Reason: Trivializes an important mental health issue, thus violating
WP:UBCR. While at face value this may seem a reasonable sentiment, it's a stereotype that's often used to dismiss people who self-harm, discouraging them from finding help. Our own article on
self-harm notes: A common belief regarding self-harm is that it is an attention-seeking behaviour; however, in many cases, this is inaccurate.
Reason: Thought Crimes was for a few minutes in 2006 the (incorrect) title for the article now at
Thoughtcrimes. After that article was moved, the redirect was swiftly retargeted to
Thoughtcrime. Since then, however, the movie Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop has come out. Per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, I propose we retarget to
Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop, on the premise that someone using the capital C is more likely to be looking for the movie. The movie article can have a hatnote to Thoughtcrime and Thoughtcrimes.Thought crimes didn't exist till a few minutes ago, but I created it as a companion to this one, as clearly it should exist. Again per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, I've targeted it to
Thoughtcrime, on the premise that someone using the lowercase c is more likely to be looking for the general concept, and thus propose that we keep this target.
Outcome: First retargeted. Second kept due to no consensus.
Reason: The article has only one inline cite (well, really an external link titled "ref"); of the nine references listed, only two seem to be independent reliable sources: BusinessWeek (dead but archived
here and Time (dead but archived
here). Everything else is the sorts of awards that thousands of corporate execs win every year. Independent Googling doesn't establish anything beyond a few more brief write-ups. The article has a pretty solidly promotional tone, largely built around those awards and other touted accomplishments, and I just don't see the
WP:SIGCOV we'd need in order to create a better article.
Reason: CSAI can refer to a number of things other than the Catholic Scout Association in Israel; that article does not actually list it as an acronym in use. Most of the things that CSAI stands for are non-notable companies or products, but one usage comes up in some fairly significant contexts: CSAI as short for child sexual abuse imagery, a less common variant of child sexual abuse material (the latter of which is mentioned in the lede at
Child pornography). Most notably, Google
uses the term in a number of contexts, particularly CSAI Match—a software used by a number of sites—and
in this paper written in collaboration with the
NCMEC. As such, I suggest that we retarget to
Child pornography; a hatnote can be placed there if someone can find RS using "CSAI" for the scouting association.
Reason: Bahl also directed Section 375. While I'm not sure that there's enough about him for this to be a
WP:REDLINK candidate, it's definitely an
WP:XY situation. More generally, I'm not a huge fan of artist → work redirects, outside of
WP:BIO1E cases. I don't think they usually help our readers find what they're looking for. Someone looking for B.A. Pass or Section 375 will presumably search the titles of those movies, not the director's name.
Reason: Well, I know what I'm gonna have stuck in my head for the rest of the day. The correct title of the song,
according to Discogs, is "Campfire Song Song". We don't (yet) have a Campfire Song Song, but we do have a Campfire song song, so I've added that here. [...] Since there's nothing else called the "Campfire Song Song", I don't see any need to disambiguate. Retarget [...] to SpongeBob's Greatest Hits, which the song is featured on.
Reason: Both of these redirects have pointed to
Airplane since their creations (in 2016 and 2017 respectively). A few days ago
User:RobloxFan2021 retargeted the former to
Light aircraft. The Unicode character does indeed appear to be defined as
SMALL AIRPLANE, so I see their reasoning, but I disagree. I don't think that the average person using SMALL AIRPLANE has much sense of the fact that it's "SMALL AIRPLANE", and is more likely just looking for any airplane.See clarification below In fact, on my browser (Chrome on Windows 10), the two redirects show up identically in the URL and in the tab title (but differently in the body of the page). I propose that we re-synchronize to
Airplane.
🛩️, the second page linked here, which currently points to
Airplane, is U+1f6e9 U+fe0f, the latter being
Variation selector 16, which indicates that a symbol should be rendered as an emoji.
In my nomination statement, I incorrectly said that only the latter is "SMALL AIRPLANE". That was incorrect. These are both that symbol, just that the first might be a text symbol or emoji depending on how a browser interprets it, while the latter is supposed to always be an emoji. On that note,
🛩︎ is a valid character (currently a redlink), using selector 15u+fe0e, which indicates that a symbol should always be rendered as text. In other words, Redirect #2 and that redlink are locked-in versions of the two ways that Redirect #1 can be rendered.
I think I'm getting that right, at least. Sorry for the mix-up.
Reason: Was a
WP:FANCRUFTy article for 10 minutes in 2011 before it was redirected (without, AFAICT, any content being merged elsewhere). Not a plausible search term, and pageviews are close to baseline. Doofenshmirtz already redirects to the article, and Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated redirects to the same section as this.
Reason: Similar to the 2 at
§ Deutschlandese Airlines, but a slightly less implausible search term, so listing separately. These three were initially targeted to Lufthansa, but
Rosguill retargeted them to List of airlines of Germany, which is a better target for sure, but I'm not convinced that any of these is a plausible search term. I would expect a mixed-language, title-cased title like any of these to, if it exists, refer to a specific company (or a DAB page of multiple companies). I think the most likely use case of someone searching for one of these terms is that they expect us to have an article with that title, not that they're trying to find a list of German airlines.
Reason: Someone looking for an article on an actor is unlikely to be satisfied by an article on one show that they were in, especially when the search feature can provide a more holistic and dynamic set of possible pages, and especially when the article about the show has minimal content about the actor. (For the [second] redirect, there's the additional rationale of this being an implausible typo.)
Reason: The target article does not refer to anything called a "Fuck scholarship" or that might be referred to as such. The closest is saying Government funding helped finance Fairman's scholarship. The book is an instance of scholarship on the word "fuck", but that doesn't make it a logical target. I suppose this could be retargeted to
fuck, which discusses the academic study of that word, but I don't think "____ scholarship" is a very plausible search term in general, since that term is used more often to refer to
scholarships.Google gives no relevant results for "fuck scholarship", six results (all of them porn) for "fuck scholarship" fairman, and zero for "fuck scholarship" "word taboo". Delete.
Reason: The book was indeed based on a paper, and so Fuck (article) and Fuck (paper) are reasonable {{r from subtopic}}s, but I don't see the non-parenthetically-disambiguated forms as plausible search terms. I'm not sure what someone searching for "Fuck article" or "Fuck paper" is likely to be looking for, but I doubt it's this book.
Reason: Unlike the article/paper nomination below, in this case the disambiguation is at least correct: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is indeed a
monograph. That said, I don't see any reliable sources referring to is such, and there's lots of semi-obscure terms for a work that we could use as disambiguators but don't. Delete, more strongly in the case of the nonstandardly-formatted one.
Outcome: First kept due to no consensus. Second deleted.
Reason: In this case, I'm not nominating the standardly-formatted disambiguation, Fuck (book), since Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties does seem to be the only book listed at
Fuck (disambiguation). Formatted this way, however, I would more expect fuck book to refer to some form of
erotic literature (such as
Tijuana bibles, this page's original target), a
little black book, the album Fuckbook, or
Fuckbook (dating site) (a redlink, and likely to stay that way). Weak retarget to the album Fuckbook, but also can see cases for dabbing or deleting.
Reason: Has barely ever been used, is formatted very strangely, and is not what I expected when I searched for this. Subst and redirect to
Template:DRV links.
Reason: The first two of these were the title of Trevor C. Williams for the first few days of that article's existence, until the creator moved them to the current title. The third, weirdly enough, was for five months the title of Trevor Williams (basketball), now a redirect, which was created by the same person at the same time. 2006 was weird.None of these is a plausible search term. The first gets near-zero pageviews (33 since '15). The second gets a surprising number (381). The third, despite having been an article's title for five months, gets only 130. I think that we should delete the first as implausible, unused, and short lifespan as an article title; (weak) keep the second for pageviews despite implausibility and short lifespan; and delete the third as implausible and unused, despite longer lifespan as an article.
Reason: There is more than one team that each of these could refer to. Retarget football and basketball to Sports in Atlanta, which lists such teams. However, Atlanta Baseball Team is used as a euphemism for the MLB team that plays there, by people like me who prefer not to say its name, and also by
several news outlets. Given that the only other baseball team listed at Sports in Atlanta is the
Gwinnett Stripers, and affiliate of the other team, on balance I'd say keep baseball, optionally with hatnote to Sports in Atlanta.
Reason: I had not heard this term before, but Collinssays that it's the British equivalent of the American "high school graduates". High school graduate points to Secondary school, so I think this should too. School-leaving age is also of note, but seems broader-concept than may be wanted. (For whatever reason, only the plural form has been created here; if it hasn't been created by the end of this RfD, I'll create it and sync it with however this is closed.)
Reason: This is the German term for "television series," I gather. There is no particular affinity between the German language and the concept of television shows and thus, per
WP:RLOTE, this should be deleted.
Reason: In 2008, this redirect's creator predicted that the target (then an article, now a section of a larger one) would eventually have some discussion of when series are "original". Well, it's been 13 years, and I don't think that's happened. "Original" can mean a few things in this context, including "creative", but the primary meaning of "original television series", I would think, is a series that has since been sequelled or remade, like Star Trek: The Original Series. The linked section acknowledges this concept in passing, but there's nothing really about what it means for a show to be "original". Given that original-ness is only relevant when there's been a sequel or remake, I currently lean toward retargeting to
Remake#Television as an {{r from antonym}}, but I'll hold off on !voting till I see what others have to say.
Reason: Has pointed to this target since 2005, when the article was, shall we say, uncomfortably detailed. There was no mention at the time, but one was
added a few weeks later. The content that was once discussed so lavishly at that article is now mostly found (with less troubling wording) at Corporal punishment and Judicial corporal punishment. Flogging is a reasonable target given the name, but that article doesn't mention this term at all, nor does Caning (and it seems that flogging frames are today used more in caning than in flogging per se). The only article I find that does mention the term is Caning in Singapore, where it's mentioned in passing, but that seems too specific a target. Currently my thinking is that we should retarget to Corporal punishment, but I'm not sure yet.
Reason: Unlike
§ Billy Cosby below, I don't see any usage of this even as a typo, although it's a bit harder to tell because "will" is also a verb. Still, generally I'd expect people to be more likely to overextend "Bill" to "Billy" than to mix up "Bill" and "Will" (which a surprising number of people don't even realize are short for the same name).
Reason: The correct name, per the list and per Google results, is Eddie Olosunje. 'j' → 'd' as a typo gets only
6 GHits, and pageviews are ~10/year. Delete.
Reason:
Per the Zelda Wiki, there are two characters named Trill in the Zelda universe, the other being from Cadence of Hyrule. Neither is mentioned at the relevant article. I've not played either of the games in question, but judging from the profiles on these two characters
[1][2] it does not look like either plays a significant role in their respective game's plot. Between the low status and
WP:XY, I say delete. Another option would be to retarget to Trill § Fictional entities (which currently links to this redirect) and mention the Cadence of Hyrule Trill there as well, with links pointing to the two games' articles.
Reason: Hashtag that had a brief flurry of media coverage in 2018, no longer mentioned at target article. Even when it was mentioned, it was just
two sentences (one of them a copyvio from
the cited Times article). SquatForChange still exists as a non-profit, and there may be room for a mention of them if Changing table were expanded to say a lot more about access advocacy, but barring a mention there, delete.
Reason: While a less ambiguous search term than 2021 building collapse (and thus listed separately), there are still three other shared residences listed under 2021 at
List of structural failures and collapses#2020–present. I'm not sure if any would meet the definition of a "condominium building"—a term mostly used in the U.S.—but it's similar enough that I feel that these search terms are too ambiguous and should be retargeted to that list.
Reason: Google shows that this has been used as the title of a number of non-notable works, and someone searching for one of them is likely to be
surprised by this redirect. Even if it's a phrase worth targeting to some concept, I don't think there's a clear primary target—could be the current one, could be anti-war movement or a specific subset of it, could be the war to end war. Was created with the summary "pun?"; if there is a pun here, I'm missing it.
Reason: I don't see any indication that any of these is ever called "global warring". A Google search for the term mostly gets articles about Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map by
Cleo Paskal. There's some case, then, to redirect this to Paskal's article, but a) the book isn't mentioned there and b) this is much more likely going to be an
autocorrect error for "
global warming", meaning that it's better to let the search engine sort this out for people. (If Global war were a DAB I'd say to redirect this there, but it redirects to Wold war, and retargeting this to that would probably necessitate a hatnote.)
Reason: Ambiguous. There are eight other building collapses in Florida listed at List of structural failures and collapses. We could retarget to that page, but since the information isn't collated by location, I think it would make more sense to just delete.
Reason: There are four collapses in Miami listed at List of structural failures and collapses—not including the current target, which is in
Miami-Dade County but not in Miami itself. As with the others, we could retarget to the list, but personally I lean toward deletion.
Reason:
WP:XY situation: Could also refer to the
WCIX TV Tower collapse in 1992. Since neither tower is actually in Miami, I think deletion makes more sense than targeting one or the other or DABbing.
Reason: Google results suggest that this term is primarily used in the context of the
"effective power" bug. The term "effective power" is never used verbatim at the current target, although a few similar terms are. I propose that we retarget to SpringBoard#"effective power" bug, with hatnote to current target.
Reason: I'm going to
AGF that this refers to
paraphilic infantilism and not to anything that would trigger
policy concerns. That said, the combination of "as a child" (rather than something more kink-specific like "as a little"), which is a common refrain in some
pro-pedophilia rhetoric, and of an image of
pedobear, clearly could give the impression that this userbox is an endorsement of pedophilia.
Reason: Nonstandard disambiguation format. More plausibly would be a search term for someone looking for a film about the concept of cargo, or who thinks there's some genre of this name, or perhaps is looking for
these documentary producers. Delete, although if kept this should definitely be retargeted to Cargo (disambiguation)#Films, like Cargo (film).
Reason: Nonstandard disambiguation format. As with below, sounds more like a kind of film than a particular film; "platform" can have a number of meanings in a media context. I suggest we delete, but if kept this should be retargeted to Platform#Arts, like Platform (film).
Reason: I typed this in meaning to type {{R from related topic}} (which redirects to {{R to related topic}}), and was surprised to find that this redirects to {{R from related word}}. In my opinion, "topic" is a much more predictable synonym for "concept" than "word" is. This only has four backlinks. Of those:* Is of identity: Not sure what the right rcat would be for this, because I'm not sure what the right target is.* Hematopoeitic stem cell donation and Hematopoietic stem cell donation: Seems more like an {{R from subtopic}}. Donation is one part of transplantation.* Bullshitization: Indeed a related wordI suggest that we retarget to {{R to related topic}}, recategorize the second and third transclusions, and bypass template redirect on the fourth transclusion. Not sure yet what to do with the first transclusion. Might need its own RfD.
Reason: There's no subcategory on American music (contrast
Category:2021 in American music), meaning that this is only helpful to readers if they're willing to browse through the subcategories and guess which pages are about the U.S. It might be reasonable for 2022 in music (currently a redlink) to redirect here, but even there that seems like it would run afoul of
WP:REDLINK. Lots of concert dates, album releases, etc., have been announced for 2022. And in my opinion XNRs to categoryspace should be reserved for cases where there's no chance of an article ever existing.
There is only one reason anyone would spell out and search the phrase 'The Hundred' on Wikipedia and that's for the cricket competition. The other pages [at The 100] all involve the number and it feels that the redirect is unnecessary.
Pinging:*
Joseph2302, who !voted keep at RfD with comment
Most of the links at The 100 are valid for being spelt out- causal reader wouldn't know if they're spelt as 100 or Hundred in the name. I don't believe that most people will be looking for the "cricket" tournament.
, which I think should be read as a keep in this context as well*
Jay, who !voted (in the context of the redirect)
Disambig with entries The 100 (TV series), The Hundred (cricket) (and probably The One Hundred (band)) with cricket as primary.
*
Darorcilmir, whose comment there I read as supporting a move:
Agree that The Hundred now refers only to the cricket competition and nothing else - because nothing else uses this specific formatting. It therefore needs its own main entry, with all other instances listed on disambig page, and a hatnote on the main page.
