Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2025.

NFL Jams (Interlude)

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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned in target article. Delete. (also my first time using twinkle) -1ctinus📝🗨 23:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • So why don't you expand the article to mention it? The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", such as the title of the article being translated into a non-English language that is unrelated to the article's subject. The rule is not to delete redirects whose connection to the subject is obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nom has absolutely no obligation to cater and force a mention in, which would have no due weight at the page for the entire NFL. The page that this used to target got PRODed years ago (i.e. NFL Jams (1998 album)) and this only survived a guaranteed G8 through bot magic and double-redir fixes. Contrary to the above message that states "the connection to the subject is obvious", the deleter said in the PROD that there was: "No obvious redirect target since not mentioned". Utopes (talk / cont) 03:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not mentioned at target, making the redirect misleading for anybody who searches the term. I also don't believe there's an appropriate spot to shoehorn in the information. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding a spot, if there was content in general about albums, the compilation album NFL Country could be added to it, and NFL Jams as well, which that article talks about, although it's about the 1996 album, and not the 1998 one that was deleted in the PROD. Jay 💬 06:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pseudopolycythaemia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Created the non-British spelling redirect (feel free to refine if warranted). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, though listed with no explanation at List of diseases (P) and has a Wiktionary entry at wikt:pseudopolycythaemia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4 Pseudopolycythaemia was one of the many redirects I made while trying to cut down on the redlinks in WPMED. I'll tell you why I redirected it. The sources for Pseudopolycythaemia are all very old and it's debatable if it even meets GNG. Here's an explanation of what it is: Recent literature has applied the term "relative polycythemia" to discussions of patients suspected of polycythemia but found to have a normal red cell mass and a smaller than normal plasma volume. The term "pseudopolycythemia" probably is more descriptive of the current view of such patients. [1]. This seems to be an appropriate subtopic of polycythemia.
I'm not super familiar with RFD to be completely honest but what do you propose the page should be instead? Would it be sufficiant to add a bit to polycythemia and keep the redirect? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a mention of this term at the target would resolve my concerns, yes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you do that?
It shouldn't be deleted anyway, because it's neither "novel" nor "obscure", so nobody's going to be shocked to reach that page and not see the exact word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4 I’m a little busy right now but i’ll try to get to it in the next couple of days. in the meantime feel free to add it yourself. I have made a lot of medical redirects so in the future if you stumble upon an odd redirect like this for a medical disease feel free to just reach out on my talk page and i can clear things up and/or add clarification. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Turns out the term was actually already explained in the article just under a different name so I added the synonym in. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Saveminecraft

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Saveminecraft

Linnaeaceae

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 Linnaeoideae as an alternative to deletion and a taxonomic synonym. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This name is used in several different articles on Wikipedia, but there is never a description or definition of this plant family defined at this target. People looking for this title will not be able to receive information about it here without a mention, presumably. There is a mention of "linnaea" at the current target though. The two families seem to be related according to the redirect creation history, but it is unclear if there is a better target out there which talks about this family that can give both merit and a home to the redirect. The "debate about family distinctiveness" does not seem to exist here any longer; no mention of "debate" or "distinct", although subfamilies exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linnaeaceae is a taxon that was raised to the rank of family from the subfamily Linnaeoideae of the family Caprifoliaceae in 1998 (source here), but this change is not accepted by Plants of the World Online and other taxonomic databases, which keep it in Caprifoliaceae. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website also discusses the subfamily Linnaeoideae as part of Caprifoliaceae. The genera of the subfamily are listed at Caprifoliaceae#Taxonomy. If there were an article on the subfamily, then it could be redirected there; as there isn't, the present redirect seems ok to me. However, Caprifoliaceae#Taxonomy could be expanded to discuss the different approaches, rather than just the current Several other families of the more broadly treated Caprifoliaceae s.l. are separated by some but not all authors, in which case redirecting to Caprifoliaceae#Taxonomy would seem appropriate. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closer is supposed to be the person who performs the redirection. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Metropolitan city

