redirect; if it were, I would expect it to point to a "List of CSS classes", but, knowing CSS, I don't think trying to have such a list would make sense, because each website makes up whatever CSS classes it wants; it would be like trying to have a "List of templates used in MediaWiki wikis", but many times worse. —2d37 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR to editor content unrelated to readership material. This is not about CSS classes outside of Wikipedia -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD:T → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. There is no need for a pseusdo namespace shortcut to a project-space page of this nature - firstly new editors wont know to search on a term like this and will be interested in a specific AfD discussion (that may or may not have been nomianted today) rather than the log of the entire day's nominations. Experienced editors can access the same target by using WP:AFD/T or about 15 other alternative shortcut redirects. I've tried to see how well used this is or isn't, but the pageviews tool is not loading for me currently. The editor who created the redirect retired in 2020, and the only incoming link is from a 2018 database dump extract in my userspace, which will definitely not be harmed by this deletion in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AFTUJ2018 → Wikipedia:Meetup/Japan/ArtAndFeminism2018  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. There is no need for a mainspace redirect to a list of editathons from four years ago, especially one with a cyrptic acronym that I guess relates only to the first event (Art and Feminism editathon at Temple University, Japan, 2018). The page has history as Louise000's sandbox, so an alternative to deletion would be to move it back to their userspace (without leaving a redirect) if they desire. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hi there, these pages are related to my username, I'm not totally sure why there is a mainspace page with this title but I agree it's fine to delete. Apologies if I or someone on our project put this up in error.Louise000 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bare URL → Wikipedia:Bare URLs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a cross namespace redirect to a Wikipedia information page that might be useful for new editors who haven't learned about namespaces yet, but also I think it's a title that possibly has broader uses. At various times in it's history this has pointed to the URL article, but Clean URL and HTML element#Anchor are also possibilities, although none of them use the term. I haven't been able to determine whether there are any encyclopaedic uses of the exact term on Wikipedia as the search engine results include all the instances of the maintenance tag. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking to add the template {{R with possibilities}} to the redirect? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there is scope for an article about this topic. I'm asking what the best target for the redirect is, or if indeed there is a good target for it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Limited relevance: I think the reason why "bare" URLs are only mentioned in WP:BAREURLS, WP:PLRT, WP:REFILL, and cleanup templates, is because it's a topic not relevant to a broader scope. It would only be relevant to Wiki-type pages and similar projects, that rely on citations and references. I'm not saying that someone couldn't write an article or another essay that mentions them, but it is unlikely. The redirect appears to exist solely for navigation and typos; there is currently no better target that I can see. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean URL does actually mention the term (Slugs are typically generated automatically from a page title but can also be entered or altered manually, so that while the page title remains designed for display and human readability, its slug may be optimized for brevity or for consumption by search engines, as well as providing recipients of a shared bare URL with the rough idea of the page's topic). But that's a trivial mention that probably doesn't merit a redirect there and I didn't find any other articles that do, although I did find a lot of articles with references in need of fixing, which I fixed. (I did a search for ""bare URL" -hastemplate:"bare URL inline" -incategory:"CS1 errors: bare URL" to exclude most maintenance results). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery, I didn't know about those operators (hastemplate, incategory), so I've learned something useful today. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a "bare URL" is a URL shorn of tracking data, so not the meaning found in the target. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE WP:XNR and misleading target; target is not reader content, since it is meant for editors -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Article probation → Wikipedia:General sanctions#Types of sanctions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Article probation is a long-obsolete predecessor of discretionary sanctions that according to the target that had been fully supeceded by 2018 (my memory says it was fully obsolete by the time I was on the arbitration committee in 2015) so there is no longer any benefit to a cross-namespace redirect about it. This is not the sort of thing that anyone will learn about until long after they've become aware of namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's hard to think of a term that someone is less likely to know while also not knowing what namespaces are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR to editorship content unrelated to readership content, or the concept of probation for articles, such as found at publications for some of their authorship, columnists -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AgSocial → wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Making Agriculture Social: Filling in gaps of agricultural wikipedia editing in the time of social distancing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, while the may or may not have been any need for very new editors to find out about this event without needing to learn about namespaces there certainly isn't 21 months afterwards, so this cross-namespace shortcut can go. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this was created to make finding the event page easier - apologies. Jamie-NAL (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SchoolsWP → Wikipedia:Wikipedia for Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. There is no need for a shortcut-style redirect to this page to live in the article namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, styled like an abbreviation. --Bsherr (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia-DVD → Wikipedia:Wikipedia for Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia CD Selection → Wikipedia:Wikipedia for Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection → Wikipedia:Wikipedia for Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia for Schools → Wikipedia:Wikipedia for Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia Selection for Schools → Wikipedia:Wikipedia for Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget. The target is a former article about a non-notable, now apparently defunct (last updated 2013) project that was moved to the Wikipedia namespace following a 2016 AfD. This is not the sort of page where there is a need for those unaware of namespaces to easily find it, however there is brief mention at Wikipedia#Methods of access, so I suggest retargetting there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm proposing to retarget these to a mainspace page, which will resolve the issue you mention. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nom. Veverve (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• REtarget the CD and DVD redirects to the proposed target, since it occurs there; and there was WP:0.5, WP:1.0 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. As proposed, I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Armenians in Bosnia and Herzegovina → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Not mentioned on the target page, nor at Armenian population by country. Geschichte (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Armenian Peruvians → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Armenians in Peru → Armenian diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Not mentioned on the target page, nor at Armenian population by country. Geschichte (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tooth fairy agnostic → Russell's teapot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-noteworthy phrase. Means an agnostic who thinks God is as likely as the tooth fairy. Not mentioned in the target article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEO and not mentioned. The neologism could be interpolated indefinitely; Santa agnostic, easter bunny agnostic, wood elf agnostic... Geschichte (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not mentioned. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BUGREPORT → Wikipedia:Reporting JavaScript errors  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think it should be redirect to Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Q28 (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the retarget to Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Veverve (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, the current target is too narrow for the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support retargeting as this appears to be a more suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests already has shorter full word shortcuts, and I don't see that a new one is needed. --Bsherr (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Custom (in Canon Law) → Custom (Catholic canon law)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Custom (canon law) → Custom (Catholic canon law)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Custom is also part of Eastern Orthodox canon law. The target is not about customs in canon law in general, but only about customs in Catholic canon law. Canon law does not discuss custom at all so a redirect there would be unwise.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Custom (canon law), with hatnote {{redirect|Custom (canon law)|another use|Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church}}. Delete Custom (in Canon Law) for capitalisation errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Christ Lord → Himna kosovskih junaka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Christ God → Himna kosovskih junaka  (talk · links · history · stats)
• Christ our Lord → Himna kosovskih junaka  (talk · links · history · stats)

Those redirects are pure nonsense. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment they're not nonsense or implausible, they're translations of the first line of the poem, which can be read at the target. That having been said, given the many other contexts that this phrase could appear in English, the redirects should probably be deleted regardless. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rosguill. Too vague to be useful. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget #s1&3 to Christ the King, as {{avoided double redirect}}s of Christ the Lord. Delete #2: Not a normal ordering for those words, and too many articles they could point to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rosguill. Veverve (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget/Delete per Tamzin. I actually came to the exact same conclusion before seeing their vote, so I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this way! -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hot war → War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Strikes me as implausible. I think this is a phrase related to "cold war" but it seems unlikely somebody would type this instead of just "war". Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 21:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to Hot War for now as plausible miscap --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (retarget per Lenticel as 2nd choice, 3rd choice soft redirect). Given the existence of Cold War (both as a specific conflict and as a general term) this is an extremely likely search term and as wikt:hot war makes clear the antonym of "cold war" is "war", thus making "hot war" a synonym of "war". A hatnote to Hot War or War should be added as appropriate to wherever this targets. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to cold war (general term) as {{R from antonym}} (I just added a mention there). The overwhelming majority of Google Books and Google News hits are using this phrase in contrast to "cold war"; I don't the film is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by usage for a title with lower-case "war".61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hot War, this is plausible as it is not uncommon not to capitalize words in a search engine. Add hatnote to cold war (general term) at Hot War, which would be a lot better than a hatnote from cold war (general term) to Hot War. (Now, I even got to go to the Hot War page and remove some spam!) Geschichte (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indelible mark → Sacramental character  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The expression is too broad and vague to redirect to such a precise, specific concept of Catholic sacramental law. As you can see here and here, the expression is never used in relation with Catholicism.