*
Zerosumnet and
Mdewman6, who commented but did not !vote.I've not yet made my mind up on where I stand personally.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 05:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Per
WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE, "User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable." In its no-parameters version, I think this userbox just barely passes that standard. However, it's only transcluded in one place,
User:Kartano, where the following "activities" are included: specifically stag & vixen, threesomes, foursomes, voyeur, soft swapping, hard swapping, adult sex clubs, sex toys, erotica, DP, DVP, BDSM, homemade pornography. Those activities bring it past the line set by NOTDATINGSERVICE, and I think really any activities list would. Delete or remove activities parameter.
Reason: I don't think that someone's marital issues are reasonably related to building an encyclopedia, and broadly stating "but wants to change that!" alongside a term that
is often associated witha sense of entitlement to sex[] and the endorsement of violence against women leaves a rather unsavory implication,
even if unintentionally. Delete.
Reason: Wikipedia is
not news and
not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles like these tend to get made when people start putting a bunch of generic reactions into the article on a news event, and at a certain point someone forks them off into their own article to avoid bogging down the main article. Which is preferable to leaving them in the main article, but I don't see what benefit an article like this has to our readers.
Fall of Kabul (2021) § Reactions and § Refugees cover the most important aspects. There isn't any particular encyclopedic relevance to the fact that Finland has evacuated its diplomats or that Brazil has expressed concern. Basically every country in the world has the same response to this: "That's bad. We're evacuating our people," with an optional "And maybe we'll take a few refugees," and a fork like this just creates a few dozen items in need of update in a few months/years when editors have stopped paying attention to this page. I don't see a way where this evolves past a bunch of press releases (or uncritical news write-ups of those press releases) to in-depth coverage of the various countries' reactions.(Also, if kept, this should be moved to Reactions to the 2021 fall of Kabul, per my points at
Talk:Fall of Kabul (2021) regarding capitalization.)
Reason: The parenthetically-qualified syntax implies that consent is a distinct phrase or concept in BDSM compared to other contexts. The article does not bear that out, and rather begins with "consent within BDSM", later defining the term as "an explicit agreement to acts, terms and conditions"—the same definition as applies in non-BDSM contexts.To avoid the erroneous implication that consent in BDSM is distinct from consent in general, we should move to Consent in BDSM, which is a more natural title anyways.
Reason: See related nomination
below. Procedural nomination to keep these on the same day; still thinking about how to !vote. Not going to nominate Paid advocacy on wikipedia, per Hog Farm's points below.
Reason: If this is going to point to something, it should be Vaginal bleeding, a broader topic than menstruation. That said, this doesn't strike me as a very plausible search term, and it can be used to refer to other things, most notably (and tastelessly) a cocktail. Weak delete, second choice retarget.
Reason: Per the article on him,
Frank Zappa was in a number of bands. While none was nearly as notable as the Mothers of Invention, it's still inaccurate to call that definitively "Zappa's band". Judging from Google results, this does not appear to be a case where the term is used as a nickname or alias for the band either. Delete or retarget to Frank Zappa.
Reason: "Osborne" here is a misspelling of Osbourne, as in
Ozzy Osbourne. However, even with the correct spelling this would meet criteria for deletion: Osbourne has performed with a number of bands, and if anything "Osbourne's band" would more likely perform to any of his backing bands as a solo artist over the years.
Reason: Could also refer to the
Copenhagen Accord or the
Marrakech Accords, probably among others. I could see a case for a DAB page, but my inclination is delete and let the search results handle it.
Reason: Could refer to any number of withdrawals from Afghanistan throughout history, including those of various
International Security Assistance Force members since 2010. Better to let the search results handle it, I think.
Reason: I came close to requesting
R1 speedy deletion on this, but I'll grant that if someone's holding the shift key for "AR" they might fail to release it in time for "6" and, on a standard QWERTY, wind up with this. That said, I think maintaining redirects like this for every letter-number combination would be quite
WP:COSTLY, and don't think it's something we should get in the habit of.
Reason: I'm not sure if the shared bronze at the
SEA Games in 2005 technically makes him meet
WP:NTRACK, but even if it does, I think here any presumption of notability would be rebutted by the
complete lack of any coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Article has sourcing issues going back to 2007, and doesn't even source the medal (although I'm guessing that bit is true based on
Athletics at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games... although the sourcing there isn't good enough to be sure either).
Reason: There's an
ENGVAR issue here: the British/Irish/most-of-the-Commonwealth "chip" means what Americans and Canadians call
french fries, while the American/Canadian "chip" means what people from the other group of countries call
crisps. Chips/french fries are normally served hot. But many potato chip/crisp companies make some sort of "hot chip", "hot" meaning "spicy", similar to
Flamin' Hot Cheetos.Potato chip has surprisingly little content about flavors of potato chip and none about hot/spicy flavors, so weak retarget there (or to its § Flavoring) as an {{r without mention}}, but also open to a
WP:REDLINK argument.Noting also the existence of Hot Chip (a band) and Hot Chips (a symposium).
Reason: Previously redirected to
Cybex International, an apparently unrelated exercise equipment company. All of the news coverage I can find is either product reviews or passing mentions of their products. I don't see any coverage of the company qua company, and the statements in the article about employees and turnover (which regardless don't establish notability) are unsourced. Revert to redirect. (If kept, this should probably still be moved to something like Cybex (child safety product manufacturer), restoring the redirect but leaving a hatnote at the other Cybex.)
Reason: There's been two rounds of edit-warring in the psat few weeks as to whether there should be an article at this title or not, with DarkGlow,
Cjquines10, and
Polyamorph opposed and
108.20.174.38 (the author) the only one in favor. Per
WP:BLAR, best to take this here and get a formal consensus. I submit that this is
WP:FANCRUFT, maybe appropriate for a fan wiki but not for Wikipedia. If there is a case for an article, I think
WP:TNT would still apply since almost all of the content is in-universe information. Restore redirect.
Reason: TOA recently added a painfully blatant bit of
WP:GRAVEDANCING to their userpage celebrating the retirement of MjolnirPants, against whom they had pursued a vendetta for months. There is no other way to read their invocation of "
Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead", especially given that they have since attempted to tag OhForFuqsSake as a sock of MP, despite instructions at the relevant SPI to not do soWhen
Tryptofish inquired with TOA as to the meaning of this reference, they replied, I also have the right of privacy such that I am not required to explain events in my private life in order to satisfy your (and/or the unspecified "others") desire for information.They're right. They're not required to explain themself. Likewise none of us is required to
treat WP:AGF as a suicide pact and suffer such trolling. As TOA is apparently unwilling to remove the content, we should mandate its removal as a gravedancing
WP:POLEMIC. Honestly I think this is borderline
WP:G10.
Reason: Piggybacking off of
the Lamenters RfD below, I think this points to too narrow a target. The article Lament documents a number of nuanced meanings, not just the act of being a mourner. I think it would be best to retarget to Lament, as is standard for derived parts of speech.
Reason: Please see
WT:SPI/C#Is Template:SPI empty report in use?; no one on the clerk team can quite figure out what this was for, or why it has a nontrivial history despite having no transclusions and not being the kind of template you'd subst, but everyone seems to agree it's no longer in use, if it ever was.
Reason: Left over from move to the right namespace. Since it redirects to a title that is the same minus the Template: prefix, deleting it will do nothing, as anything transcluding {{User:BoldLuis/tlxl}} will now transclude that userpage rather than this template that redirects to that userpage.
Reason: I do not see any indication that any of the other terms at Nylon (disambiguation) are frequently referred to in
PascalCase. Per
WP:DIFFCAPS, we should drop the qualifier from this title and just say "NyLon".
Reason: These are the names/nicknames of the children of the subject. I have removed those names from the target article per
WP:BLPNAME, since there is no indication that their names are relevant to readers' understanding of the subject. While the names do live on in the title of a reference, I don't think that's enough of a mention to warrant redirects. Delete both.
Reason: Of the 22 conflicting pairs of redirects identified in the cleanup of
T219279, this was the only pair where the "correct" title's target was not an obvious improvement on the "incorrect" title's. Since Ligature (writing) is a significantly narrower target than List of Latin-script letters, I suggest that we retargetꜴ to that and deleteꜴ (former Unicode lowercase) like the other 21 (one of which has already been deleted, and the other 20 of which I've tagged for
G6 speedy. (Or delete the former and suppressredirect-move the latter there. Either/or.) Courtesy ping
Pppery based on our discussion of this at
User talk:Legoktm § (former Unicode lowercase).
Reason: This template outputs a block of unparsed code for any users of the mobile apps. See
here for an example of what that looks like.
150 million pageviews per month come via the mobile app. It's a small percentage overall, but... well, inferring (from other data) an average of 50 pageviews per user per month, that's 3 million people we're serving jumbled nonsense to. It's one thing to have a template that works imperfectly on the mobile app, but I don't think it's okay for us to be transcluding on 84 articles a template that renders their core content unreadable.I understand that this template provides useful functionality. Thus, until
T203293 is resolved, I would propose the following solution: Delete once someone codes a bot to do this. With a bot task, an editor could place something like <!-- Row numbers START --> and <!-- Row numbers END--> around a table, and then make a null template like {{
numbered column}} to signal a column that the bot would update after any addition or removal of a row.To be clear, if the above is unfeasible or undesirable, I would strongly favor outright deletion over outright keeping.I'll note that I've looked into whether {{if mobile}} would be viable here, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be, because it could only remove the wrapping template, not the syntax within the template.
Reason: This may be, per its creator's edit summary, a "shorter title", but that's because it strips away the thing that makes the phrase notable: all the "had"s. That would be fine if this were an abbreviation that people use, but
that does not appear to be the case. This is essentially a shortcut title, which we don't do in mainspace.
Reason: {{r from move}} from an implausible title, moved after only 6 days. The subtitle
only appears in mirrors. Pageviews already dying down. (Any page in the NewPagesFeed will always be getting some.) Delete as implausible.
Reason: This user warning message was created in 2008 and has been used seven times since. I became aware of it today when an
LTA with a very long memory used it in a bit of trolling. If there's somewhere good to redirect this to, I wouldn't object—{{uw-defamatory1}} would make sense, perhaps, but is intended for the opposite purpose—but otherwise I think deletion is in order. The template's current wording is not a reflection of current attitudes toward libel accusations, which are sensitive enough that a custom message is almost always needed. It neither gives good advice (if a user is already complaining on-wiki, why direct them to VRT instead?) nor strikes a good tone for dealing with someone who feels wrong (attempting to assert a defensive legal position on behalf of the Foundation).
Reason: Part of me was tempted to just
R3 this, and another part of me was tempted to mark it as reviewed, so I come here instead without having firmly made my mind up.
It's a meme with some currency but is far from widespread. It doesn't seem to refer to anything other than Elon Musk, so I'm not sure its existence is all too harmful. But on the other hand, it would be costly for us to maintain redirects for every silly variant of every public figure's name, not to mention getting into complicated
BLP territory at times. I come down leaning deletion, simply on the basis that anyone searching this will already know who Elon Musk is, and thus can search his name spelled correctly after finding nothing at this title. (Half-joke/half-typo Eelon Musk doesn't exist but
probably should.)
Reason: Typo that would perhaps be plausible in the main part of the title, but becomes implausible within a disambiguator. 98 pageviews in the 2 years since creation, which is very few considering that the target page got 620,000 in the past month. (Consider further that Michael Jackson (musician) didn't exist till I just created it.) I think we can safely delete.N.B.: Not notifying the redirect's creator, per his statements at
past RfDs that he is retired.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Procedural nomination. PRODded and then BLAR'd shortly after creation in 2008. Restored by consensus at RfD
just now, with agreement to take to AfD. Courtesy pings @
Mdewman6,
1234qwer1234qwer4,
Lenticel, and
Thryduulf. I'll ping IP65 the old-fashioned way.
Reason: I am neutral, filing as closer of
this RfD, where I found consensus to revert
Rosguill's
BLAR of 22 January 2020 and send to AfD instead. Rosguill's BLAR rationale was
Doesn't seem to meet GNG and is very confusingly written, redirecting to
Meetei folklore which mentions the story
Reason: There's no need to say "general" here. This is
the only article on enwiki that uses the disambiguator "general term", while
29 use just "term". I don't see why this should be any different. (N.B.: This is a somewhat unusual case where
WP:DIFFCAPS has not been invoked [Cold war → Cold War], but I agree with that status quo. DIFFCAPS is ill-suited for cases where the only difference is the first letter of the second word in a two-word phrase, where many readers won't make a distinction between capitalizing or not capitalizing that letter.)
Reason: I typed this in expecting to be taken to Check It Out! with Dr. Steve Brule, and was
surprised to be taken here instead.
According to WikiNav, 72 out of 177 people to read this article in November clicked the link in the hatnote, while there wasn't a single link in the body of the article that more than 10 people clicked. Considering that
only 66 people viewed this redirect that month, that strongly suggests that ~100% of people visiting Steve Brule were looking for the show about him. Furthermore, even if we didn't have this pageview information, this is a
WP:SMALLDETAILS situation. Thus retarget with hatnote to current target.
Reason: I linked to
H:REF expecting it to take me to a help page on references, and, when I went to go create the redirect, was surprised to see there's no consensus on what help page to target. This is a mixed-target conflict going back over a decade, but I don't give much weight to age or pageviews, since all of the targets except Help:Reference point to content on the same topic, and in many cases people may have linked one of these without actually looking at where they point to. As such, I think we should take readers to the broadest target available. I think Help:Reference is suboptimal but it gets decent pageviews and would be a significant substantive change in target topic, so probably better left untouched; but I've included it for the sake of completeness. So: Weak keep Help:Reference, synchronize rest at Help:Footnotes as broadest target available, but I think syncing at Help:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:Inline citations (target of WP:REF and WP:REFS) would be reasonable too.
Reason: According to the target article, Hermione's middle name is "Jean", but apparently there's been some confusion over Jane vs. Jean over the years, so I don't object to Hermione Jane Granger. However, I don't see any indication that Hermione is ever referred to by just her middle and last names, be that as "Jane" or as "Jean". (Jean Granger is a redlink.)
Reason: Both
a Google search and
an on-wiki one suggest that this term is rarely used to refer to Hermione Granger, and frequently used to refer to a number of other entities, including Hermann Görring in Addie and Hermy and a character created by
Stan Sakai. We could write a DAB, but I'm skeptical of that when we don't have any direct title matches. I favor deletion; the search results can take the lead instead.
Reason: This previously targeted Suez (company), which was moved first to Suez (company, 1858-2008) by
RT59RC, and then to Suez (company, 1858–2008) by me for
MOS:DASH reasons, and then (more importantly) to Suez (company, 1997–2008) by me when I noticed that the article drew a dividing line in 1997, with the company's/companies' history before that being at
Suez Canal Company. (I assume that RT59RC was mirroring frwiki's naming scheme; however, they cover both entities in one article). It only points to the current target due to a double-redirect cleanup mixup; the 1997–2008 title should be considered the status quo. Since this name seems to be associated with the pre-1997 company (see
:fr:Suez (entreprise, 1858-2008) § La Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez: Rebaptisée Compagnie financière de Suez en 1958 → Renamed the Compagnie financière de Suez in 1958), I move to retarget to Suez Canal Company.
Reason: 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).
Reason: PrairieKid created this in February after moving Eugene Goodman to Eugene Goodman (businessman) around when
Eugene Goodman (police officer) received the Congressional Gold Medal. At the time, the two Goodmans were getting roughly equal pageviews. A year later, it's 2,000:1 in the police officer's favor, and
100% of clicks were going his way from the DAB, so I've
BOLDly moved his article to be the primary landing page. That leaves this DAB as a
ONEOTHER (or, one-and-a-half other, with a "see also" to Gene Goodman). I've added hatnotes to both of those from the police officer's article, which I think renders this DAB superfluous.
Reason: After the deletion of Irma Lanzas, this
SIA has only one entry. Normally I would just redirect to that entry, Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas, but Lanzas was del Castillo's
maternal surname and thus not a name he would be normally called by. Given that not all of our readers know how Spanish surnames work, Lanzas may still be a plausible search term for him, but it might also be a plausible search term for someone looking for a list of people with the surname Lanza. So I suggest that we redirect to Lanza and include Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas in "See also". But I could also see a case for just deleting and let the search results handle it.