I think this should be returned to the previous version, but I would like a second look. I think the previous version was more helpful. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist, now combined with Metropolitan City
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per Furius. The term "metropolitan city" has a specific meaning in the context of Korea or Italy – enough for a redirect if the term weren't ambiguous. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:DYK/PE

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#T:DYK/PE

X Money

Not mentioned at target. A product expected to launch in 2025. Probably too soon. Blethering Scot 20:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping drug

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 Hypnotic. Jay 💬 20:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep medicine seems like a better target to me. Cremastra (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

⚪

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16#⚪︎. LIrala (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems appropriate to me, though Circle symbol is an unusual dab page. Perhaps ⚪︎ should target Circle symbol as well. ⇌ Synpath 04:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Samuel Benjamin Watkins

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Samuel Benjamin Watkins

Shoo in

The mention in the article was removed in June 2012. Shoo-in was deleted in May 2024.

Personal commentary: shoe-in is a very annoying typo that I see quite frequently in Wikipedia discussions. Hopefully deletion will serve as a deterrent for that. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israel bias

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 Criticism of Israel#Claims of bias and disproportionate attention on Israel with a hatnote at the section. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced Anti-Zionism is the correct target here as Anti-Israel bias isn't referenced at the target. Suggesting redirect to Anti-Israeli sentiment disambig for now Criticism of Israel#Claims of bias and disproportionate attention on Israel as the accurate target, and that otherwise this should be a standalone article already as no doubt there is WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. CNC (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget but with a hatnote to the dab somewhere. LIrala (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Doomy

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 Doom. Jay 💬 20:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Doomy" is only mentioned once; I'm not convinced that this is only associated with doom metal. Other forms of doom may apply, or it is vague. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

PolyGram Audiovisuel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this name on the target page. Also appears to be using the French spelling of "audiovisual", making it unlikely to be used much. The English spelling of "audiovisual" is also absent from the target page. – numbermaniac 12:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Paul. Readers are not so stupid as to be confused if they end up at an article with a slightly different name. They'll understand that they're in the right place. Also, specifically to Utopes comment about "looking for information on this French subsidiary", most readers are looking for quite basic information, like "Oh, Wikipedia says PolyGram Audiovisuel actually is part of, or at least somehow related to, PolyGram Filmed Entertainment". They're not necessarily looking for detailed information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Cisphobia

No mention at target. Doesn't seem to be a real thing either (no other uses here on enwiki; nothing serious on google). I suggest either deleting or soft redirecting to wikt:cisphobia. Duckmather (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there is no mention in the target, and it could make readers assume that it is a Wikipedia page/mentioned elsewhere when it is not if they see it linked without clicking on it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", such as the title of the article being translated into a non-English language that is unrelated to the article's subject. The rule is not to delete redirects whose connection to the subject is obvious. In this case, I think the connection is borderline. Adding a sourced statement to Reverse discrimination, and repointing there might be better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i believe readers searching for "cisphobia" would expect info on not vibing with the continued existence of cis people, not just info on cis people consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per nom. Based on template documentation - rather than WP:SRD or WP:POFR where it's not clear when to actually use soft redirects - it appears to fit the four conditions of such a redirect, assuming the bar for "Readers search for it" is quite low, based on only getting around 0.5 views a day. While I'm not opposed to delete here, as there is no scope for an article, nor an appropriate target, etc, I support the idea of redirecting to sister projects generally and believe we should do it whenever appropriate (over deleting that is). Personally I'd also find this soft redirect useless, as I wouldn't find the wikt definition providing any information beyond what I'd already assume about the term. But for others, who haven't even acknowledged the term as cis-phobia (for example), could find it very usefeul per WP:R#KEEP. CNC (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vicariate (Orthodox)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 31#Vicariate (Orthodox)

Alec Ferguson

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Alec Ferguson

For the Kids (2002 album)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#For the Kids (2002 album)

46 Camelopardalis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 20:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "46 camelopardalis" or "54 camelopardalis" exists at the target article. People looking for this particular star would not be able to read about it here.