I recommend deletion or a soft reditect to "indelible" in the Wiktionary. Veverve (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep arguably the other examples are references to the theological concept (a significant amount of English phrases start that way...) and it is not really a phrase used in common parlance. I've actually never heard the phrase used outside of theological discussions, and while that's anecdotal, I'm typically well read enough and tend to pick up on phrases like this that I think it would have stuck out.
  But lets put it in terms of the reader: if a reader reads 'indelible mark' in a letter to the editor of the New York Times the odds of them searching for it are pretty slim - it doesn't really have a significant enough meaning in those context. If a parishioner has to suffer through a priest giving an overly technical homily on the nature of baptism in Catholic theology... they very likely will be searching for Indelible mark. In context, the most likely use of this as a search term involves sacramental theology. No harm in keeping it as is. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TonyBallioni: the other examples are references to the theological concept (a significant amount of English phrases start that way...) you have not provided any source for this claim. Moreover, even if it came from it, WP does not take into account the origin of words, but their use in contemporary English and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

  Also, the overwhelming majority of the occurences of "indelible mark" one can find on Google books, Google scholar, and Google, have a meaning completely unrelated to Christian theology. Therefore, it hurts the reader to find on WP a concept so remote from the actual use of the expression while searching for it. Veverve (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You took my quote out of context there, but okay. I think the closer will likely know my speaking style enough and read the entire comment to understand that I was pointing out that English tends to draw a lot of its references from religious sources, and the simple existence of non-religious usage that would be unlikely to be searched for does not make a redirect to a religious topic inappropriate. The evolution of language typically isn't extremely well documented, and this is especially the case when religious and secular terms play off one another. I was not making a hard claim, but simply pointing out that we can't assume language develops in a vacuum - it wasn't a hard claim that needs sourcing, but rather a general argument that we should consider the cultural context that languages develop in, which does include religion.

  To your point on usage - you have to think what the reader would search for this phrase for. They are very unlikely to be searching for it in regards to a letter to the editor or a reference in a book on science or the like, since in those cases it is not used for a specific concept, but rather as ordinary language. Within Christian theology, it is used for a specific theological concept that most readers are probably not going to have heard before. Some of them will come to Wikipedia to try to find out more about it. A redirect serves the purpose of helping them find what they're looking for. Making that more difficult doesn't help the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Interstate 390 (Genesee Expressway) → Interstate 390  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unsure what the point of this redirect is, as Genesee Expressway already redirects to Interstate 390, this seems a vanishingly unlikely search term. Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 14:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all 3-digit Interstate numbers are unique. Someone might be clarifying which one, not realizing there is only one I-390. HotdogPi 17:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems like a perfectly harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Interstate 43 (Milwaukee) → Interstate 43  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect for a very unlikely search term, as this is located entirely within Wisconsin. Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 14:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—we don't do city-detail articles on freeways in the US, so it's extremely unlikely that someone would link to, or search for, a section of I-43 in Milwaukee. If someone were searching for I-43, they'll get the suggestion for "Interstate 43" before this redirect anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 16:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of examples of articles on stretches of interstate highways, and the target article contains plenty of detail on the Milwaukee section of the road so the redirect is both plausible and useful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is no good as a disambiguator, the Insterstate is much longer than Milwaukee. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Imzadi. MB 06:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator I originally nominated this as I had misread Milwaukee as Minnesota (don't know how), but after seeing the arguments presented above for deletion, I still think that this should be deleted. Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation piece → Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The long title suggests that the category is supposed to remain redlinked, but apparently it isn't. It should never have been recreated as a redirect, and the page was mistakenly undeleted by a former admin "to remove it from the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories" after it was correctly deleted in 2018. But two other intentionally redlinked categories are also listed there, so the category with the long name should have remained listed there too. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless empty. These category redirects were created solely to prevent these stale "joke" redlinked categories cluttering up Special:WantedCategories (SWC), because after the category was deleted some selfish editors raised a storm about removing the categories from their user pages ... so the only way to avoid them becoming a permanent fixture in SWC is to have the redirects.
  The selfish disruption of those editors who refuse to remove the categories has wasted countless hours of time in numerous discussions, and this CFD just reopens that timesink. Why?