Reason: I've created Front toward enemy and FRONT TOWARD ENEMY as {{r from quotation}}s to M18 Claymore mine, a device on which this inscription famously appears. As both the originator of the phrase and the subject of the lion's share of Google search results, I think it's the clear primary topic. However, the existing Front Toward Enemy points to an episode list entry in The Punisher (season 1). Since the term appears on all caps on the mines, and could reasonably be rendered in title case just as well as sentence case, I think
WP:DIFFCAPS does not apply here, and that we should synchronize all three at M18 Claymore mine, with hatnote to the Punisher list entry. I am nominating the two redirects I created as well, in case anyone wants to argue that they instead should be retargeted.
Reason: Battle of Changsha (fictional) was merged by
Patar knight in June of 2020. Editnotice was blanked by
Aseleste a year later, but should just be deleted. Meets the spirit of
G8 but not quite the letter.
Reason: Subject article was BLAR'd a few days ago by
Firefly. Could be moved to
Template:Editnotices/Page/DXC Technology to match the BLARing, but accessibility-related content takes up only a small portion of that article, so I don't think this editnotice would be justified there.
Reason: Article was BLAR'd by
Dronebogus in November, and, as the content is discussed fairly comprehensively at the target article, the BLAR seems unlikely to be challenged.
Reason: Both articles were merged to
List of terrorist incidents in 2017 by
TompaDompa a year and a half ago. If desired, one of these could be moved to become an editnotice for that page, but I don't think that's really necessary now. It's 2022[citation needed] and people are mostly done edit-warring over what was or wasn't terrorism a whole five years ago.
Reason: This and
Template:Editnotices/Page/Maarakeh bombing were created a day apart amidst a movewar. Consensus settled on the latter article title, so this page is now redundant.
Reason: I created this DAB in 2012 (the first content page I created, I think!) after moving the previous subject of the page to John Hubbard (British politician). Initially it just DAB'd him and
John Hubbard (American politician);
Boleyn subsequently added
Jonathan Hatch Hubbard, and a few months later she successfully PRODded the British politician's article, leaving the page with just these two.In other words, this is a series of reasonable edits that has left us with a DAB that I don't think I would have created for just these two. While Jon is sometimes a nickname for Jonathan, I don't see
any evidence that Jonathan Hatch Hubbard went by it. So the primary topic for "Jon Hubbard" would seem to be the American politician. I think the better approach here would be to delete the dab, move the American politician's article to this title, and hatnote his article to Jonathan Hatch Hubbard and John Hubbard (disambiguation).
Reason: As noted at
WP:SHORTCUT, and as can be seen
here, there has been a general consensus against "WikProject:" as a pseudonamespace. This is the only existing page beginning
with "WikiProject:" or
"Wikiproject:".
Reason: Civil courts do much more than hear lawsuits. I recall that when I changed my name there were something like 30 options on the form, and only one 2 or 3 involved lawsuits. An article that explains that fairly well, if too briefly, is Civil law (common law). I think it would be better to retarget there. The other concern with this redirect is that it could be ambiguous with a court operating under
Civil law (legal system), but the proposed target links to the DAB Civil law, so I think that handles that.
Reason: Deleted through AfD in 2014 and 2016, and the subject of
a long-running sockpuppetry campaign to recreate. Current incarnation was created by what is almost certainly a
UPE throwaway account, which has already had two other articles deleted as promotional (
1 ·
2). This looks very strongly like someone having gotten sick of not being able to evade SPI and paying someone else to do it for them, but sadly I can't prove that to a high enough degree of confidence to justify a
G5 under
WP:MEAT, and the text is sufficiently different to preclude
G4, so here we are.Cerrito has directed two films that we have articles on, Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi. However, notability is not inherited, and the bulk of this article is promotionally-toned content about those films and his other works. The only non-inherited
SIGCOV in the article are two local-news puff pieces and some mentions from when he was on an episode of Ghost Nation. The only other coverage I find in a
BEFORE search is some news coverage from a time he witnessed a suicide.While he is closer to notable now than he was in 2016, I still don't think he meets the bar, and urge deletion. Note: If this article is deleted, the title should be re-salted, as should the most recent salt-hack, Mario Cerrito III.
Reason: This redirected to Russo-Ukrainian War until I retargeted it in January to Invasion of Ukraine, a
SIA I have since turned into the list List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine.
NorsemanII has seen fit to edit-war with me by retargeting to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine despite me twice saying to take it to RfD, so I'll do what they lacked the decency to (without conceding that their actions are procedurally valid; if I were a more spiteful person I would have brought this to
ANEW rather than here).I propose to restore previous target (List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine) and restore hatnote at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact that this redirect previously pointed to two different Russian invasions of Ukraine (2014 Crimean crisis at creation, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) (which became Russo-Ukrainian War after that) should be evidence enough that this is ambiguous. It's not even unambiguous within the current conflict: As the list documents, Russian forces have been described as invading Ukraine twice in this war: Donbas in 2014 in the early phases of the
War in Donbas, and (as characterized by some sources) Crimea a few months before that. Furthermore, the whole war has been characterized as an invasion, something I learned when cleaning up links to this redirect after I targeted it. Multiple articles referred to the whole war as the "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Furthermore, Russian forces from the Soviet Union twice invaded Ukraine in the 1910s, again as documented in the list.I appreciate that the 2022 invasion is the most currently relevant one, but I'm not aware of any occasion in the past that that's been used to justify redirecting to a non-primary topic. See
WP:RECENTISM.I would not hugely object to refining this to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine#Russo-Ukrainian War, although that would skip past the 1910s invasions (sort of a semantic question of whether "Russian" here means "by Russia" or "by Russians").Some procedural notes:* Russian invasion of the Ukraine bundled as an {{avoided double redirect}}.* Whatever the outcome here, redirects like Russian invasion of Donbas should probably be created to match it.* Whatever the outcome here, can we try to get this done in 24-72 hours? This is an incredibly high-visibility redirect and I think some deviation from standard procedure is justified.
Reason: The D.C. article was moved from
District of Columbia statehood movement in 2018 by
IVORK, acting on a technical request from an IP with summary "Consistent with
Statehood movement in Puerto Rico". That article had itself been moved from
Puerto Rico statehood movement without edit summary by Ahnoneemoos in 2012. I think that in 2018 the IP went in the wrong direction, and that, rather, it's the Puerto Rico article that should have been brought (back) in line with the D.C. one.There does not seem to be a
COMMONNAME for the movement for statehood in D.C. or the movement for statehood in Puerto Rico, and I assume that's why descriptive titles have been favored. However, there is a COMMONNAME for the concept of statehood in these places as well: ["D.C. statehood", or more formally "District of Columbia statehood" in D.C.
https://statehood.dc.gov/page/dc-statehood-in-the-news], and
"Puerto Rico statehood" or "Puerto Rican statehood" in Puerto Rico. Those are the terms widely used by adovocacy groups, opponents, and the newsmedia.It would be preferable to build these descriptive titles around existing COMMONNAMEs, and thus I suggest restoring the titles of "District of Columbia statehood movement" and "Puerto Rico statehood movement", which simply add "movement" to the end of established names for the relevant concepts.
Reason: This is the result of a pagemove from a
nonsensical title four minutes after the page was created in 2005. Sixteen years later, I do not think it serves any purpose. It gets some pageviews, but enough to give cause to believe that any humans are deliberately navigating to this redirect. Given the existence of S/b/:Ralston Bowles as well, I asked Graham87 if he was aware of any old MediaWiki things that could explain how these two pages were created, and
he was as stumped as me.
Reason: Another weird "s/b/:" one (see
Special:Permalink/1076220363#s/b/:). If created today, this would be an
A10.
Jamie7687, in redirecting it, said this redirect should probably be deleted. Well, 16 years later, let's make that happen.
Reason: Cross-namespace redirect to a humor page. Its appearance in the search bar,
Special:AllPages, etc., as a mainspace page is actively misleading, as it implies that this is a thing that happened, or might have happened, or at least an encyclopedically notable hoax. N.B.: This page has been deleted five times before, but never by a consensus discussion.
Reason: Created with the summary ix broken link. I can only assume that someone somewhere had linked to this instead of
WP:ASPERSIONS, but that's not a good reason to create an XNR. This could just be retargeted to
Aspersion, but I generally disfavor all-caps redirects where there's no reason to think our readers would be expecting all-caps, per
WP:COSTLY, hence I'd prefer to delete.
Reason: A section in a poorly-maintained, poorly-formatted projectspace page quoting some (unsourced!) mean things this person said about Wikipedia is not a good usage of a cross-namespace redirect, and in fact poses serious
BLP concerns.
Reason: This XNR related to a GLAM program may have
served some benefit when it was created, but isn't of any use now that the club is (apparently) no more.
Reason: This is
the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut of the format "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject". As that link shows, XNRs to WikiProjects are quite rare to begin with. Any "Wikiproject:" or "WikiProject:" pseudonamespace has been conclusively ruled out by past RfDs (see documentation
here), and I think "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject" should be treated the same, as the alternative would be opening the door to thousands of such XNRs.
Reason: This is
the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut with the format "X Project" or "X project". Everything I said below about
Ukraine Wikiproject stands, but here the greater concern is that it's a
surprising redirect. "Porn Project" refers to a number of things, most notably a Christian anti-pornography group.
Reason: Fear not, my last of the day. "Wine cats" could refer to a number of things, such as
this book. It's
surprising for this combination of two common words to instead link to an obscure projectspace subpage. No backlinks, low pageviews, and of course no way to know if readers visiting this link found what they were looking for.
Reason: Unused pseudo-namespace shortcut,
the only of its kind. While "T:" is a valid pseudonamespace for limited purposes (probably not including this) per
WP:PNS and
WP:SHORTCUT, there is no consensus for a "TP" pseudonamespace, and there's been an understanding for quite some time that no new pseudonamespaces should be created.
Reason: This phrase is not used at the target, and has been used in
a variety of contexts, including in
this journal article on the
First Chechen War. Even with the huge weight of current events and my Ukraine-heavy search history influencing the results, Google's first page doesn't give me a single thing on the current fiasco, instead reaching as far back as the
Russian Civil War.
Reason: This is borderline
G6 as unambiguously created in error, but it's been around a few years so I thought better to take it here. Moved from "neurosurgeon" to "processor"
4:38, 29 January 2019. Moved from "processor" to "professor"
4:39, 29 January 2019. Clearly not a plausible disambiguator, as Mr. Kumar is not any of the things that might be referred to as a
processor.
Reason: I just linked the former of these titles from
List of journalists killed covering the Russo-Ukrainian War to describe a Ukrainian journalist, and learned that such the link will be misleading due to its current target. There is definitely room for an article about military journalism worldwide, so suggest deletion of both per
WP:REDYES, to encourage creation of an article (probably at the latter title).
Reason: This is an {{r from move}}, the move's rationale having been The article is primarily about the medal itself. 11 years later, that's even more true: The vast majority of the article is about the physical medal and its trappings, with the word "medalist" only appearing once. I suggest a retarget to Lists of Olympic medalists, to which Olympic medalists already points.
Reason: Typo in disambiguator corrected
3 hours after article's creation. Negligible pageviews since. Suggest deletion as with most malformatted disambiguators.
Reason: Bit of a weird case. This was a copy-paste of the creator's own article
[3][4]—not an attempt at a cut-and-paste move, just a copy. Redirected 12 hours later, and judging from pageviews is not relied upon by anyone.
Reason: If Tradewind is ambiguous—which has been the editorial consensus
since 2006—then I think Tradewinds is as well. There's good reason to think that a reader spelling the term this way is looking for one of the eight entities called "Tradewinds" we disambiguate (or the one called TradeWinds), rather than for the concept of
trade winds, usually spelled as two words. Thus I think we should retarget to Tradewind.
Reason: Baksı is the Turkish word (see
tr:Baksı) for
bakshy. As that's an obviously more precise target than the current one, I was going to boldly retarget there, but I noticed that the bakshy article doesn't mention Turkey at all, and, while there's certainly a cultural connection between these two Turkic countries, I'm not sure that's enough of an affinity to justify an
RLOTE. Baksı Museum, however, does spell it that way, so I lean toward retargeting there with hatnote back to Bakshy and the DAB at Bakshi; doing it in the opposite direction would be reasonable too.I'm bundling Baksi, created by Eubot as an avoided double redirect, because its fate can't be disentangled from Baksı's. Since its creation, the article Baksi (surname) has been created. Per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, I think the best approach would be to move Baksi (surname) over the redirect and disambiguate as needed via hatnote. As a second choice, I would support matching wherever Baksı winds up pointing.
Reason: I think these both point to the wrong place. The only thing at the Hood DAB referred to as "'hood" is a
neighborhood. The only thing there referred to as "'Hood", at least when using sentence case (and often even in title case) is
'Hood (film). Thus retarget 'hood to Neighborhood and move 'Hood (film) to 'Hood, with hatnotes both ways. But I think reasonable cases could also be made for pointing both to the DAB or pointing both to Neighborhood.
Reason: These were the result of two unexplained pagemoves by a newer user—pagemoves that I will
AGF on not being deliberate hoaxing, but which neither
Plantdrew nor I have been able to verify as names for this species of pufferfish. After I reverted the moves based on an
RM/TR request from Plantdrew, we agreed to wait a month to see if pageviews dropped off, and
they indeed have, removing the only potential reason to keep these redirec. They should be deleted as supposed alternate names that fail verification.
Reason: Per its talkpage, created in 2004 to work around a bug that was
fixed in 2006. 188 views in the pageviews.wmfcloud.org epoch, only 6 last year; the talkpage is the second result when you search CAT:CSD, so perhaps a few people per year share my curiosity as to why
WIkipedia talk:CAT:CSD exists at all. Note that, despite the breadth of bz710/phab:2710, this is
the only page beginning with Wikipedia:CAT:.
Reason: Created in 2006, when the DAB had
three redlinks on it for people named Mikhail Morozov. Those redlinks were subsequently removed from the DAB though, and there are no Mikhail Morozovs at
Morozov (surname). Thus this should be deleted as misleading.
Reason: A
peasant is a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord. While this could arguably apply to certain working arrangements in very rural parts of the country, such a conclusion would be
WP:OR; the word "peasant" appears nowhere at the target article.
Reason: Apparently this is the opening line of the second track listed, "Little April Shower". To me what comes to mind first is
Duck, duck, goose § Drip, Drip, Drop, the
only thing referred to in the encyclopedia's voice as "drip drip drop". I would suggest a retarget there (indifferent as to hatnoting back), second choice deletion and let the search results handle it.
Reason: Not all personal information is private, or expected to be. Meanwhile there's much information that is private but not PII. I would suggest a retarget to
Privacy with hatnote to the current target,
Secrecy, and the film Private Information. The Secrecy article itself could also be a viable target, though.
Reason: After the hyphen variant was deleted at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7 § Dave Cummings ((pornographic actor)), AnomieBOT recreated it as a variant of the en-dash title. I was going to just delete the en-dash one in the spirit of the previous RfD, but then I noticed that it's an {{r from move}}, so I guess this should have a second RfD. Pageviews on the en-dash one were weirdly high for a while, but have dropped off since 2019; on the hyphen one, they've been consistently high, but I assume that's due to the link at Martin Mere, which I've just removed. So I think both are safe to delete. Also we should block AnomieBOT for edit-warring.[Joke]
there is no proof that this school is independently notable--a few references don't make that point. alumni are already at
List of University of Oregon alumni, and note that the list here didn't separate faculty and alumni
Three years of back-and-forth BLARing and restoring has ensued, with Drmies,
Mccapra,
Orangemike,
Viewmont Viking, and
Spf121188 favoring redirection; and
Zdemars,
Oregonian20, and
Nmkru favoring an article.
The Grid also spoke in favor of redirection at the RfD. Arguments for inclusion have included
Notability was substantiated in the talk section, quoted here: "The School of Journalism and Communication is notable. It is over 100 years old and was one of the original 34 schools to be accredited by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. It has thousands of students and has created 15 Pulitzer Prize Winners as well as other notable alumni."
from Oregonian20 and
I’m an alum of the University of Oregon, and the UO School of Journalism and Communication is relevant in the industry. There are far smaller schools represented on this platform, and the school has a 100+-year history. It's also one of the oldest schools of journalism and communication in the nation and one of the first to be accredited.