This marks the 20th redirect that I have nominated here, spanning 17 discussions and ending the streak of my CAT:RAW nominations for today. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

23rdian

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus is that this redirect would not be confusing without a mention given the similarity to the article title. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this topic, nor anything to do with the spelling of "23rdian" exists at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Google shows that this is a common descriptor for people who believe in the 23 conspiracy theory, or are otherwise enthusiasts of the number 23 (because they think it's mystical, weird, or fun). Can't find a reliable source that would enable us to add it to the article, but it seems well attested in use and as a simple navigational aid, this would be the right target. Someone coming across the term "23rdian" and searching to find what it means will be educated, even without a direct mention. The concept of superstitions around the number 23 is nebulous enough that it doesn't really have a fully universal common name that all people who are "in the know" about it would be able to find it, and this is one avenue they could find the article by, especially if they come across the concept on the internet, where "23rdian" gets a bit of use. As such, I don't think we need a mention, and the redirect should stay. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every redirect requires a mention at some point. This is a maintenance category, not a permanent residence. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not every redirect requires a mention. For example, nothing in {{R from typo}} or {{R from error}} is likely to be added to an article, and both are valid types of redirects, because they are navigational aides, just as I'm suggesting this redirect is. If the issue is a maintenance category, than perhaps a separate "R from" category needs to be made for redirects that do not need a mention. Fieari (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The correct spelling is mentioned, in the case of typos. The fixed title is mentioned, in the case of errors. In both of those cases, the modification they are based off of IS mentioned, likely as a modification of the title, and is very much not what I'm referring to.
"rdian" and "_enigma" are totally different terms & topics. That is an absolutely monster blemish if someone screwed up 5 characters in a row. It would be totally inappropriate for me to tag a typo as "not mentioned" when its never expected to be mentioned. Pages with this tag are expected to be mentioned because they are a topic that is wholly unrepresented on the entirety of Wikipedia. And such WHOLLY different topic terms are required to be mentioned to actually substantiate the search term. So yes, it is required here. "23rdian" has no obvious definition anywhere so something needs to exist for this redirect to exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in the .apple discussion, I think it's a good idea to review the contents of the without-mention category, but I have to agree with Fieari here - not all redirects need a mention. Wikipedia isn't a thesaurus, but it should have a robust index - we want all reasonable synonyms for an article title to redirect to that article, but we don't necessarily have to list them all. For instance, most emojis redirect to an article (eg. 🥐 to Croissant) - does this mean every single article that has that form of redirect needs to say something like "There is also a unicode character (🥐) that represents croissants"? To me that would be bloat, even if the redirect is sound. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari is correct: Not every redirect requires a mention. The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", such as the title of the article being translated into a non-English language that is unrelated to the article's subject. The rule is not to delete redirects whose connection to the subject is obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

11 Piscis Austrini

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mention of "11 piscis" or "20 piscis" in the list of stars. Not helpful for people looking for these numbers and not receiving any information directly related to the number they searched for. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

5.1 Music Disc

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mention of "5.1" anywhere within the prose of the Compact disc article. Was seemingly redirected here after an AfD with desire to add material, but with no such material added, this redirect misleads readers with the promise of content it cannot deliver. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told multiple times, by multiple editors, there's no actual requirement for an article to mention the name of every single redirect.
"5.1" means five speakers and one subwoofer. There are also 2.1 and 7.1 setups. A 5.1 disc has the music recorded to support that kind of set up. It's possible that 5.1 surround sound would be a more informative article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The accepted name for these things is apparently DTS Music Disc or Surround Music Disc. It doesn't look like there was enough interest in the product to meet WP:42. I'm not finding sources that would be required to improve Compact Disc or Surround sound. ~Kvng (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I think DTS, Inc.#DTS Digital Surround might be a suitable target if a source can be found to support the addition of at least minimal information (a couple of sentences or so) about the format. Currently, while the section does indicate that the DTS codec could be used on audio CDs, the only direct statement to this effect was removed in Special:Diff/413441186. An article from Billboard magazine mentions "5.1 music disc", though it gives no technical details regarding the format. de:DTS-CD cites an article from c't, though I have not looked at it and do not know if it contains the needed information. PleaseStand (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to DTS, Inc.#DTS Digital Surround. I added the mention there, even though it's just one sentence for now. PleaseStand (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4-OHT

