Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• T***p → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears implausible - aside from the missing letter, I'm not seeing evidence that Trump's name is frequently bowdlerized in this fashion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I am unsure why anyone would look for this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any missing letter, but I agree with the nominator, no one censors Donald Trump's name this way. This redirect is completely useless. JIP | Talk 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I apparently need to work on my mental spelling; struck that part. Hog Farm _Talk 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from other topics listed at Trump, we can also have oodles of topics named Tharp, Thesp, Thrip, Thump, Tramp, Tromp, Troop, Tulip, Twerp, and possibly others. No reason to suspect that any of these is censored as t***p, like the redirect F**k. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. —AFreshStart (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I won't contest this RfD, but this is one of the most common ways people use to avoid mentioning Trump as "he who must not be named" (search that one + trump). Colbert uses it[1] and has effectively banned the real name on his show. He is also referred to as TFG/The Former Guy. That one would be a better redirect as there are plenty of RS for it. IIRC, Biden started that one. -- Valjean (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Retarget to List of nicknames of presidents of the United States#Donald Trump if there are sources indicating its use towards Trump. Bonoahx (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obviously not useful. PackMecEng (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete literally no one is going to use this and if they do they that's their problem to fix, not Wikipedias. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and trout This is not a good use of the redirect facility, and sets a bad precedent for other abusive redirects. What next, B***n? -- The Anome (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cue obvious pun on "bad precedent" and Trump. JIP | Talk 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Beyond useless.LM2000 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stephen Colbert uses T**** (but not T***p) on The Late Show in text to refer to Trump (see 1). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"T****" may be an appropriate redirect to Donald Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:3C73:6E2:5974:634A (talk) 03:36, 23 January 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.

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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaelic nationalism → Irish nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Gaelic nationalist → Irish nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Scottish Gaelic nationalism → Scottish nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, ambiguous. Schleiz (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, the first two are ambiguous and the latter does not really exist, or at least is not covered at the target article. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 18 January 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.

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. wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 24 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]

  • Template:Bare URL PDF is transcluded on well over a thousand pages. Excluding that: ""bare URL" -hastemplate:"bare URL PDF" -hastemplate:"bare URL inline" -incategory:"CS1 errors: bare URL" – wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a potentially confusing cross-namespace redirect. In general we should avoid redirecting from mainspace to non-reader-oriented projectspace pages. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the main space and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. -- The Anome (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For what it's worth, at the present time, the word "bare" is nowhere in the article URL. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 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.

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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle of Kufa → Revolt of Zayd ibn Ali  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created as the result of a move-dispute for what is now the target, (see Talk:Revolt of Zayd ibn Ali). Searching on Google Scholar, the only match for "Battle of Kufa" refers to a battle in 2003 [2], but we don't appear to have any coverage of this incident on Wikipedia. Delete unless evidence of a Battle of Kufa during the Revolt of Zayd ibn Ali can be found in an RS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion - please also note that the page was moved to this in the first place by General Qamar Javed Bajwa, a suspected sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 19 January 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Public worship → Church service  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to prayer services for any religion, not necessarily Christianity. To my surprise, we don't have an article for Prayer service or Public prayer, and the article on Prayer doesn't directly address public worship as a specific kind of worship. I think that deletion to encourage article creation is appropriate here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this for specific use on Gilbert Wakefield, where [[public worship]] could indeed be replaced by [[public worship (Christianity)|public worship]] if the comment is considered to have weight. So move to "public worship (Christianity)" if you want. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't imagine what a new article would look like, or that it would be very helpful. Maybe a disam page to Ritual, Church service, Darshan, Puja (Hinduism), Puja (Buddhism) and others would be best. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't keep; the current target is way too narrow per the nominator's reasoning. Deletion seems reasonable. I think the topic is too general for a set index article, but I'm open to changing my mind. A broad-concept article seems like the best option to me, if someone wants to take the time to write one. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can easily be incorporated elsewhere within an article on prayer or faith or specific religions. Don't salt. Allow for future redirects. Buffs (talk) 16:33, 21 January 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Heanor (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Greenland of the Kingdom of Denmark → Greenland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

nobody will look for Greenland with such a prompt. Heanor (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unambiguous, harmless. Possibly useful in linking. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mdewman6. Someone searching this will be taken to what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 03:19, 19 January 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Heanor (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Greenland (Denmark) → Greenland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no disambiguating word needed. Heanor (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{r from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects are a standard thing, with no good reason to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to User:Pppery's point, this exact phrase often shows up as a label on world maps, so it's a plausible search term. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 17 January 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.

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 14:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• November Manifesto → October Manifesto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

November Manifesto was created as a redirect to October Manifesto fifteen years ago and has not changed since then. Looking at the Finnish articles fi:Marraskuun manifesti and fi:Lokakuun manifesti they seem to be completely separate things and redirecting one to the other only serves to confuse. In my opinion the redirect should be deleted. JIP | Talk 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 13:23, 18 January 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.