Reason: This was created under the wrong title. In May, I moved it to the correct title based on
a request by
Animalparty, and resolved to wait a bit to see if pageviews dropped off, before RfDing. The incorrect title got all of 4 views in the month after the move, and 0 in the second month, so I think it can be safely deleted.
Reason: The logic for this title is, I assume, one of
WP:DIFFCAPS, but I don't think that applies here. Considering the canonical examples in the policy,
ice cube and
iron maiden are consistently capitalized as lowercase. There are, however, no consistent capitalization norms for listing one's pronouns. One sees "they/them", "They/them", and "They/Them" alike. Examples of people who describe their pronouns as "They/Them" include
Mauree Turner[7],
David Morgan (comedian)[8] (in the middle of a normally-capitalized sentence), and
Temmie Ovwasa[9] (ditto).
LinkedIn's three default sets of pronouns are "She/Her", "He/Him", and "They/Them".Given that "They/Them" is a reasonably common variant of "they/them" (unlike "Ice Cube" for "ice cube"), this article should be moved to
They/Them (film) and the redirect should be retargeted to
Singular they as an {{avoided double redirect}} of
they/them.
Reason: This BLP's subject has submitted a
WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST at
ticket:2022080910002407. He does not meet the revised
WP:NOLYMPIC guidelines, and, even if he could otherwise be shown to be notable as an athlete, would only be marginally so. As such I think his request should be honored.
Reason: This subpage was created as a result of
Talk:Love jihad/Archive 3 § Subpage creation. It is intended as a forum exclusively for discussing whether
love jihad is a conspiracy theory (thus de facto for complaints from people who disagree with the article's characterization of it as such). I've raised my objections to this at
Talk:Love jihad § Please refer conspiracy theory comments to discussion subpage (
permalink), and been told that expressing concerns is disruptive, so I bring this here for review instead. A subpage like this is a bad idea for three reasons:# If content is too disruptive to be included on the main talk page, it is too disruptive to be included on a subpage. Wikipedia does not have holding pens for disruptive editing.# This subpage has nine watchers. The parent talkpage has 218. This is problematic both because vandalism and disruption is much more likely to go unnoticed here—see
Special:PageHistory/Talk:Maryland/North (Mid-Atlantic State) vs South (Southern State) for what this page's future may hold—and because it removes most stakeholders from discussion: People who watchlist an article expect to get watchlist updates for discussions about it. They will not be aware of discussions on the subpage, and no "consensus" on the subpage could ever be binding.# Editors here to push a love jihad POV are not in fact the kind of people who tend to listen to banner notices saying they need to do that POV-pushing on a different page. So this page largely goes ignored by the people it's intended to corral.As I've explained at the parent talkpage, there are a variety of remedies available to handle disruptive edit requests on talkpages for controversial articles, and plenty of talkpages, such as
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and (of late)
Talk:Recession, are able to handle things using those remedies without resorting to this non-solution. This subpage should be deleted. (It could be first archived to the parent page's current archive if desired, but there's not much to preserve.)
Reason: I don't see an indication in the target article, nor at
[10], that the subject's name is frequently stylized as "CORPSE". Even if it were, Corpse would be a more natural target. But since that is a common noun with no affinity to an all-caps rendering, I think better to delete.
Reason: Same issue as at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aerobird/CSA Citizen Userbox: Not even the ambiguity of the "Southern culture" excuse, by explicitly associating users with the CSA itself, an entity built to perpetuate the systemic enslavement, rape, and murder of Black people. There's lots of ways to show Southern pride that don't involve supporting that.
Reason: The miscapitalization of two words makes this implausible. I would have no objection to a correctly-capitalized Birds flying high, you know how I feel, although targeted to the full article, not just the Bublé section.
Reason: I don't see why these two are unambiguous if King's speech and King's Speech aren't. The first four entries at the DAB are all ambiguous under a queen as well. I would suggest we retarget to King's speech; would also be open to the converse move, moving King's speech to King's speech (disambiguation) and retargeting the two king titles to Speech from the throne. If anyone's interested in doing it that way, please tag King's Speech and leave a note at
Talk:King's speech. (Stray thought, probably best answered at
WT:RfD: Should there be a "This DAB is implicated by an ongoing RfD" template?)
Reason: Until today, the target article claimed that Ryan's birth name was Jessie Irene Noblitt; it in the past
very briefly said Noblett, while DAB Noblett linked to redlink
Jessie Irene Noblitt till today. Also today, I
removed the "Jessie" claim after determining it fails verification, and (kinda) sorted out the ambiguity of Ryan's maiden name having been spelled three different ways by reliable sources."Jessie Irene Noblett" appears in a number of non-RSes, and sometimes that's reason to keep an incorrect redirect, but in this case it has pretty low pageviews, so I would say on balance the better thing is to delete this and avoid misleading readers who might see it in the search bar.
Reason: One of a number of questionable {{r from misspelling}}s created by this user. I was going to
R3 it as I have with some others by them, but apparently "
Saftware" is
Scots for software (or
might be;
CiphriusKane, any thoughts?). So I guess I'll bring it here as an
RLOTE with no affinity to the other language.
Reason: A misspelling of 'aqd, in turn an ASCII-only transliteration of
عقود (ʿaqd). Neither 'aqd nor ʿaqd exists, and none of these three spellings can be found at the current target. Those terms should probably stay red under
WP:REDYES, as contracts under Islamic law are a notable topic that currently do not get focused coverage in any article or section I see. However, even with ʿaqd blue, I think this would be an implausible misspelling, so delete for any combination of unmentioned, REDYES, and implausible. N.B.:
This was an article for less than 5 hours in 2009; it would stand a
snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD, so I think restoring would be
needlessly bureaucratic.
Reason: I couldn't make up my mind where to target this redirect, so I created it just to bring it here (arbitrarily picking one of the two options for now). Either this should point to Glaucoma § Signs and symptoms as an {{
avoided double redirect|Glaukomflecken}} + {{r from misspelling}}, or it should point to Dr. Glaucomflecken as an {{r from short name}}. On the one hand,
WP:SMALLDETAILS would tend toward the latter, since the former is always(?) spelled with a k. On the other hand, Dr. Glaucomflecken's name is not generally abbreviated to just his fictional surname, so one could argue that someone searching just this word is more likely misspelling the glaucoma symptom. Thoughts? Again, the current target was an arbitrary choice, and for now I am undecided.
Reason: Simple enough: Neither of these people is called "Chris Chan", at least not according to their articles (one of which I'll note the creator wrote just to have an excuse to create this DAB), and thus both fail
MOS:DABMENTION. The obvious ulterior motive here, as noted, was to get around longstanding consensus at
Talk:Kiwi Farms that the prose of that article should not mention an individual known by the nickname "Chris Chan". There have furthermore been
multiple consensuses at AN and one at DRV to not have any article on Chris Chan. On that basis, I have removed the "see also" to
Kiwi Farms—but besides, a "see also" doesn't count toward a DAB page being useful or not; it's an extra little thing for not-quite-ambiguous titles. This is pure
gaming the system, and this DAB page does not in any way benefit the encyclopedia. (If Chris Chan → Chris Chann [the page the DAB's creator wrote] is a plausible redirect, that can be decided separately.)As a housekeeping note, if there is consensus to keep this, the closing admin should move this to the salted title
Chris Chan, as there is no need for the "(disambiguation)" here when there's no article at that title.
Reason: The article Wikipedia is not about the article Wikipedia. Such an article would be titled something like Wikipedia (Wikipedia article). To my knowledge, we only have one Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article: Jar'Edo Wens hoax. Perhaps someday we will have a Wikipedia article about the Wikipedia article Wikipedia, but until then, a redirect like Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article is inappropriate for Wikipedia
.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Per target article, Kathy Hammond's full first name is Kathryn, not Kathleen. There are a few Kathleen Hammonds who are at least little-n notable, like
this academic and this book reviewer
[11][12], the latter of whom is who I was looking for when I came upon this redirect. Suggest deleting as misleading.
Reason: Previously pointed to Square-up; suggest reverting both to that as a clear
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I recognize a potential
WP:DIFFCAPS aregument for the uppercase variant, but I'm generally opposed to splitting a pair of two-word redirects based only on the capitalization of the first letter of the second word. If there's consensus against retargeting Square Up, then Square Up (EP) should be moved there per a request made by
2600:1700:9DD0:8FD0:4933:3749:3F94:549C at
WP:RM/TR, which I challenged in favor of this RfD.
Reason: Pink Friday II Roman Reloaded appears to be
occasionally used (although without the colon), and is the kind of redirect I personally would not create but also would not RfD. However, none of those nine hits contain a colon, and more importantly the parenthetical does not appear anywhere (if ostensibly part of the title) or is nonstandard as a disambiguator (if intended that way). Created by a user with a history of hoaxing, but I think falls shy of
G3.
Reason: This seems like a pretty clear case of
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Keeping in mind that The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary, "Salaam" primarily refers to the greeting used by Muslims and others, which we discuss at the article As-salamu alaykum. WikiNav
shows that page as 3:1 ahead of the next-most-clicked entry, despite the fact that it was not linked as prominently as it should have been until a few days ago. We should move to Salaam (disambiguation) and retarget the redirect to As-salamu alaykum.
Reason: Given that the film's title and VHS cover are both references to the iconic
Silence=Death Project poster, I think this is a
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. This is borne out by the lion's share of Google results for "silence=death", all about the poster or the group that created it, not about the film. And I don't see room for
WP:SMALLDETAILS disambiguation here (which would entail retargeting [[:]] but keeping this), as the spacing around the equals sign in reference to the poster and its creators is not consistent in RS.
[13][14]I propose a move to Silence = Death (film) and a retarget of the resulting redirect to Silence=Death Project.
Reason: HolmKønøman moved Presidential library to Presidential library system back in June, which I think was a good move. This article was previously at Presidential library (disambiguation), but I moved it to this title when I rewrote it as a
SIA, since a SIA shouldn't be at a "(disambiguation)" title. But given that presidential libraries are a concept that exist outside of the United States—including "Presidential Library" being the name of the largest library in Turkey, a country of 83 million people—I think it would make more sense to move this to the primary landing page of Presidential library. The list's first entry will still ably direct people to the current target.
Reason: These names are only mentioned at the target article in the context of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, so I think it would make more sense to retarget to Asiana Airlines Flight 214 § In popular culture. (Note: The fourth name used in the prank, Sum Ting Wong, is a DAB.)
Shouldn't they redirect to
Jeopardy!#Gameplay? Because the second part of the game is "Double Jeopardy", I've often heard the first part called "Single Jeopardy", and it's reasonable that someone would think of Final Jeopardy as "Triple Jeopardy".
Double Jeopardy! already redirects to
Jeopardy!#Gameplay. The proposed target is definitely not a good target for these redirects.
I disagree with that logic. Triple Jeopardy! is a thing on Celebrity Jeopardy!, whereas on regular Jeopardy! it could only refer to a misnomer for Final Jeopardy! Even if that's a misnomer that comes up at all (and no evidence has been presented that it is), a correct usage should almost always trump an incorrect usage. Revert to the original target.
Reason: I PRODded this, and
Guliolopez found some more sources and de-PRODded, which I'm grateful for, because I think that, as edited, this does merit a full discussion. But what it comes down to is: Three sources give between two and three different names for this person, depending how you count it. They are all very very common names in Ireland (in fact, my great-great-uncle was also a John/Sean Kelly). All Wikipedia articles need to be
verifiable, and there's just no way to write a verifiable article on someone named either Jim Kelly or John Kelly and/or Sean Kelly when we have very little other information on him. Notability-wise, this is an
WP:NOLYMPIC fail, and a
GNG fail for the same reasons it's a V fail.
Reason: This is a straightforward
G11 speedy, entirely sourced to the company's own self-promotional media but for a single sentence sourced to
this routine coverage of a transaction. Despite the fact that there is no time limit on G11, and despite the fact that there have only been a combined 13 words added
[15][16] since the article's creation in 2008, G11 was declined. So here we are. Delete as unsalvageably promotional. I don't see
SIGCOV, but even if there's an article to be written here,
this isn't it. Companies don't get a free pass on spamming just because they fly under the radar for 14 years, and it's a shame we'll now have to spend volunteer time on re-establishing what the community has already reached consensus on in the form of the
CSD policy.
Reason: At
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6 § Guancha, a number of editors, including myself, voiced the opinion that this news site is the primary topic for Guancha, but the decision was deferred since there was at the time no article on the news site. Now that The Account 2 has kindly created this article, it's worth revisiting that question. Guancha is one of five syonyms for Clathrina, while Guancha.cn is an influential news site in a country of a billion people. Per
[17], "Guancha.cn", "Guancha.com", "Guancha", and "Guancha News" are all used to refer to the site; in addition to having an apparent slight numerical advantage, Guancha is the most
concise. Thus we should move Guancha.cn there and move Guancha to Guancha (disambiguation). My second choice would be to move the DAB and then retarget Guancha to Guancha.cn.Courtesy pings to those who commented on PTOPIC status at the RFD: @
Vaticidalprophet and
Shhhnotsoloud; 61.239.39.90 notified on talkpage.
Reason: I think this is a
WP:DIFFCAPS situation. The primary meaning of "whet", capitalized thusly, is a synonym for "sharpen". I suggest we retarget to Sharpening stone (target of Whetstone), with hatnotes on both that page and the current target. The hatnote at Sharpening stone could potentially also link to
wikt:whet.
Reason: The word "Sorbonne" in English since 1970 overwhelmingly refers to
Sorbonne University (a.k.a "the Sorbonne" or "la Sorbonne"). While it is true that the Sorbonne University's name derives from the building, being the original sense of a word does not automatically confer
PTOPIC status; cf. Watergate (redirects to Watergate scandal, not Watergate complex). When I Google "Sorbonne", it takes me till the second page to see a single result about the building, the fourth page to see a second one. Every link I've spotchecked in WhatLinksHere intends Sorbonne University or, if in a pre-1970 context, the
University of Paris; but never the building. This should be moved to Sorbonne (building) and the redirect should be retargeted to Sorbonne University (or, second choice, Sorbonne (disambiguation) should be moved over the redirect).I'll note that the article does have one section that's not about the building, § Sorbonne name dispute. Move or no move, that should either be split off into its own article or merged with Sorbonne University Association into something like Successors to the University of Paris, as it is not within this article's stated scope.
Reason: I think this may be the rare case where a misspelled sense is the
primary topic over a correctly spelled one. Google Search, Google News, and Twitter search (for a splash of vernacular usage) all suggest that the primary usage of "Gray Poupon" is as a misspelling of "
Grey Poupon", with this fairly obscure album from 2011 being a distinctly secondary usage. This is unsurprising, given that Grey Poupon is popular in the United States, where "gray" is the prevailing spelling when that word is used as a common noun. Suggest move to Gray Poupon (album) and retarget redirect to Grey Poupon.
Reason: After a fair amount of digging, the best I can say about this article (created as an account's only edits in 2007, and only touched since to clear up confusion with
Tranbjerg J) is that it's not an outright hoax. The one linked reference (
archive) gives no coördinates, but gives the JOG number NN32-02, and Gazetteer of Denmark and the Faroe Islands: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names does record a Tranbjerg with that JOG number near Årre. However, Danish Wikipedia has nothing on this Tranbjerg, and Google yields only
one relevant result that I can find: about the
Tranbjerg Østergaard farm, at almost the exact coördinates given in the gazetteer. So I think this is one of those cases where one database got mixed up about whether something was a settlement or not, and that error propagated a little bit. But, whatever is in Tranbjerg, farmhouse or village, there does not seem to be enough
verifiable information to support a Wikipedia article.
Reason: Disambiguation page that doesn't seem to disambiguate any plausible search term. Energy density was already listed at Density (disambiguation), and I've added the other two there as well. And Power density has a hatnote to Surface power density. If this were a plausible search term I might just redirect to the main DAB, but I don't think it's something anyone would type in naturally; pageviews are likely from search suggestions.