  The two categories which are still listed at SWC were a compromise: leave those two as the last residue of this stale joke, but get all the others out of SWC. Why try to expand the disruption? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally, we would establish consensus to actually enforce WP:USERCAT and forcibly remove users from subcategories of Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages and Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories (off-topic: the later of which is technically G4-able per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 21#Category:Wikipedians by unusual attribute). But that would require a new RfC, since the current statue quo was established at Wikipedia talk:User categories/Archive 1#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories and can't be done here. Slightly less ideally, JPxG would remove themself from this category and render this discussion moot.
  If none of the above happen, then there's no good reason to delete this category, especially since the sole member added it when it was already blue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I added myself to this category because I saw it somewhere and thought it was funny. It seemed a little weird to me that it'd be a blue link (surely the joke works better if it is red). As I recall, there were a few others in the category at the time. Anyway, I don't think it is possible for me to care less about this. If you want to delete it, delete it -- if you want to keep it, keep it. Feel free to remove it from my userpage if it is causing an inconvenience, on the sole condition that you add a different stupid joke to replace it. jp×g 06:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @JPxG: either you couldn't care less, or you will remove it only if replaced by another stupid joke category to re-create the same problem. But not both.

  Which is it? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be fine with something like "a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar, and they both say 'ouch'", but it doesn't make much of a difference to me. My only request is that it not be a political/racial/etc joke, since I prefer my userpage to be a nice place where people can have fun and relax. jp×g 05:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's rather less funny, unfortunately. Benjamin (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from User:JPxG's userpage and delete per discussion above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mx. Granger: Per my comment above, anyone who wants to do this can go to my userpage, replace it with another dumb joke, and then C1 the category themselves (no discussion needed). jp×g 14:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a dumb joke may no longer help, as more users have added themselves to the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the newly added users Benjaminikuta and Graeme Bartlett. Jay (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping! The joke is good, if it's not too much trouble. Benjamin (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care if it is deleted or redirected or left alone. But I only added the entry because of this debate. This kind of deletion debate is a waste of time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This kind of deletion debate is a waste of time because people like you and Benjamin deliberately perpetuate long-stale (this dates back to 2016, maybe even older) jokes. For what it's worth, my opinion still hasn't changed; preferably empty and delete this category (and all its brethren), but if people aren't willing to forcibly empty it then it should be kept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The joke doesn't work unless it's deleted, so delete. However, once it's deleted it will create problems for Special:WantedCategories so replace with Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page‏‎, which is the accepted joke category of this genre. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not super technical, but it seems like it's not really causing a problem currently, and it would be more trouble than it's worth to try to delete it? Benjamin (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you want this category on your userpage in its current state? The category refers to itself as "redlinked", which is a link for a page that does not exist. The fact that this page exists defeats the joke! -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that wouldn't cause problems, then fine, whatever. I mostly just want to be sure we don't mess up user pages. Benjamin (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appropriate and useful use of categories for Wikipedia purposes, namely to send up the oppressive control of user categories by a few who routinely exercise control of categories. Joke, yes, but the purpose of the joke is serious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this were truly an appropriate user category, then it would not have been deleted in 2016. (The guidelines on what user categories are meaningful have not changed meaningfully in the intervening years). All of these keep !votes (other than BrownHairedGirl's or other people using similar arguments to her) are fundamentally relitigating Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 31#Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation_piece using ILIKEIT arguments that would have been rightfully discounted at CfD and should likewise be discounted here. The fact that people are making this argument is disproving the assumption underlying Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, that pages like this one are not navigable categories (respecting the consensus of the deletion discussions) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SmokeyJoe. Entirely appropriate user category, but it works only if it does not exist. No such user (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hot warfare → War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Strikes me as an unlikely search term. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 21:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. While it doesn't get much use, it is a term that is used and it is (per my comments at #Hot war) a synonym of Warfare, which redirects to War. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive one → Ford Motor Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be an old advertising slogan [3] but not mentioned at target. Seems a bit WP:ASTONISHing given it's such a generic phrase, and searching this term without specifying Ford didn't give me anything Ford related in the first few pages. Suggest delete. A7V2 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. My search results are a mixture of various things, OneDrive and a non-notable supercar rental firm in London being the most numerous but not primary (and I don't think it would be a good redirect to OneDrive even if that were primary). Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Be Safe