No mention of this alternative name at the target; "OHT" is said nowhere within the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3-Indolepropionate

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 20:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "indolepropionate" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm
Perhaps you should just edit the very first sentence of the article to say “3-Indolepropionic acid, otherwise known as its conjugate base, 3-indolepropionate, …” instead of do something ignorant like this.
I’d suggest staying away from redirects to articles on chemical compounds if you really don’t understand that relationship. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest making technical articles understandable, even to us fools who don't know that "fooate" means the conjugate base of "fooic". jlwoodwa (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seppi333 Can I ask you to tone this comment back? The facepalm plus the word choice comes across as quite condescending, at the least, and certainly not assuming good faith. As someone prone to testy comments myself, I understand you were irate at the time, but now is your opportunity to reconsider. Cremastra (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
K Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2^61-1

This particular prime number does not seem to need a redirect. Tagged as an "r to section" but no such section exists in the redirect. "61-1" is not mentioned at the article for the Mersenne prime, among the many other prime numbers that could possibly exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers. It is indeed a Mersenne prime (one of 52), and is indeed mentioned in the article, but the list is a better target. StAnselm (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @StAnselm:, could you point out to me where "2^61-1" is mentioned in either article? Because I'm not seeing it in the list you linked either. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the 9th Mersenne prime, where p=61. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking for the exact title-match of "2^61-1", which I didn't find at either article. It is generally encouraged to have something related to every redirect someone might use, to ensure that they landed on the right page and aren't stranded by mistake. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Followup: After some inference I do see now where "61" is mentioned, but I'm still not seeing how it becomes a useful redirect even with this fact? I.e. it's not obvious why 2^61-1 would be more important than 2^89-1, or 2^107-1 or any of the others in the sequence. We don't have any dedicated content besides just a list-entry, and nothing on the list besides the value of the number itself. Wikipedia isn't a calculator and these don't seem be useful redirects, if it's just to indicate that "it is on the table of mersenne primes". Utopes (talk / cont) 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is useful because it gets people to the right place. If you read about "2^61-6" on a website, and you search for it here, then you need to end up in the right place. You do not necessarily need to end up in the right place plus with circles and arrows and a paragraph typed on the back to reassure you that you really are in the right place, but you do need to end up in the right place. Therefore keep, and maybe even consider what it would take to get a WP:TBAN to stop you from nominating any more redirects on "not mentioned" grounds, because there is no such rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers as a better target. I agree that both articles do mention it, although not by the exact string, but p=61 or M61 are enough of a signifier to cover this redirect as being mentioned. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Refine to §History, where there's actual discussion of Pervushin's proving this number prime (well prior to the use of computers), although it could use some better sourcing, so it would be a better target than those above. Or I wouldn't be all that opposed to a delete either; despite there actually being a bit to say about the discovery of this number's primeness, this still seems like an unlikely search term. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pageviews analysis shows it's being searched about once a month. StAnselm (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 Minute Silence

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 Two-minute silence. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No such song exists at the target article. In its absence, I say the cats on this redirect are removed and this instead point to Two-minute silence. Interestingly, 2 Minute Silence (Royal British Legion song) is also a redirect that exists, and "2 Minute Silence" is ALSO not mentioned at the page it redirects to, i.e. Royal British Legion. Just something interesting of note, I'd say. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Googling produced info on this charity single Yorke contributed to. I've added the detail to the article, but I'm not convinced this means we should keep the 2 Minute Silence redirect. (In any case, for now, I've edited the redirect to go to the right section of the Thom Yorke article.) Popcornfud (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Two-minute silence, definitely the primary topic here. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Two-minute silence as the primary topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

1N4N3

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 14:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is "inane" in leetspeak. Not mentioned at the target in any capacity. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

1er régiment des éclaireurs de la Garde impériale

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#1er régiment des éclaireurs de la Garde impériale

1 of 1 (Tyga song)