Reason: Long-stalled list meant to serve as an alternative for
a list that's already pretty navigable, on an axis that isn't that useful. Suggest either deleting or redirecting to
Template:Reflex, which does essentially the same thing but better.
Reason: Was split from Freemasonry in March of 2003 and merged back in July of 2005, only for a new Anti-Masonry to be written in October 2005, at least some of which seems to have been taken from Freemasonry. Suggest histmerge without redirect, discarding the 5 edits that postdate July '05.
Reason: There's a somewhat confusing history here, but if I'm correctly reading the long-ago actions of Nat Krause and
Kwamikagami, this page's historical content was all merged into Kalto language. (See that article and Nihali language for information on confusion between the two.) So move without redirect to Kalto (language), an available redlink.
Reason: A different flavor of mainspace-page-for-talk-subpage, using the old /Comments subpage system. Delete for same reason we've deleted /Archive mainspace pages.
Reason: After the news site Guancha was made the primary topic in
Talk:Guancha § Requested move 3 November 2022, this has become a
WP:ONEOTHER DAB, or maybe one-and-a-half-other since there's the see also to La Guancha (disambiguation). This page has an unusually long history for a brief DAB—
an AfD,
an RfD, and the RM—but I think it may have now outlived its necessity. Disambiguation can be handled with a hatnote at Guancha: {{about|the news site|the genus of sea sponge|Clathrina{{!}}''Clathrina''||La Guancha (disambiguation){{!}}La Guancha}}.
Reason: This is a result of a move by
MB a year ago, on the basis that Adriano (footballer, born January 1982) and Adriano (footballer, born April 1982) both exist. I was going to retarget this to Adriano § Brazilian footballers, as I usually do when someone has moved a page for ambiguity but not retargeted the redirect, but couldn't help but notice the massive pageview disparity between the February Adriano and the January and April ones.
WP:INCOMPDAB says In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a
primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. Is this such a case? If so, the move should be reversed. If not, the redirect should be retargeted to the DAB section.
Reason: I don't see any reason to think that the presence of an apostrophe makes this exclusively an abbreviation for fanzine, rather than an alternate spelling of zine. Dictionary.com, based on Random House,
has them as synonymous. (It then says both are abbreviations of fanzine, but I think that's because most sources don't consider zine and fanzine as distinct topics, and I'm not entirely convinced we should; but that's beyond RfD's scope.) So as long as Zine and Fanzine are distinct articles, we should retarget to Zine.
Reason: This
mixture of Pepsi and milk is not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere except a mention in a reference at
Lindsay Lohan on screen and stage. I have no objection to a redirect to a target that discusses the beverage, but so long as there isn't one, delete.
Reason: Crotch bulge is a broader concept than just camel toe. Specifically, there is ~50% of the population covered by the former and not the latter. Suggest retarget to Crotch, which covers the term more broadly (albeit briefly) and which still links to Camel toe.
Reason: Procedural nomination. There was
RfD consensus in 2020 to restore this article and not have it redirect to Demographics of Tanzania, which does not mention white Tanzanians. Several editors have nonetheless attempted to restore the redirect, contrary to that consensus, and have declined to take it to AfD as is the correct procedure; thus I am bringing it here without an opinion of my own. Courtesy pings @
Rsk6400,
Scope creep,
Thryduulf, and
Narky Blert:.
Reason: There's some argument for a
WP:DIFFCAPS split here relative to Trans sexuality, but the current target is based on a single episode of a relatively obscure TV series (800 views/month for the article), and if I Google the phrase, the first result capitalized that way is a video by
Stef Sanjati, not this episode of Slutever. I think it's much more likely that people typing "Trans Sexuality" are looking for the topic of
transgender sexuality and just capitalizing it "wrong" (not really wrong, just inconsistent with
WP:AT); I suggest retargeting to Transgender sexuality and adding Slutever to the hatnote there.
Reason: I don't dispute the finding in 2018 that this is not the primary topic for "The Advocate", but there was insufficient discussion there about whether a double-disambiguator is necessary.
The Advocate § Magazines lists two other magazines, but neither is actually called "The Advocate". The Harvard Advocate can be referred to, abbreviatedly, as "the Advocate", yes, but likewise The New York Times can be called "the Times", and we nonetheless treat The Times (of London) as primary topic there. I don't see how this is any different. There is only one magazine on Wikipedia called "The Advocate", and this is it. (Likewise I doubt
[19] is notable, and, even if it is, it is vastly less significant then the most prominent publication for the largest LGBTQ community in the world.)
Reason: This was no-consensus in 2009, and then kept in 2012, but the lead article in the bundled 2012 AfD was deleted at a quieter 2nd AfD
5 years later. The real question here is simple: Is this something people talk about as a set? Not just the concept of live-action media based on video games but, specifically, actors in such media. I see articles about specific subsets of this cohort—
Game Informer ("respected" actors),
Business Insider ("terrible" movies)—but there does not seem to be any RS interest in the general concept of actors who've played characters who happen to originate from video games. And, importantly, such a list does not appear useful to anyone. This gets 120 views per month. It is not linked from any other articles. Its only recent "improvements" have been a slate of IMDb refs (the only references in the list). As cross-categorization goes, this is both arbitrary and unimportant.
Reason: Per the target article, a dirt road is not the only kind of unpaved road. Unpaved roads can be
made of gravel, for instance. I lean toward retargeting to
road surface, but I also think restoringSpecial:Permalink/44277639 is something to consider, especially if someone's willing to spruce it up a bit, either as a set index article or by moving some of the off-topic content currently at Dirt road.
Reason: In rewriting this article,
theleekycauldron and I—both Americans—could not think of any reason it should be at the American spelling of the brand name. Capri-Sun was founded in Germany, is still based in Germany, and is primarily sold outside the United States; the United States is the only country (or maybe also Canada? unclear) where the brand name is two words rather than hyphenated. We should move to the more international title.
Reason: "Washington", as a place name, is ambiguous. Even setting aside George Washington, Washington, United States redirects to the Washington DAB, not to Washington (state). In
the informal discussion above, there's been some discussion of whether Washington, D.C.,'s corresponding article being at ... in the District of Columbia is sufficient for disambiguation. Per
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. Thus, ... in the District of Columbia may resolve the ambiguity at that article, but it does not resolve the ambiguity at this one, no more than moving Washington, D.C. would make it acceptable to retarget Washington, United States to Washington (state). (I'm not even sure that ... in the District of Columbia is the correct title, especially as D.C. uses that form of its name less and less, but that's a matter for another RM I guess.)I'm open to other ways to disambiguate this, e.g. ... in Washington state or ... in the state of Washington, but I do think it needs to be moved from its current title to some unambiguous one, with the base title disambiguated.Courtesy pings @
Mudwater,
SounderBruce, and
Reywas92.Note to closer: I have moved my previous DAB page to Draft:Gun laws in Washington. If this is closed as move, please move that back to mainspace. Is this is closed as keep, you can delete/tag the draft as
G7 (linking to this comment), or just ping me and I'll delete it.
Reason: I want to be clear that this RM is not born of any desire to censor this title. There are plenty of articles where including the N-word or another slur in the title is the correct thing according to policy and guidelines. I do not think, however, that this article is one of them. I'm hesitant to reach that conclusion after the massive amount of attention this article got in yesteryear, but it seems pretty clear to me.
Wikipedia:Article titles § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations advises, Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (emphasis added). The latter is clearly met here, given that
Talk:GNAA (disambiguation) § Requested move found consensus to redirect GNAA to this article. As to the former question, that of known primarily by its abbreviation, here is an assessment of the English-language independent sources cited in the article and available online (omitting dupes and ones that don't name it at all). "Full name" includes censored variants, and typos etc. are counted as their intended meaning.;Full name (2):
The Atlantic;
The Scotsman;Full name in quote, not mentioned in source's voice (1):
TechCrunch;Full name 1st reference, "GNAA" thereafter (2):
BetaBeat;
Lih 2009;"GNAA" 1st reference, with expansion; back to "GNAA" on later refs, if any (3):
Dean 2010;
Death & Taxes;
Torrenzano 2011;Just "GNAA" (7):
Attwood 2010; BuzzFeed News[20][21];
DailyTech;
KQED;
Softpedia;
Stereoboard;
ViceThis comes out to 10–5 or 12–3 for the acronym, depending how you count it. Beyond this, most relevant Google News hits
for the organization's full name are emphasizing it in the context of
weev, not treating that as the name used in general discourse. Almost no one called this by its full name. Not today, not then, not in casual discourse, not in reliable sources. I remember getting into an argument with another Wikidata admin in 2013 about whether it made sense to revdel the letters "GNAA"... the takeaway from that being, even GNAA trolls were just using "GNAA", not the expanded acronym. So is the subject ... known primarily by its abbreviation? I would say yes. And in that case
WP:COMMONNAME says we should move.
Reason: Does not appear to meet
WP:GNG,
WP:NAUTHOR, or
WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Google News shows some passing coverage in the context of local politics, but nothing approaching significant coverage in reliable sources, and shows no coverage at all of him as an author. Tagged for notability for 6+1⁄2 years.
Reason: The article
previously mentioned a claim that this number frequently appears as a phone number due to integer overflows. That line has since been removed from the article, and is unlikely to return, given that even
the source doesn't vouch for its truthfulness. Unlike the one other redirect that is a fully formatted U.S. phone number (full disclosure: my (re)creation; see edit summary there), this is a private individual's phone number, so we should probably delete it. (N.B.: Have already checked with an
oversighter that this does not meet OS criterion #1.)
Reason: Short-lived (3 weeks) title of a promotional parallel article duplicating the current target. Current redirect is a result of a move to Stephen Bruner and a subsequent
BLAR. Pageviews are negligible (2 last year), so I think this can be safely deleted.
Reason: The first two are simply grammatically incorrect ("protests rollback"). The third through fifth wrongly imply that the protests had an adverse effect on women's rights. I assume an "against" was intended in all cases, but even if corrected none would be a particularly plausible search term, so delete all.
Reason: Almost everything currently in this article appears
unverifiable. The only maybe-minimally-reliable source cited is
this survey, but it's rather out of date. The only RS coverage I can find is
a brief local FOX segment that discusses how a
Publix was eventually built around the cemetery. A cemetery on a supermarket's land would be an interesting thing to have an article on, but 2 minutes on local news isn't
significant coverage (else basically any local landmark would be notable), and as far as I can tell no
SNG applies here. If this isn't deleted, I think
WP:TNT applies due to the article's apparent reliance on
self-published sources and/or
original research (note the creator's apparent
COI with its restoration), and would suggest stubbing it.
Reason: Very unexpected target. There's room for a DAB also including
Publication § United States and maybe
Public display of affection or some things relating to display of bodies before funerals, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle thin
Reason: Ambiguous with various articles about display of bodies before funerals. We could DAB, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle things.
Reason: This was moved by
Brookeenglish in 2017 to be consistent with Sex worker. However, that misses an important distincton. "Sex worker" is an occupation (or broad description for a set of occupations). "Transgender sex worker", however, is not. Transgender sex workers are sex workers who happen to be transgender. Their significance is as a group, not as an occupation, as born out by the articles' sources. Per
WP:NCPLURAL, articles on groups usually have plural titles, so the previous title here should be restored.
Reason: This is one of those "point-and-laugh" small-time criminal articles that represent the very worst of what's possible on Wikipedia, serving only to attract
BLP violations while presenting no encyclopedic benefit. On some occasions, we are forced to maintain such articles because they pass
GNG, but that is not the case here. All of the coverage is routine local news articles, each consisting of "Man gets arrested/convicted" and then a summary of past routine coverage, with the sole exception of
[22], which is mostly an interview and not stated in the source's own voice.Every city in America has a number of career criminals who gain some modicum of local interest such that they're written up whenever they're arrested. This is particularly true in Florida where, famously, the media are notified of all arrests upon booking. That kind of routine local coverage is not what "significant coverage" refers to; it's the very reason we put "significant" there. An encyclopedia has better things to do than regurgitate tabloids and crime blotters.
Reason: As verbs, these terms have a much stronger likelihood than they do as nouns of referring to one of the other meanings listed at
Bailout (disambiguation). I encountered this when writing that someone had posted bail for someone else, and was
surprised to be taken to the current target. Retarget to DAB.
Reason: Surely this should point to
WP:Common knowledge? Of 5 backlinks, 2 clearly intend that, and the other 3 are ambiguous but I think more likely mean that than the current target (which does not contain the phrase "common knowledge" once).
Reason: @
WWGB: I have no clue how this move was controversial, seeing as you didn't actually give a reason for reverting it, but if you insist on going through the formality of an RM for a straightforward application of
MOS:GEOCOMMA, alrighty, here we are: This article should be moved as a straightforward application of
MOS:GEOCOMMA; some amount of trout may also be in order.
Reason: Redirect pointing to the business's competitor; it is not mentioned in that article. Perhaps the creator got it mixed up with neighboring Raging Waters, which is part of Morey's Piers and is mentioned.
Reason: Entirely unsourced, entirely in-universe article, with no evidence of standalone coverage. No mention at
parent article, so not suitable for redirection.
Reason: There have been several previous RMs here, but all focused on the two extreme options of simply Yesterday or the doubly-disambiguated Yesterday (Beatles song). Per
WP:INCOMPDAB and
WP:PDAB, a partly-disambiguated title may still have a primary topic; a rule of thumb I often see used is whether the article gets more pageviews than all other candidates combined. Well, let's see.
For the past year:*
Yesterday (Beatles song): 241,137 pageviews in 2022*
Yesterday (Toni Braxton song): 5,210*
Yesterday (Shanice song): 1,061*
Yesterday (Black Eyed Peas song): 1,022That is a 33:1 pageview ratio in favor of the Beatles song over the three others combined. Similarly,
WikiNav shows that the Beatles song got 35.91% of outbound clicks from the Yesterday DAB in April, the highest of any song and the second-highest overall (after the recent film); no other song cracks the top 6 (which bottoms out at 1.8%). In addition to that technical data, there is the fact that the Beatles song is one of the most influential, most covered, and most popular songs of all time. I think there is a strong case here for it to be the primary topic for "Yesterday (song)".
Reason: Whether a given work counts as "hard" science fiction is subjective. Some of these articles may mention critics characterizing them as "hard", but most do not, with categorization instead representing individual editors' opinions. Even in the rare cases where "hard"ness is of encyclopedic relevance, it is generally not defining. This is better left to the lists at
Hard science fiction § Representative works.
Reason: The United States is not the only place where desegregation has occurred (hence the page being moved), and this is gradually attracting incorrect bluelinks from editors who reasonably expect this to be about desegregation in general—see e.g. backlinks at
Joram van Klaveren and
Bermuda. I propose to bypass all U.S.-specific redirects and then retarget to Racial integration as an {{r from related term}}/{{r with possibilities}}.
Reason: It's been 4 years since the last RM closed with no consensus, and I think this is worth revisiting. Yes, the nautical sense of the term is older, but that is not the standard that decides primary-topic status. It would only be relevant if "poop" to mean feces were a neologism, but after 250 years that sense seems to be sticking around. Yes, "poop" is also a verb, but see Netoholic's point in the previous RM; the more logical search term for someone looking for Defecation is "pooping". Thus neither counterargument from the previous RM seems very persuasive. What is clear is this: In modern English, "poop" overwhelmingly refers to feces. Per
WikiNav, in April 59.61% of outbound clicks were to Feces, 12.19% to Defecation, and 6.86% to Poop deck. This page should be moved to Poop (disambiguation), and the redirect should be targeted to Feces, which is both the common-sense primary topic and the subject of an outright majority of outbound clicks.
Reason: This was created in 2012, then overwritten in 2016 with an article that was then speedily deleted. As the correct procedure in such a case is to restore the redirect, not delete the page outright, I have restored the redirect on procedural grounds. However, it's unclear to me (and, based on the history, perhaps also to
Paine Ellsworth) why this redirect exists, and thus I bring it here.