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 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ui → Template:Reply to  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think the Ui is a good shortcut for this template. since I can't imagine what UI is shorthand for, it should be removed. Q28 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a justification can be provided. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More stuff = more confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only templates this would be a plausible shortcut to are template:User invitation or template:User interfaces, and the latter does not need a shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 20 January 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.

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 Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Delete proposal was not late. Five days without response is a response in itself. Clear consensus to retarget. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:17, 17 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the late deletion proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator. Clearly a better redirect target. JIP | Talk 15:02, 17 January 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.

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 Suez (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SUEZ → Suez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For 12 years pointed to Suez (company), which at the time referred to the article now at Suez (company, 1997–2008). In January 2020, 62.219.246.254 retargeted it to Suez without explanation. (All 10 backlinks seem to refer to one of the companies.) Both companies known as Suez have sometimes rendered their names in all-caps, while to my knowledge the city in Egypt is never rendered that way. Thus I think that WP:DIFFCAPS applies and we should retarget to Suez (disambiguation)#Other uses, as an avoided double redirect of Suez (company). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• RETARGET to the disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  65, just to clarify, is that to the whole DAB page, or (as proposed) to the "Other uses" section? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To the whole dab page, without refinement -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom Bonoahx (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Suez (disambiguation). The disambiguation page is pretty short; I think there's no need to redirect to a specific section. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Suez (disambiguation) (no section). I don't see any use under #Other uses which would specifically be referred to in all uppercase. A7V2 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A7V2: Both companies' names are/were sometimes rendered in uppercase. See Special:WhatLinksHere/SUEZ for examples where editors have rendered their names that way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But those links should probably be disambiguated anyway. I think given the short length of the disambiguation page, even if those companies were referred to in all caps, it won't make much of a difference. A7V2 (talk) 09:47, 20 January 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.

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 Patrick Sylvestre. Consensus to retarget was reached immediately after relist. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Patrick sylvestre → May 15 Incident  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentionned in the target. The redirect was blanked with the edit summary "Removed fake redirect created by Ghost In The Shell fanboys". Sylvestre's name appears in List of Ghost in the Shell characters so the redirect could be re-targeted but I'd be ok with simply deleting the redirect since he seems like a very very minor character. Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 9 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, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Patrick Sylvestre for potential miscap --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Lenticel—noting that there's a hatnote from there to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex § Season 2 (through redirect Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG), but that target doesn't mention Sylvestre either, so perhaps the hatnote should be removed too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Patrick Sylvestre per Lenticel and Tamzin. We don't want to WP:ASTONISH people with the capitalizations leading to two different places. 71.218.133.127 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious retarget to Patrick Sylvestre. The footballer, of course, has nothing to do with the May 15 Incident as he wasn't even born at the time, but that doesn't matter. There are no incoming links to the redirect about the May 15 Incident anyway. The redirect should avoid astonishing people per the IP user above. JIP | Talk 15:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Patrick Sylvestre * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Patrick Sylvestre per above. I know nothing about Ghost in the Shell but it seems like it's referencing the May 15 Incident in a fictional context, so even if the name wasn't a notable person it wouldn't make sense. Bonoahx (talk) 18:15, 17 January 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.

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. While there were suggestions for retarget, there was no agreement on a single target, and there was opposition as well. The disambiguation votes did not suggest how to disambiguate it. Jay (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Country accent → Southern American English  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Internet and GScholar results suggest that this term is generally used to refer to rural dialects in general (including/especially rural dialects outside of the US). While there is a phenomenon of non-Southern singers adopting some South-coded dialectic patterns, this is a more complex phenomenon than Southern American English simple being the "country accent" (see [3], [4]). Given the broad usage of the term and the lack of an article dedicated to the "country music accent", deletion seems like the appropriate way to go, rather than turning this into a useless pointer to Regional accent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DAB ["Country accent" may refer to:] It would seem to hurt the reader more-so if they came upon a red-link than a possibly (?) helpful DAB page. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would be no redlinks since this redirect has no links to it. And there's nothing to disambiguate: there are no articles that might otherwise be titled "Country accent". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment most of the uses I'm seeing for things other than a southern US accent are partial title matches, e.g. for "West Country accent", or "Black Country accent". However it's not implausible that this is an artefact of my search history/geolocation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate I second Rosguill; an outright deletion is unhelpful because "country accent" is a viable search term and is commonly used in daily speech. Though (where I am living) people often take "country accent" for "Southern accent" in daily speech, "country accent" could mean different things depending on geographic location. Ippantekina (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ippantekina: But Rosguill is actually supporting deletion. So I'm not sure which editor you're referring to? CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is too ambiguous to be useful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Rural accent? Specific regional accent? National accent? Could be any of these. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Regional accents of English-- Aervanath (talk) 20:11, 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! 01:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too ambiguous and rural accents/dialects exist outside of the United States. Country accents also exist in other languages, and this has the potential to imply that it's only a phenomenon in English-speaking countries. Bonoahx (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: too vague. Veverve (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Regional accents of English. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Accent (sociolinguistics), the general article. I don't see how anythng else is possible. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think a disambiguate page may be warranted here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others above. Unnecessary and vague. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 25 January 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.