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 Tyga discography. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 23:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of such a song at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to change target to Tyga discography DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

≃

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 31#≃

＃saveminecraft

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#＃saveminecraft

The order of Saint Stanislaus.(re)established in Polen in 1990

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 move without redirect the first one. I chose The order of Saint Stanislaus, which preserves the formatting before the period and discards it and everything after it. Delete the second one. -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of weirdness going on here. The first redirect is a {{R from merge}}, and the second redirect is a misspelling ("esteblished"). The redirects were created as articles by the same editor, but they apparently existed simultaneously with the second redirect being created four days before the first redirect; it seems that they had two versions of the same article existing for about two months. I'm not sure what to do with these redirects; However, as these titles stand as redirects, they are highly unlikely search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

\xnn

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 Hexadecimal#Distinguishing from decimal. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Xnn" is not mentioned at the target article. A version with the preceding backslash is furthermore, not mentioned. People typing this in instead of using the English word of "hexidecimal", are presumably looking for a particular topic that we do not cover at the target. We have the disambiguation page of XNN, and "xnn" is also a stock-ticker. When I looked this up on my (school wifi) I also got some, particular results as well. Nevertheless, a very uncommon and at-the-moment not enlightening redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found an explanation of this syntax. Hexadecimal probably isn't the right target regardless. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

.csnet

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion of the ".csnet" hostname suffix at the target article. This appears to be a separate topic based on the page's history, which is not a topic we cover anywhere on Wikipedia at this point in time. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the "pseudo-domain" suffixes that had some brief use back in an era when all of the wild and wooly varied sorts of computer networks used mostly at academic institutions were getting engulfed and devoured by the newfangled "Internet" (originally ARPAnet) but that process hadn't yet run to completion with everybody using Internet protocols such as TCP/IP and DNS; there were a variety of networks run with different technologies and different policies about who could use them and for what purposes, and some creaky gateways existed that could forward email between the networks if the appropriate arcane syntax was used. At that point, some participating computers had software patched together to recognize address suffixes referring to this or that network as if it were an actual domain ending, so that people could use the syntax that was becoming increasingly familiar at the time. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore keep. The rule at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is to consider deletion if it's not mentioned at the target and it's "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", such as the title of the article being translated into a non-English language that is unrelated to the article's subject. The rule is not to delete redirects whose connection to the subject is obvious. The connection here is obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does not provoke WP:ASTONISH, and provides information on the search term to the user, even if the exact string is not found in the page. If I came across the term .csnet, didn't know what it meant, and was redirected to this page? I would consider myself educated afterwards, even without an express mention. Fieari (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

.CAMP

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No longer a mention of this generic top level domain at the target article. Merged after an AfD but such material has since vanished a decade later. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If content from this page was merged into this, then we can't delete it for legal/license reasons, even if that material has since been removed. We have to maintain the history for every revision in an article, not just the current one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.apple

This begins the full re-assessment of all redirects in CAT:RAW, tagged as not being mentioned at the target page.

A redirect tagged as pointing to an article without a mention, is not a permanent solution for the redirect. Ever since the establishment of this maintenance category in 2013, many titles in this category have sat here unattended for sometimes well over a decade. Most of which have never had a discussion regarding it. Throughout January, February, March and possibly April, I'd like to be reconsidering the pages that are occupying this bloated category, to see which redirects are genuinely something that can be useful, and which have been a misleading trap for 10+ years. If an article is going to be in that category, I feel there should be a discussion -> consensus that it belongs there, and/or that a mention IS something that should be added to the page that it's targeting.