Reason: [Context of this page's creation:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § MathematicsAndStatistics.] This is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything. Neither the article Mathematics nor the article on Statistics is about the topic of "Mathematics and statistics". Rather, they are respectively about mathematics and about statistics. The former does at least briefly discuss statistics, so a case could be made for redirecting there, but the more sensible answer is to delete, as this is not a plausible term for our readers to search; if anything it will just confuse people seeing it as a search suggestion.
Reason: {{old rfd list|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 7#Tim Apple|retarget from
Tim Cook to
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Tim Apple|keep at Tim Cook|Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_12#Al_Frankenstein|no consensus}}Procedurally renominating as closer of
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12 § Al Frankenstein after an inconclusive result in that very large nomination.
Jay's proposal to retarget this to Tim Cook, endorsed by
Red-tailed hawk, seems reasonable, but there was consensus against that target at two previous RfDs, meaning that further discussion is merited.
Reason: Missiles are not the only things that can be wire-guided. Other wire-guided projectiles include torpedoes and submersibles. The French Wikipedia has
a broad article on wire guidance, and so could we, so we should delete these all per
WP:REDYES.
Reason: This does not seem like an appropriate category because very few shootings are explicitly categorized as "defensive gun use". Most of the articles in this category are cases where someone shot someone and claimed self-defense, and either was not charged or was charged but acquitted; but none of that really represents a reliable source saying that "defensive gun use" occurred. Rather, the use of this category to characterize the listed shootings seems to be
original research and, in many cases, potentially
POV-pushing. If there were a clear definition of "defensive gun use" I would support just removing those that don't meet that definition, but it's a subjective term and so any category will be subjective too.
Reason:
Previously RfD'd but trainwrecked without discussion of that entry. Biden is surely the most notable Joe to be a president, but he isn't the only one.
Joe Shirley Jr. was the longest-serving president of the
Navajo Nation, a sovereign entity with 165,000 citizens; unlike Biden, his first name actually is just Joe. Several Josephs, some of whom may be known as Joe, have been presidents as well:
Kasa-Vubu and
Kabila (Congo);
Estrada (Phillipines);
Jenkins Roberts and
James Cheeseman (Liberia);
Urusemal (Micronesia);
Lamothe,
Davilmar Théodore, and
Nemours Pierre-Louis (Haiti);
Saidu Momoh (Sierra Leone);
Lagu and
James Tombura (Southern Sudan); and
Allison (Orange Free State). Given Biden's primacy, this redirect might be reasonable if he were frequently referred to mononymously, but he is not, so this should be deleted.
Reason: Since
United States Heraldic Registry's deletion in 2017, this has only linked to two things:
United States House of Representatives and
Islamic taxes § Ushr. The first fails
MOS:DABABBR, and I don't think the sources support "USHR" being nearly a common enough abbreviation for the House for that term to be added to the target article. And the second doesn't need disambiguation because
WP:DIFFCAPS applies; no one had made Ushr till today, but I've gone and done that. Since this does not help readers arrive at any page explaining the usage of "USHR" in all-caps, it should be deleted.
Reason: I declined a
G6 speedy on this as out-of-process, and
G14 would not apply because the target is a DAB (which I'm going to convert into a list of lists in a sec, but that's still DAB-like for G14's purposes). However, miscapitalized "(disambiguation)" titles are not helpful except when there's significant page history, so I bring this here for consideration of non-speedy deletion.
Reason: Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PRODded in 2020 by LearnIndology (no-pinged; TBANned and inactive) for reason It is just a social media slang and not enough scholarly sources are available for this term. Instead
BLAR'd by
Capankajsmilyo. Restored by
आज़ादी, BLAR'd again by LearnIndology because has nothing except a dictionary source; restore redirect, and finally
brought to RfD, where I found consensus to restore and send to AfD. A number of RfD voters favored redirecting to
BIMARU states, which this AfD should consider.
Reason: This is inappropriate in the article for the same reason that a fair-use image would be on a BLP. It is fundamentally replaceable because Bean is a living person who can be photographed. There might be a fair-use case if the logo were discussed in the article, but it isn't.That said, there might be an argument that this is below the U.S. threshold of originality—would depend on how creative the shading of the letters is, I'd think. It's above the TOO in the UK, so isn't eligible for Commons, but if it's below the U.S. TOO this could be redesignated as a local public-domain file.
Reason: I'm deeply skeptical that there is enough structured data about genders and sexual identities to justify infoboxen. On some articles like Bi-curious this just wraps a flag. On others like Bisexuality it's just a flag plus a repetition of prose content from the article's lede sentence. When more detail is given, it's often
original research or questionable takes, like Asexuality including
demisexuality as a subcategory or Pansexuality having an ostensible "Parent category" of
bisexuality (what???). Yes, these are fixable on a per-article basis, but the fundamental issue is the genders and sexualities are not cognizable things. They are vague ideas of human feelings and subcultures, no more suited for infoboxen than emotions or broad ideological movements. They cannot be reduced to simple metadata in the manner of, say, a person or country. Delete, replacing with flag images as appropriate.
Reason: If this were to point somewhere about computers, Drag and drop would be the more obvious target, but I don't see why that would be primary over
dragging death,
police drag, or any other sense described at
wikt:drag § Verb. (I found this while looking for enwiki content on the "criticism" sense, in relation to
cancel culture, which should be mentioned somewhere but currently isn't.) So retarget to DABDrag for want of a primary topic.
Reason: This is a case where following
WP:DIFFCAPS means that the sentence-case version should simply be a redlink. There is no encyclopedic primary topic for the general concept of "half measures", and over time a redirect like this risks racking up erroneous bluelinks. While I wouldn't hugely oppose a soft-retarget to
wikt:half-measure, I think readers are better served simply by the search results, mirroring redlinks
half measure,
half-measure, and
half-measures. The Breaking Bad episode will still be the top result in those search results.
Reason: Mentioned neither at current target nor at previous target Homer's Phobia. Christmas gift-bringer is a halfway viable target, but deletion makes much more sense.
Reason: This seems like a
WP:COMMONNAME situation. This entity refers to itself primarily
as the Harvard Corporation, only noting in a subheading that it is Known formally as the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
This recent NYT article takes a similar approach, The Harvard Corporation—formally known as the President and Fellows of Harvard College. A Google search shows other cases like that, and some citations of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, but not anyone using the current name as the primary one for the entity. The closest is the Harvard Gazette (see citations in article), which does sometimes (
[23] but not
[24]) say "President and Fellows" on first reference... but still uses "Corporation" from then on.
Reason: A home planet is a planet that is the home of an entity being discussed. Because of humans' limited venture beyond our gravity well, the term is mostly confined to science fiction, where it usually refers to any planet but Earth. Planet would resolve the issue of focusing on Earth, but contains no content about the concept of a "home planet", so I favor deletion for want of a suitable target.
Reason: Procedural nomination as closer of
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § Janes Place, California. I am neutral. In 2019
Reywas92 BLAR'd this as locality not notable, redir to county.
WeirdNAnnoyed took it to RfD, writing Target article never mentions Janes Place, or gives any hint about what or where it was. Very obscure place, unlikely search term. Reywas commented at the RfD Topo map shows it as an isolated cabin.
Reason: This is a previous title of Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes, which was redirected to the target at AfD in 2006. That redirect is of marginal utility, but this one is outright misleading: There are many metrics by which one can compare post-war Germany and post-war Japan, of which attitude toward war crimes is but one.
Reason: The article is a reasonable target for Big butt, but, as it does not characterize steatopygia in medical terms, redirecting "Big butt disease" here seems misleading.
Reason: I had originally targeted this to F1NN5TER. Wbm1058 has retargeted with the argument redirect to the more likely misspelling – only one extra letter is there, no digits. I would agree with that if this were an arbitrary typo, but, as established in the prose of the article itself, this is a known misspelling of the subject's screen name—not borne of fat fingers, but people deliberately converting the
leetspeak canonical name to regular characters—even occurring in marginally reliable sources
like Game Rant. If you search Twitter for finnster you'll see the misspelling is ubiquitous, with F1NN5TER being the subject of an outright majority of tweets containing the string. Googling the string—even Incognito, on public wifi, with before:2024—the clear majority of hits I get are about F1NN5TER; the handful of exceptions are about non-notable animals and a one-off SNL character who had no lines. On the other hand,
none of the articles about people named Finster reference this misspelling. Based on all this, I think F1NN5TER is the clear primary topic for the misspelling, and the
least astonishing approach for our readers would be to redirect to his article with hatnote to Finster.
Reason: Trivializes an important mental health issue, thus violating
WP:UBCR. While at face value this may seem a reasonable sentiment, it's a stereotype that's often used to dismiss people who self-harm, discouraging them from finding help. Our own article on
self-harm notes: A common belief regarding self-harm is that it is an attention-seeking behaviour; however, in many cases, this is inaccurate.
Reason: Thought Crimes was for a few minutes in 2006 the (incorrect) title for the article now at
Thoughtcrimes. After that article was moved, the redirect was swiftly retargeted to
Thoughtcrime. Since then, however, the movie Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop has come out. Per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, I propose we retarget to
Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop, on the premise that someone using the capital C is more likely to be looking for the movie. The movie article can have a hatnote to Thoughtcrime and Thoughtcrimes.Thought crimes didn't exist till a few minutes ago, but I created it as a companion to this one, as clearly it should exist. Again per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, I've targeted it to
Thoughtcrime, on the premise that someone using the lowercase c is more likely to be looking for the general concept, and thus propose that we keep this target.
Outcome: First retargeted. Second kept due to no consensus.
Reason: The article has only one inline cite (well, really an external link titled "ref"); of the nine references listed, only two seem to be independent reliable sources: BusinessWeek (dead but archived
here and Time (dead but archived
here). Everything else is the sorts of awards that thousands of corporate execs win every year. Independent Googling doesn't establish anything beyond a few more brief write-ups. The article has a pretty solidly promotional tone, largely built around those awards and other touted accomplishments, and I just don't see the
WP:SIGCOV we'd need in order to create a better article.
Reason: CSAI can refer to a number of things other than the Catholic Scout Association in Israel; that article does not actually list it as an acronym in use. Most of the things that CSAI stands for are non-notable companies or products, but one usage comes up in some fairly significant contexts: CSAI as short for child sexual abuse imagery, a less common variant of child sexual abuse material (the latter of which is mentioned in the lede at
Child pornography). Most notably, Google
uses the term in a number of contexts, particularly CSAI Match—a software used by a number of sites—and
in this paper written in collaboration with the
NCMEC. As such, I suggest that we retarget to
Child pornography; a hatnote can be placed there if someone can find RS using "CSAI" for the scouting association.
Reason: Bahl also directed Section 375. While I'm not sure that there's enough about him for this to be a
WP:REDLINK candidate, it's definitely an
WP:XY situation. More generally, I'm not a huge fan of artist → work redirects, outside of
WP:BIO1E cases. I don't think they usually help our readers find what they're looking for. Someone looking for B.A. Pass or Section 375 will presumably search the titles of those movies, not the director's name.
Reason: Well, I know what I'm gonna have stuck in my head for the rest of the day. The correct title of the song,
according to Discogs, is "Campfire Song Song". We don't (yet) have a Campfire Song Song, but we do have a Campfire song song, so I've added that here. [...] Since there's nothing else called the "Campfire Song Song", I don't see any need to disambiguate. Retarget [...] to SpongeBob's Greatest Hits, which the song is featured on.
Reason: Both of these redirects have pointed to
Airplane since their creations (in 2016 and 2017 respectively). A few days ago
User:RobloxFan2021 retargeted the former to
Light aircraft. The Unicode character does indeed appear to be defined as
SMALL AIRPLANE, so I see their reasoning, but I disagree. I don't think that the average person using SMALL AIRPLANE has much sense of the fact that it's "SMALL AIRPLANE", and is more likely just looking for any airplane.See clarification below In fact, on my browser (Chrome on Windows 10), the two redirects show up identically in the URL and in the tab title (but differently in the body of the page). I propose that we re-synchronize to
Airplane.
🛩️, the second page linked here, which currently points to
Airplane, is U+1f6e9 U+fe0f, the latter being
Variation selector 16, which indicates that a symbol should be rendered as an emoji.
In my nomination statement, I incorrectly said that only the latter is "SMALL AIRPLANE". That was incorrect. These are both that symbol, just that the first might be a text symbol or emoji depending on how a browser interprets it, while the latter is supposed to always be an emoji. On that note,
🛩︎ is a valid character (currently a redlink), using selector 15u+fe0e, which indicates that a symbol should always be rendered as text. In other words, Redirect #2 and that redlink are locked-in versions of the two ways that Redirect #1 can be rendered.
I think I'm getting that right, at least. Sorry for the mix-up.
Reason: Was a
WP:FANCRUFTy article for 10 minutes in 2011 before it was redirected (without, AFAICT, any content being merged elsewhere). Not a plausible search term, and pageviews are close to baseline. Doofenshmirtz already redirects to the article, and Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated redirects to the same section as this.
Reason: Similar to the 2 at
§ Deutschlandese Airlines, but a slightly less implausible search term, so listing separately. These three were initially targeted to Lufthansa, but
Rosguill retargeted them to List of airlines of Germany, which is a better target for sure, but I'm not convinced that any of these is a plausible search term. I would expect a mixed-language, title-cased title like any of these to, if it exists, refer to a specific company (or a DAB page of multiple companies). I think the most likely use case of someone searching for one of these terms is that they expect us to have an article with that title, not that they're trying to find a list of German airlines.
Reason: Someone looking for an article on an actor is unlikely to be satisfied by an article on one show that they were in, especially when the search feature can provide a more holistic and dynamic set of possible pages, and especially when the article about the show has minimal content about the actor. (For the [second] redirect, there's the additional rationale of this being an implausible typo.)
Reason: The target article does not refer to anything called a "Fuck scholarship" or that might be referred to as such. The closest is saying Government funding helped finance Fairman's scholarship. The book is an instance of scholarship on the word "fuck", but that doesn't make it a logical target. I suppose this could be retargeted to
fuck, which discusses the academic study of that word, but I don't think "____ scholarship" is a very plausible search term in general, since that term is used more often to refer to
scholarships.Google gives no relevant results for "fuck scholarship", six results (all of them porn) for "fuck scholarship" fairman, and zero for "fuck scholarship" "word taboo". Delete.
Reason: The book was indeed based on a paper, and so Fuck (article) and Fuck (paper) are reasonable {{r from subtopic}}s, but I don't see the non-parenthetically-disambiguated forms as plausible search terms. I'm not sure what someone searching for "Fuck article" or "Fuck paper" is likely to be looking for, but I doubt it's this book.
Reason: Unlike the article/paper nomination below, in this case the disambiguation is at least correct: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is indeed a
monograph. That said, I don't see any reliable sources referring to is such, and there's lots of semi-obscure terms for a work that we could use as disambiguators but don't. Delete, more strongly in the case of the nonstandardly-formatted one.
Outcome: First kept due to no consensus. Second deleted.
Reason: In this case, I'm not nominating the standardly-formatted disambiguation, Fuck (book), since Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties does seem to be the only book listed at
Fuck (disambiguation). Formatted this way, however, I would more expect fuck book to refer to some form of
erotic literature (such as
Tijuana bibles, this page's original target), a
little black book, the album Fuckbook, or
Fuckbook (dating site) (a redlink, and likely to stay that way). Weak retarget to the album Fuckbook, but also can see cases for dabbing or deleting.
Reason: Has barely ever been used, is formatted very strangely, and is not what I expected when I searched for this. Subst and redirect to
Template:DRV links.
Reason: The first two of these were the title of Trevor C. Williams for the first few days of that article's existence, until the creator moved them to the current title. The third, weirdly enough, was for five months the title of Trevor Williams (basketball), now a redirect, which was created by the same person at the same time. 2006 was weird.None of these is a plausible search term. The first gets near-zero pageviews (33 since '15). The second gets a surprising number (381). The third, despite having been an article's title for five months, gets only 130. I think that we should delete the first as implausible, unused, and short lifespan as an article title; (weak) keep the second for pageviews despite implausibility and short lifespan; and delete the third as implausible and unused, despite longer lifespan as an article.
Reason: There is more than one team that each of these could refer to. Retarget football and basketball to Sports in Atlanta, which lists such teams. However, Atlanta Baseball Team is used as a euphemism for the MLB team that plays there, by people like me who prefer not to say its name, and also by
several news outlets. Given that the only other baseball team listed at Sports in Atlanta is the
Gwinnett Stripers, and affiliate of the other team, on balance I'd say keep baseball, optionally with hatnote to Sports in Atlanta.
Reason: I had not heard this term before, but Collinssays that it's the British equivalent of the American "high school graduates". High school graduate points to Secondary school, so I think this should too. School-leaving age is also of note, but seems broader-concept than may be wanted. (For whatever reason, only the plural form has been created here; if it hasn't been created by the end of this RfD, I'll create it and sync it with however this is closed.)
Reason: This is the German term for "television series," I gather. There is no particular affinity between the German language and the concept of television shows and thus, per
WP:RLOTE, this should be deleted.
Reason: In 2008, this redirect's creator predicted that the target (then an article, now a section of a larger one) would eventually have some discussion of when series are "original". Well, it's been 13 years, and I don't think that's happened. "Original" can mean a few things in this context, including "creative", but the primary meaning of "original television series", I would think, is a series that has since been sequelled or remade, like Star Trek: The Original Series. The linked section acknowledges this concept in passing, but there's nothing really about what it means for a show to be "original". Given that original-ness is only relevant when there's been a sequel or remake, I currently lean toward retargeting to
Remake#Television as an {{r from antonym}}, but I'll hold off on !voting till I see what others have to say.
Reason: Has pointed to this target since 2005, when the article was, shall we say, uncomfortably detailed. There was no mention at the time, but one was
added a few weeks later. The content that was once discussed so lavishly at that article is now mostly found (with less troubling wording) at Corporal punishment and Judicial corporal punishment. Flogging is a reasonable target given the name, but that article doesn't mention this term at all, nor does Caning (and it seems that flogging frames are today used more in caning than in flogging per se). The only article I find that does mention the term is Caning in Singapore, where it's mentioned in passing, but that seems too specific a target. Currently my thinking is that we should retarget to Corporal punishment, but I'm not sure yet.
Reason: Unlike
§ Billy Cosby below, I don't see any usage of this even as a typo, although it's a bit harder to tell because "will" is also a verb. Still, generally I'd expect people to be more likely to overextend "Bill" to "Billy" than to mix up "Bill" and "Will" (which a surprising number of people don't even realize are short for the same name).
Reason: The correct name, per the list and per Google results, is Eddie Olosunje. 'j' → 'd' as a typo gets only
6 GHits, and pageviews are ~10/year. Delete.
Reason:
Per the Zelda Wiki, there are two characters named Trill in the Zelda universe, the other being from Cadence of Hyrule. Neither is mentioned at the relevant article. I've not played either of the games in question, but judging from the profiles on these two characters
[1][2] it does not look like either plays a significant role in their respective game's plot. Between the low status and
WP:XY, I say delete. Another option would be to retarget to Trill § Fictional entities (which currently links to this redirect) and mention the Cadence of Hyrule Trill there as well, with links pointing to the two games' articles.
Reason: Hashtag that had a brief flurry of media coverage in 2018, no longer mentioned at target article. Even when it was mentioned, it was just
two sentences (one of them a copyvio from
the cited Times article). SquatForChange still exists as a non-profit, and there may be room for a mention of them if Changing table were expanded to say a lot more about access advocacy, but barring a mention there, delete.
Reason: While a less ambiguous search term than 2021 building collapse (and thus listed separately), there are still three other shared residences listed under 2021 at
List of structural failures and collapses#2020–present. I'm not sure if any would meet the definition of a "condominium building"—a term mostly used in the U.S.—but it's similar enough that I feel that these search terms are too ambiguous and should be retargeted to that list.
Reason: Google shows that this has been used as the title of a number of non-notable works, and someone searching for one of them is likely to be
surprised by this redirect. Even if it's a phrase worth targeting to some concept, I don't think there's a clear primary target—could be the current one, could be anti-war movement or a specific subset of it, could be the war to end war. Was created with the summary "pun?"; if there is a pun here, I'm missing it.
Reason: I don't see any indication that any of these is ever called "global warring". A Google search for the term mostly gets articles about Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map by
Cleo Paskal. There's some case, then, to redirect this to Paskal's article, but a) the book isn't mentioned there and b) this is much more likely going to be an
autocorrect error for "
global warming", meaning that it's better to let the search engine sort this out for people. (If Global war were a DAB I'd say to redirect this there, but it redirects to Wold war, and retargeting this to that would probably necessitate a hatnote.)
Reason: Ambiguous. There are eight other building collapses in Florida listed at List of structural failures and collapses. We could retarget to that page, but since the information isn't collated by location, I think it would make more sense to just delete.
Reason: There are four collapses in Miami listed at List of structural failures and collapses—not including the current target, which is in
Miami-Dade County but not in Miami itself. As with the others, we could retarget to the list, but personally I lean toward deletion.
Reason:
WP:XY situation: Could also refer to the
WCIX TV Tower collapse in 1992. Since neither tower is actually in Miami, I think deletion makes more sense than targeting one or the other or DABbing.
Reason: Google results suggest that this term is primarily used in the context of the
"effective power" bug. The term "effective power" is never used verbatim at the current target, although a few similar terms are. I propose that we retarget to SpringBoard#"effective power" bug, with hatnote to current target.
Reason: I'm going to
AGF that this refers to
paraphilic infantilism and not to anything that would trigger
policy concerns. That said, the combination of "as a child" (rather than something more kink-specific like "as a little"), which is a common refrain in some
pro-pedophilia rhetoric, and of an image of
pedobear, clearly could give the impression that this userbox is an endorsement of pedophilia.
Reason: Nonstandard disambiguation format. More plausibly would be a search term for someone looking for a film about the concept of cargo, or who thinks there's some genre of this name, or perhaps is looking for
these documentary producers. Delete, although if kept this should definitely be retargeted to Cargo (disambiguation)#Films, like Cargo (film).
Reason: Nonstandard disambiguation format. As with below, sounds more like a kind of film than a particular film; "platform" can have a number of meanings in a media context. I suggest we delete, but if kept this should be retargeted to Platform#Arts, like Platform (film).
Reason: I typed this in meaning to type {{R from related topic}} (which redirects to {{R to related topic}}), and was surprised to find that this redirects to {{R from related word}}. In my opinion, "topic" is a much more predictable synonym for "concept" than "word" is. This only has four backlinks. Of those:* Is of identity: Not sure what the right rcat would be for this, because I'm not sure what the right target is.* Hematopoeitic stem cell donation and Hematopoietic stem cell donation: Seems more like an {{R from subtopic}}. Donation is one part of transplantation.* Bullshitization: Indeed a related wordI suggest that we retarget to {{R to related topic}}, recategorize the second and third transclusions, and bypass template redirect on the fourth transclusion. Not sure yet what to do with the first transclusion. Might need its own RfD.
Reason: There's no subcategory on American music (contrast
Category:2021 in American music), meaning that this is only helpful to readers if they're willing to browse through the subcategories and guess which pages are about the U.S. It might be reasonable for 2022 in music (currently a redlink) to redirect here, but even there that seems like it would run afoul of
WP:REDLINK. Lots of concert dates, album releases, etc., have been announced for 2022. And in my opinion XNRs to categoryspace should be reserved for cases where there's no chance of an article ever existing.
There is only one reason anyone would spell out and search the phrase 'The Hundred' on Wikipedia and that's for the cricket competition. The other pages [at The 100] all involve the number and it feels that the redirect is unnecessary.
Pinging:*
Joseph2302, who !voted keep at RfD with comment
Most of the links at The 100 are valid for being spelt out- causal reader wouldn't know if they're spelt as 100 or Hundred in the name. I don't believe that most people will be looking for the "cricket" tournament.
, which I think should be read as a keep in this context as well*
Jay, who !voted (in the context of the redirect)
Disambig with entries The 100 (TV series), The Hundred (cricket) (and probably The One Hundred (band)) with cricket as primary.
*
Darorcilmir, whose comment there I read as supporting a move:
Agree that The Hundred now refers only to the cricket competition and nothing else - because nothing else uses this specific formatting. It therefore needs its own main entry, with all other instances listed on disambig page, and a hatnote on the main page.
*
Zerosumnet and
Mdewman6, who commented but did not !vote.I've not yet made my mind up on where I stand personally.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 05:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Per
WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE, "User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable." In its no-parameters version, I think this userbox just barely passes that standard. However, it's only transcluded in one place,
User:Kartano, where the following "activities" are included: specifically stag & vixen, threesomes, foursomes, voyeur, soft swapping, hard swapping, adult sex clubs, sex toys, erotica, DP, DVP, BDSM, homemade pornography. Those activities bring it past the line set by NOTDATINGSERVICE, and I think really any activities list would. Delete or remove activities parameter.
Reason: I don't think that someone's marital issues are reasonably related to building an encyclopedia, and broadly stating "but wants to change that!" alongside a term that
is often associated witha sense of entitlement to sex[] and the endorsement of violence against women leaves a rather unsavory implication,
even if unintentionally. Delete.
Reason: Wikipedia is
not news and
not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles like these tend to get made when people start putting a bunch of generic reactions into the article on a news event, and at a certain point someone forks them off into their own article to avoid bogging down the main article. Which is preferable to leaving them in the main article, but I don't see what benefit an article like this has to our readers.
Fall of Kabul (2021) § Reactions and § Refugees cover the most important aspects. There isn't any particular encyclopedic relevance to the fact that Finland has evacuated its diplomats or that Brazil has expressed concern. Basically every country in the world has the same response to this: "That's bad. We're evacuating our people," with an optional "And maybe we'll take a few refugees," and a fork like this just creates a few dozen items in need of update in a few months/years when editors have stopped paying attention to this page. I don't see a way where this evolves past a bunch of press releases (or uncritical news write-ups of those press releases) to in-depth coverage of the various countries' reactions.(Also, if kept, this should be moved to Reactions to the 2021 fall of Kabul, per my points at
Talk:Fall of Kabul (2021) regarding capitalization.)
Reason: The parenthetically-qualified syntax implies that consent is a distinct phrase or concept in BDSM compared to other contexts. The article does not bear that out, and rather begins with "consent within BDSM", later defining the term as "an explicit agreement to acts, terms and conditions"—the same definition as applies in non-BDSM contexts.To avoid the erroneous implication that consent in BDSM is distinct from consent in general, we should move to Consent in BDSM, which is a more natural title anyways.
Reason: See related nomination
below. Procedural nomination to keep these on the same day; still thinking about how to !vote. Not going to nominate Paid advocacy on wikipedia, per Hog Farm's points below.
Reason: If this is going to point to something, it should be Vaginal bleeding, a broader topic than menstruation. That said, this doesn't strike me as a very plausible search term, and it can be used to refer to other things, most notably (and tastelessly) a cocktail. Weak delete, second choice retarget.
Reason: Per the article on him,
Frank Zappa was in a number of bands. While none was nearly as notable as the Mothers of Invention, it's still inaccurate to call that definitively "Zappa's band". Judging from Google results, this does not appear to be a case where the term is used as a nickname or alias for the band either. Delete or retarget to Frank Zappa.
Reason: "Osborne" here is a misspelling of Osbourne, as in
Ozzy Osbourne. However, even with the correct spelling this would meet criteria for deletion: Osbourne has performed with a number of bands, and if anything "Osbourne's band" would more likely perform to any of his backing bands as a solo artist over the years.
Reason: Could also refer to the
Copenhagen Accord or the
Marrakech Accords, probably among others. I could see a case for a DAB page, but my inclination is delete and let the search results handle it.
Reason: Could refer to any number of withdrawals from Afghanistan throughout history, including those of various
International Security Assistance Force members since 2010. Better to let the search results handle it, I think.
Reason: I came close to requesting
R1 speedy deletion on this, but I'll grant that if someone's holding the shift key for "AR" they might fail to release it in time for "6" and, on a standard QWERTY, wind up with this. That said, I think maintaining redirects like this for every letter-number combination would be quite
WP:COSTLY, and don't think it's something we should get in the habit of.
Reason: I'm not sure if the shared bronze at the
SEA Games in 2005 technically makes him meet
WP:NTRACK, but even if it does, I think here any presumption of notability would be rebutted by the
complete lack of any coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Article has sourcing issues going back to 2007, and doesn't even source the medal (although I'm guessing that bit is true based on
Athletics at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games... although the sourcing there isn't good enough to be sure either).
Reason: There's an
ENGVAR issue here: the British/Irish/most-of-the-Commonwealth "chip" means what Americans and Canadians call
french fries, while the American/Canadian "chip" means what people from the other group of countries call
crisps. Chips/french fries are normally served hot. But many potato chip/crisp companies make some sort of "hot chip", "hot" meaning "spicy", similar to
Flamin' Hot Cheetos.Potato chip has surprisingly little content about flavors of potato chip and none about hot/spicy flavors, so weak retarget there (or to its § Flavoring) as an {{r without mention}}, but also open to a
WP:REDLINK argument.Noting also the existence of Hot Chip (a band) and Hot Chips (a symposium).
Reason: Previously redirected to
Cybex International, an apparently unrelated exercise equipment company. All of the news coverage I can find is either product reviews or passing mentions of their products. I don't see any coverage of the company qua company, and the statements in the article about employees and turnover (which regardless don't establish notability) are unsourced. Revert to redirect. (If kept, this should probably still be moved to something like Cybex (child safety product manufacturer), restoring the redirect but leaving a hatnote at the other Cybex.)
Reason: There's been two rounds of edit-warring in the psat few weeks as to whether there should be an article at this title or not, with DarkGlow,
Cjquines10, and
Polyamorph opposed and
108.20.174.38 (the author) the only one in favor. Per
WP:BLAR, best to take this here and get a formal consensus. I submit that this is
WP:FANCRUFT, maybe appropriate for a fan wiki but not for Wikipedia. If there is a case for an article, I think
WP:TNT would still apply since almost all of the content is in-universe information. Restore redirect.
Reason: TOA recently added a painfully blatant bit of
WP:GRAVEDANCING to their userpage celebrating the retirement of MjolnirPants, against whom they had pursued a vendetta for months. There is no other way to read their invocation of "
Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead", especially given that they have since attempted to tag OhForFuqsSake as a sock of MP, despite instructions at the relevant SPI to not do soWhen
Tryptofish inquired with TOA as to the meaning of this reference, they replied, I also have the right of privacy such that I am not required to explain events in my private life in order to satisfy your (and/or the unspecified "others") desire for information.They're right. They're not required to explain themself. Likewise none of us is required to
treat WP:AGF as a suicide pact and suffer such trolling. As TOA is apparently unwilling to remove the content, we should mandate its removal as a gravedancing
WP:POLEMIC. Honestly I think this is borderline
WP:G10.
Reason: Piggybacking off of
the Lamenters RfD below, I think this points to too narrow a target. The article Lament documents a number of nuanced meanings, not just the act of being a mourner. I think it would be best to retarget to Lament, as is standard for derived parts of speech.
Reason: Please see
WT:SPI/C#Is Template:SPI empty report in use?; no one on the clerk team can quite figure out what this was for, or why it has a nontrivial history despite having no transclusions and not being the kind of template you'd subst, but everyone seems to agree it's no longer in use, if it ever was.
Reason: Left over from move to the right namespace. Since it redirects to a title that is the same minus the Template: prefix, deleting it will do nothing, as anything transcluding {{User:BoldLuis/tlxl}} will now transclude that userpage rather than this template that redirects to that userpage.
Reason: I do not see any indication that any of the other terms at Nylon (disambiguation) are frequently referred to in
PascalCase. Per
WP:DIFFCAPS, we should drop the qualifier from this title and just say "NyLon".
Reason: These are the names/nicknames of the children of the subject. I have removed those names from the target article per
WP:BLPNAME, since there is no indication that their names are relevant to readers' understanding of the subject. While the names do live on in the title of a reference, I don't think that's enough of a mention to warrant redirects. Delete both.