With that, we have ".apple". This top-level domain is not discussed at the target. No mention of "domain" in the article, and the only mention of ".apple" comes from the www website in the references. People looking for information on this domain will not be able to read about it at the page for the general article. Was apparently merged in 2020, but such material no longer seems to be present in the article's current form, as the "Corporate Identity" section has vanished. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While the article does not contain the exact string ".apple", this actually is discussed in the article in the sentence: "According to Theo Hnarakis, chief executive of Melbourne IT, the decision would "allow corporations to better take control of their brands. For example, apple or ipad would take customers right to those products."" It's an exact quote, so we can't really put the dot it, but I think it's pretty clear from context that it is referring to a .apple generic top level domain. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, "generic", "top level", and "domain" are never said anywhere in that quote, and never said anywhere in the entire article for that matter so imo your inference about it being a "clear referral to generic top level domains" is original research.
Luckily, a source would be able to solve the entire issue and we can throw that in the prose, improve the encyclopedia, give generic-top-level-domain searchers a good spot to rest their eyes, and all-in-all actually solve the problem that has now been elucidated at RfD for the first time since its existence as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes, did you propose this plan anywhere? Do you have any reason to believe that other editors actually want to spend hundreds of hours producing written evidence of consensus for each of more than a thousand redirects?
If you just wanted fewer pages in the cat, then I'd suggest sorting the list by subject area and asking the most active WikiProjects to assess smaller, more focused lists. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation does this periodically for links they're not sure how to resolve, and it seems to be quite successful for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RfD as a venue settles more than 10,000 redirects every single year. Do people "want" to be discussing 10,000 redirects every year? In a perfect world, every redirect would be totally amazing right out of the gate, but this venue exists because we're not in a perfect world. Believe me, I don't want to be discussing it either. Luckily, Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project and if someone doesn't want to spend ANY time thinking about redirects, there is no obligation to do so or even visit the page at all. But people do visit the page, because it's an effort to improve the encyclopedia by settling matters about redirects that other editors view to be worth discussion. And in this case, imo ~70% of the pages in that category seem to be worth a discussion. Not something we have to figure out within a single day of course, but spread out over however many months it takes. If not me, somebody else will nominate the exact same titles because this category is a sweet-spot for misleading redirects that nobody else has been willing to find solutions for for over a decade. I've been finding solutions as I scan, but of course some can only be resolved with an RfD discussion in due time. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If RFD does ~10K a year, and you're trying to systematically send ~1K here during the next three months, then you're talking about a 40% increase in RFD's load over the next three months, to produce documentation that AFAICT only you actually want. Maybe chat this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), or at least at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion first?
I doubt that "somebody else will nominate the exact same titles" if you don't, but even if they did, each would happen organically, for a specific reason, and organic, situation-based noms tend to get more informed results. "Yo, I dunno about this and nobody's dealt with it by my WP:DEADLINE" doesn't get the quality of responses that "Hey, I saw this in the news, and it didn't end up where I thought it would". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually bring it up in advance at WT:RFD that I would WP:BOLDly be beginning a process of seeking deletion on a number of problematic redirects (which CAT:RAW titles generally get deleted with little to no hassle). "Not being mentioned at the target" is a fairly default reason for deletion. The number that was suggested was 15-20 a day maximum, which is what I tried for one (1) singular day (January 24th). After which point, I said on WT:RFD "this isn't working out so I'm stopping the daily nominations". You'll notice I have not created any new nominations since then. Totally correct that there is WP:NORUSH to address these redirects, which is why I didn't do it all in one singular day, and intended to spread out the initiative of deleting problematic redirects at a pace that the general RfD body could manage. And every single one has been replied to by now so I'd say RfD did its job with plenty of time to spare. But I'm still ceasing the project as it was, regardless. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Not being mentioned at the target" seems to be a fairly common rationale for deletion, but it's also one that is frequently not supported by WP:RFD#DELETE. I realize that WP:Nobody reads the directions. We teach our standards by the telephone game:
A newcomer sees a couple of editors mention it here or there, and nobody tells them they're wrong, because those editors are actually using it in the specific circumstance recommended by the written rules. But the newcomer doesn't notice the limited circumstance; it's just a deletion rationale that seems to get accepted, so they use it whenever they want to get something deleted.
The next newcomer sees someone frequently giving this rationale, even in cases in which that (new) newcomer believes it should be mentioned. They are inadvertently 'taught' that deleting redirects that are currently unmentioned is something that you ought to do. Perhaps they conceptualize it as a sort of carrot-and-stick system to incentivize article editors to make sure all the redirects are mentioned, just like some editors send unsourced articles about obviously notable topics to AFD, because while it's theoretically true that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, in practice, if you take the article to AFD, someone will either hand you some sources on the proverbial silver platter, or it'll get deleted, and as someone was saying just yesterday, XFD noms have "absolutely zero obligation" to lift a finger to help out with content, even as they're requiring that other volunteers drop everything to explain why the nom is wrong on a set deadline.
The end result is that after a few years, the community can end up with a whole generation of RFD participants whose behavior does not align with the supposed rules.
I agree that there are problems in CAT:RAW. As an example, there are six different spelling/capitalization/pluralization variations on "African Negro" in CAT:RAW right now, and none of them (or at most one of them) should be there. I also think the cat is significantly underused. There are 100x as many in Category:Redirects with possibilities, and IMO the two cats should be close in size.
But I don't think that it's inherently bad for a redirect to be in that cat (assuming it's actually unmentioned and probably should be mentioned).
In terms of review, I have wished for Category:Redirects with possibilities by WikiProject to cover more WikiProjects, and I think that something similar could be done for CAT:RAW as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who You Epp? (Refix)

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.
Nomination withdrawn with explanation from creator and addition to target article. . Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the "Refix" disambiguator means. It's not mentioned at the target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

LGBTQ+ production of family

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This is just very odd phrasing. I might understand having one redirect, but having multiple iterations of this phrasing feels off to me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a natural search phrase, admittedly neither is the article title but I still don't see this redirect being of any use. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of these redirects, I have nothing against them being deleted. But I will say, if they do get deleted, LGBTQ+ Production of Family should probably get deleted as well, since I created these redirects based off the existence of this redirect, since I felt that someone searching it like this would search it with the terms I used for the redirects. If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JeffSpaceman! I've added this one to the RFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moumita Debnath

A RFC decided that name of the victim should be excluded from the article - 2024 Kolkata rape and murder ; However this redirect explicitly contains the name of the victim which leads to the page. Given the conclusion of the RFC, I suggest that this redirect be deleted. The AP (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep as is or delete. The suggestion to retarget is misleading, if anything. If we are going to remove the name from that page it should be removed from the others. It gets where one wants to go so I don't see the problem with it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on this. I would lean towards keeping, because this is a valid redirect even unmentioned. Since Tamzin has clarified that the RFC closure only applies to that article, I would say WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RNEUTRAL apply here, and redirects are meant to aid readers get to the correct article from whatever search term they're using. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is ridiculous that the name is mentioned at other articles with reference to the incident, but cannot be at the incident article itself. If mention continues to be there at the Violence article, but not at the event article, then I would oppose keeping at the current target. We don't want readers trying to discover easter eggs on wikipedia. Jay 💬 11:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about this being an easter egg; this is a redirect from a valid search term (the victim) to the article that best explains what happened to her (the crime). It doesn't need to mention her by name for it to be helpful, and likewise an article that does mention her by name would be less helpful (I plan on removing those references to her in those articles at some point soon if nobody else gets to it first, I don't usually like touching topics like this but if nobody else is going to do it I should). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, actually changing my mind to delete. Not in that it is misleading, but if the BLP issues are so overriding that her name cannot be mentioned whatsoever in article space I don't see why we should not also abide by that in redirect/article titles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mix This!

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, there were unpublished edits to the target article. Published now. synthfiend (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per the above. Not sure if I'm discouraged from personally closing this? Rusalkii (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Allied star

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Allied star

Tauhei

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Tauhei

Discovery Channel Canada

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. No prejudice against starting an WP:RM for Discovery Channel (Canadian TV channel) → Discovery Channel Canada. Jay 💬 17:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On January 1, 2025, Discovery Channel in Canada was rebranded to USA Network by Bell Media. At the same time, a new Discovery Channel was launched, but owned by Rogers Media. Someone recently retargeted this to the new Discovery, but I'm not sure this is a good idea.

Many articles already link to this redirect in the context of the "old" Discovery Channel, particularly when mentioning Mayday (Canadian TV program). So I'm wondering, should this redirect instead stick with the "old" Discovery Channel given its usage? Limmidy (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of critical mineral raw materials

Unnecessary redirect pointing to deleted section of article which is not a list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was retargeted to Critical Raw Materials Act#European lists of critical raw materials while the discussion was open - objections? Or are we good here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korea (Pyongyang)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Korea (Pyongyang)

List of Mario series games

Out of all of the redirects to the target page, my question these two redirects due their inclusion of the word "series" in their titles. in the nutshell, the target page includes games that are not part of the Super Mario game series or the Mario franchise. For these reasons and since these redirects are video game specific, I'm proposing these redirects be retargeted to Super Mario. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete the first one, but actually because of the personification of sex appeal that is wario. not every game in the mario franchise (and its 3 nonillion series) has luigi or that red guy in it, and i think readers would know that considering the positive reception of games like yoshi's woolly world
not actually entirely sure where the second would go, but i'll go with a weak retarget to mario (franchise), as that could include whatever series a reader might be thinking of consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose "retarget to Mario (franchise)" since I suggested Super Mario for a specific reason: Super Mario is the article representing the video game series, whereas Mario (franchise) is specifically for the media franchise based on the video game series ... and there have been quite a few RFD and RM discussions which have occurred over the past decade or so establishing this current setup. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ambivalent but slightly leaning toward retarget per Steel1943. But oppose deletion. "List of Mario series games" is a plausible search term. Super Mario has pretty easy links to the Luigi and Wario series titles as well, so I think the status quo isn't bad but super mario is perhaps a slightly better target. Skynxnex (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Mansion

There's actually a couple things called this, not only Executive Mansion, Monrovia, but also Executive Mansion (Virginia) and a partial title match on the former name for Illinois Governor's Mansion. Suggest disambiguation, and I'm not sure the White House should even be listen on the DAB. Cremastra (u — c) 00:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more input on whether the case difference makes this DAB-worthy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate case difference means this should be a dab with mention of official residence Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20500

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#20500

Halladia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. {{r from former name}} (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble finding any evidence at all that this county is called Halladia, but it definitely isn't anywhere near the primary topic. Rusalkii (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (with Comment/ explanation). I grew up in Halland and I know the region, although I have not lived there for a while. I created redirect from Halladia to Halland County because I discovered that Halladia was the official name in the past and(!) nothing else is listed on Wikipedia as Halladia.
    Thanks for explaining why you created the redirect! I still think that given how infrequently you find this usage compared to other uses of "Halladia", this redirect will mostly be confusing since most people searching won't be looking for the county. Rusalkii (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed a historic usecase, much less relevant today. But what are the other uses of "Halladia"? Modular science (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Google suggests is is sometimes used as a name, is a town in Iraq (source: Daily Mail, so perhaps this is a complete hallucination), a brand of yogurt, a word in a language I can't identify, and a number of other uses.
    I definitely feel less strong about deleting it now that a source for the Halland meaning has been identified, but do still lean that way. Rusalkii (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear, thank you. I think it would be different if there was an object on Wikipedia by the name Halladia. But there isn't one and it is unlikely that the yogurt will be. Until there is one, the redirect makes sense, I think.
    I could find Halabja in Iraq, but not Halladia. I think historic names are meaningful and other Wikipedia articles do have redirects from their old names even when the old names are no longer in use. Anyway, I think that I should leave the decision about keep or delete to you. I can only explain my logic. What does @Shhhnotsoloud: think about the redirect, when the logic is explained? Modular science (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If someone eventually creates articles about the other things that (might) use this name, it can be converted to a WP:DAB page at that future date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Historic, no-longer-used names are perfectly acceptable redirects, and useful to anyone doing primary source research from earlier time periods (what the heck is this thing being mentioned? Oh, now I see!) A mention would be possible given the sources given above, but are not necessarily required for this to be a useful redirect, and if the article curators do not believe that a mention is warranted, the redirect will still provide the useful purpose of identification for anyone stumbling across the term in old texts. Fieari (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Eastern Moldova

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Eastern Moldova

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_24&oldid=1273712833"