Reason: Of the 22 conflicting pairs of redirects identified in the cleanup of
T219279, this was the only pair where the "correct" title's target was not an obvious improvement on the "incorrect" title's. Since Ligature (writing) is a significantly narrower target than List of Latin-script letters, I suggest that we retargetꜴ to that and deleteꜴ (former Unicode lowercase) like the other 21 (one of which has already been deleted, and the other 20 of which I've tagged for
G6 speedy. (Or delete the former and suppressredirect-move the latter there. Either/or.) Courtesy ping
Pppery based on our discussion of this at
User talk:Legoktm § (former Unicode lowercase).
Reason: This template outputs a block of unparsed code for any users of the mobile apps. See
here for an example of what that looks like.
150 million pageviews per month come via the mobile app. It's a small percentage overall, but... well, inferring (from other data) an average of 50 pageviews per user per month, that's 3 million people we're serving jumbled nonsense to. It's one thing to have a template that works imperfectly on the mobile app, but I don't think it's okay for us to be transcluding on 84 articles a template that renders their core content unreadable.I understand that this template provides useful functionality. Thus, until
T203293 is resolved, I would propose the following solution: Delete once someone codes a bot to do this. With a bot task, an editor could place something like <!-- Row numbers START --> and <!-- Row numbers END--> around a table, and then make a null template like {{
numbered column}} to signal a column that the bot would update after any addition or removal of a row.To be clear, if the above is unfeasible or undesirable, I would strongly favor outright deletion over outright keeping.I'll note that I've looked into whether {{if mobile}} would be viable here, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be, because it could only remove the wrapping template, not the syntax within the template.
Reason: This may be, per its creator's edit summary, a "shorter title", but that's because it strips away the thing that makes the phrase notable: all the "had"s. That would be fine if this were an abbreviation that people use, but
that does not appear to be the case. This is essentially a shortcut title, which we don't do in mainspace.
Reason: {{r from move}} from an implausible title, moved after only 6 days. The subtitle
only appears in mirrors. Pageviews already dying down. (Any page in the NewPagesFeed will always be getting some.) Delete as implausible.
Reason: This user warning message was created in 2008 and has been used seven times since. I became aware of it today when an
LTA with a very long memory used it in a bit of trolling. If there's somewhere good to redirect this to, I wouldn't object—{{uw-defamatory1}} would make sense, perhaps, but is intended for the opposite purpose—but otherwise I think deletion is in order. The template's current wording is not a reflection of current attitudes toward libel accusations, which are sensitive enough that a custom message is almost always needed. It neither gives good advice (if a user is already complaining on-wiki, why direct them to VRT instead?) nor strikes a good tone for dealing with someone who feels wrong (attempting to assert a defensive legal position on behalf of the Foundation).
Reason: Part of me was tempted to just
R3 this, and another part of me was tempted to mark it as reviewed, so I come here instead without having firmly made my mind up.
It's a meme with some currency but is far from widespread. It doesn't seem to refer to anything other than Elon Musk, so I'm not sure its existence is all too harmful. But on the other hand, it would be costly for us to maintain redirects for every silly variant of every public figure's name, not to mention getting into complicated
BLP territory at times. I come down leaning deletion, simply on the basis that anyone searching this will already know who Elon Musk is, and thus can search his name spelled correctly after finding nothing at this title. (Half-joke/half-typo Eelon Musk doesn't exist but
probably should.)
Reason: Typo that would perhaps be plausible in the main part of the title, but becomes implausible within a disambiguator. 98 pageviews in the 2 years since creation, which is very few considering that the target page got 620,000 in the past month. (Consider further that Michael Jackson (musician) didn't exist till I just created it.) I think we can safely delete.N.B.: Not notifying the redirect's creator, per his statements at
past RfDs that he is retired.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 08:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Procedural nomination. PRODded and then BLAR'd shortly after creation in 2008. Restored by consensus at RfD
just now, with agreement to take to AfD. Courtesy pings @
Mdewman6,
1234qwer1234qwer4,
Lenticel, and
Thryduulf. I'll ping IP65 the old-fashioned way.
Reason: I am neutral, filing as closer of
this RfD, where I found consensus to revert
Rosguill's
BLAR of 22 January 2020 and send to AfD instead. Rosguill's BLAR rationale was
Doesn't seem to meet GNG and is very confusingly written, redirecting to
Meetei folklore which mentions the story
Reason: There's no need to say "general" here. This is
the only article on enwiki that uses the disambiguator "general term", while
29 use just "term". I don't see why this should be any different. (N.B.: This is a somewhat unusual case where
WP:DIFFCAPS has not been invoked [Cold war → Cold War], but I agree with that status quo. DIFFCAPS is ill-suited for cases where the only difference is the first letter of the second word in a two-word phrase, where many readers won't make a distinction between capitalizing or not capitalizing that letter.)
Reason: I typed this in expecting to be taken to Check It Out! with Dr. Steve Brule, and was
surprised to be taken here instead.
According to WikiNav, 72 out of 177 people to read this article in November clicked the link in the hatnote, while there wasn't a single link in the body of the article that more than 10 people clicked. Considering that
only 66 people viewed this redirect that month, that strongly suggests that ~100% of people visiting Steve Brule were looking for the show about him. Furthermore, even if we didn't have this pageview information, this is a
WP:SMALLDETAILS situation. Thus retarget with hatnote to current target.
Reason: I linked to
H:REF expecting it to take me to a help page on references, and, when I went to go create the redirect, was surprised to see there's no consensus on what help page to target. This is a mixed-target conflict going back over a decade, but I don't give much weight to age or pageviews, since all of the targets except Help:Reference point to content on the same topic, and in many cases people may have linked one of these without actually looking at where they point to. As such, I think we should take readers to the broadest target available. I think Help:Reference is suboptimal but it gets decent pageviews and would be a significant substantive change in target topic, so probably better left untouched; but I've included it for the sake of completeness. So: Weak keep Help:Reference, synchronize rest at Help:Footnotes as broadest target available, but I think syncing at Help:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:Inline citations (target of WP:REF and WP:REFS) would be reasonable too.
Reason: According to the target article, Hermione's middle name is "Jean", but apparently there's been some confusion over Jane vs. Jean over the years, so I don't object to Hermione Jane Granger. However, I don't see any indication that Hermione is ever referred to by just her middle and last names, be that as "Jane" or as "Jean". (Jean Granger is a redlink.)
Reason: Both
a Google search and
an on-wiki one suggest that this term is rarely used to refer to Hermione Granger, and frequently used to refer to a number of other entities, including Hermann Görring in Addie and Hermy and a character created by
Stan Sakai. We could write a DAB, but I'm skeptical of that when we don't have any direct title matches. I favor deletion; the search results can take the lead instead.
Reason: This previously targeted Suez (company), which was moved first to Suez (company, 1858-2008) by
RT59RC, and then to Suez (company, 1858–2008) by me for
MOS:DASH reasons, and then (more importantly) to Suez (company, 1997–2008) by me when I noticed that the article drew a dividing line in 1997, with the company's/companies' history before that being at
Suez Canal Company. (I assume that RT59RC was mirroring frwiki's naming scheme; however, they cover both entities in one article). It only points to the current target due to a double-redirect cleanup mixup; the 1997–2008 title should be considered the status quo. Since this name seems to be associated with the pre-1997 company (see
:fr:Suez (entreprise, 1858-2008) § La Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez: Rebaptisée Compagnie financière de Suez en 1958 → Renamed the Compagnie financière de Suez in 1958), I move to retarget to Suez Canal Company.
Reason: 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).
Reason: PrairieKid created this in February after moving Eugene Goodman to Eugene Goodman (businessman) around when
Eugene Goodman (police officer) received the Congressional Gold Medal. At the time, the two Goodmans were getting roughly equal pageviews. A year later, it's 2,000:1 in the police officer's favor, and
100% of clicks were going his way from the DAB, so I've
BOLDly moved his article to be the primary landing page. That leaves this DAB as a
ONEOTHER (or, one-and-a-half other, with a "see also" to Gene Goodman). I've added hatnotes to both of those from the police officer's article, which I think renders this DAB superfluous.
Reason: After the deletion of Irma Lanzas, this
SIA has only one entry. Normally I would just redirect to that entry, Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas, but Lanzas was del Castillo's
maternal surname and thus not a name he would be normally called by. Given that not all of our readers know how Spanish surnames work, Lanzas may still be a plausible search term for him, but it might also be a plausible search term for someone looking for a list of people with the surname Lanza. So I suggest that we redirect to Lanza and include Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas in "See also". But I could also see a case for just deleting and let the search results handle it.
Reason: I've created Front toward enemy and FRONT TOWARD ENEMY as {{r from quotation}}s to M18 Claymore mine, a device on which this inscription famously appears. As both the originator of the phrase and the subject of the lion's share of Google search results, I think it's the clear primary topic. However, the existing Front Toward Enemy points to an episode list entry in The Punisher (season 1). Since the term appears on all caps on the mines, and could reasonably be rendered in title case just as well as sentence case, I think
WP:DIFFCAPS does not apply here, and that we should synchronize all three at M18 Claymore mine, with hatnote to the Punisher list entry. I am nominating the two redirects I created as well, in case anyone wants to argue that they instead should be retargeted.
Reason: Battle of Changsha (fictional) was merged by
Patar knight in June of 2020. Editnotice was blanked by
Aseleste a year later, but should just be deleted. Meets the spirit of
G8 but not quite the letter.
Reason: Subject article was BLAR'd a few days ago by
Firefly. Could be moved to
Template:Editnotices/Page/DXC Technology to match the BLARing, but accessibility-related content takes up only a small portion of that article, so I don't think this editnotice would be justified there.
Reason: Article was BLAR'd by
Dronebogus in November, and, as the content is discussed fairly comprehensively at the target article, the BLAR seems unlikely to be challenged.
Reason: Both articles were merged to
List of terrorist incidents in 2017 by
TompaDompa a year and a half ago. If desired, one of these could be moved to become an editnotice for that page, but I don't think that's really necessary now. It's 2022[citation needed] and people are mostly done edit-warring over what was or wasn't terrorism a whole five years ago.
Reason: This and
Template:Editnotices/Page/Maarakeh bombing were created a day apart amidst a movewar. Consensus settled on the latter article title, so this page is now redundant.
Reason: I created this DAB in 2012 (the first content page I created, I think!) after moving the previous subject of the page to John Hubbard (British politician). Initially it just DAB'd him and
John Hubbard (American politician);
Boleyn subsequently added
Jonathan Hatch Hubbard, and a few months later she successfully PRODded the British politician's article, leaving the page with just these two.In other words, this is a series of reasonable edits that has left us with a DAB that I don't think I would have created for just these two. While Jon is sometimes a nickname for Jonathan, I don't see
any evidence that Jonathan Hatch Hubbard went by it. So the primary topic for "Jon Hubbard" would seem to be the American politician. I think the better approach here would be to delete the dab, move the American politician's article to this title, and hatnote his article to Jonathan Hatch Hubbard and John Hubbard (disambiguation).
Reason: As noted at
WP:SHORTCUT, and as can be seen
here, there has been a general consensus against "WikProject:" as a pseudonamespace. This is the only existing page beginning
with "WikiProject:" or
"Wikiproject:".
Reason: Civil courts do much more than hear lawsuits. I recall that when I changed my name there were something like 30 options on the form, and only one 2 or 3 involved lawsuits. An article that explains that fairly well, if too briefly, is Civil law (common law). I think it would be better to retarget there. The other concern with this redirect is that it could be ambiguous with a court operating under
Civil law (legal system), but the proposed target links to the DAB Civil law, so I think that handles that.
Reason: Deleted through AfD in 2014 and 2016, and the subject of
a long-running sockpuppetry campaign to recreate. Current incarnation was created by what is almost certainly a
UPE throwaway account, which has already had two other articles deleted as promotional (
1 ·
2). This looks very strongly like someone having gotten sick of not being able to evade SPI and paying someone else to do it for them, but sadly I can't prove that to a high enough degree of confidence to justify a
G5 under
WP:MEAT, and the text is sufficiently different to preclude
G4, so here we are.Cerrito has directed two films that we have articles on, Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi. However, notability is not inherited, and the bulk of this article is promotionally-toned content about those films and his other works. The only non-inherited
SIGCOV in the article are two local-news puff pieces and some mentions from when he was on an episode of Ghost Nation. The only other coverage I find in a
BEFORE search is some news coverage from a time he witnessed a suicide.While he is closer to notable now than he was in 2016, I still don't think he meets the bar, and urge deletion. Note: If this article is deleted, the title should be re-salted, as should the most recent salt-hack, Mario Cerrito III.
Reason: This redirected to Russo-Ukrainian War until I retargeted it in January to Invasion of Ukraine, a
SIA I have since turned into the list List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine.
NorsemanII has seen fit to edit-war with me by retargeting to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine despite me twice saying to take it to RfD, so I'll do what they lacked the decency to (without conceding that their actions are procedurally valid; if I were a more spiteful person I would have brought this to
ANEW rather than here).I propose to restore previous target (List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine) and restore hatnote at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact that this redirect previously pointed to two different Russian invasions of Ukraine (2014 Crimean crisis at creation, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) (which became Russo-Ukrainian War after that) should be evidence enough that this is ambiguous. It's not even unambiguous within the current conflict: As the list documents, Russian forces have been described as invading Ukraine twice in this war: Donbas in 2014 in the early phases of the
War in Donbas, and (as characterized by some sources) Crimea a few months before that. Furthermore, the whole war has been characterized as an invasion, something I learned when cleaning up links to this redirect after I targeted it. Multiple articles referred to the whole war as the "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Furthermore, Russian forces from the Soviet Union twice invaded Ukraine in the 1910s, again as documented in the list.I appreciate that the 2022 invasion is the most currently relevant one, but I'm not aware of any occasion in the past that that's been used to justify redirecting to a non-primary topic. See
WP:RECENTISM.I would not hugely object to refining this to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine#Russo-Ukrainian War, although that would skip past the 1910s invasions (sort of a semantic question of whether "Russian" here means "by Russia" or "by Russians").Some procedural notes:* Russian invasion of the Ukraine bundled as an {{avoided double redirect}}.* Whatever the outcome here, redirects like Russian invasion of Donbas should probably be created to match it.* Whatever the outcome here, can we try to get this done in 24-72 hours? This is an incredibly high-visibility redirect and I think some deviation from standard procedure is justified.
Reason: The D.C. article was moved from
District of Columbia statehood movement in 2018 by
IVORK, acting on a technical request from an IP with summary "Consistent with
Statehood movement in Puerto Rico". That article had itself been moved from
Puerto Rico statehood movement without edit summary by Ahnoneemoos in 2012. I think that in 2018 the IP went in the wrong direction, and that, rather, it's the Puerto Rico article that should have been brought (back) in line with the D.C. one.There does not seem to be a
COMMONNAME for the movement for statehood in D.C. or the movement for statehood in Puerto Rico, and I assume that's why descriptive titles have been favored. However, there is a COMMONNAME for the concept of statehood in these places as well: ["D.C. statehood", or more formally "District of Columbia statehood" in D.C.
https://statehood.dc.gov/page/dc-statehood-in-the-news], and
"Puerto Rico statehood" or "Puerto Rican statehood" in Puerto Rico. Those are the terms widely used by adovocacy groups, opponents, and the newsmedia.It would be preferable to build these descriptive titles around existing COMMONNAMEs, and thus I suggest restoring the titles of "District of Columbia statehood movement" and "Puerto Rico statehood movement", which simply add "movement" to the end of established names for the relevant concepts.
Reason: This is the result of a pagemove from a
nonsensical title four minutes after the page was created in 2005. Sixteen years later, I do not think it serves any purpose. It gets some pageviews, but enough to give cause to believe that any humans are deliberately navigating to this redirect. Given the existence of S/b/:Ralston Bowles as well, I asked Graham87 if he was aware of any old MediaWiki things that could explain how these two pages were created, and
he was as stumped as me.
Reason: Another weird "s/b/:" one (see
Special:Permalink/1076220363#s/b/:). If created today, this would be an
A10.
Jamie7687, in redirecting it, said this redirect should probably be deleted. Well, 16 years later, let's make that happen.
Reason: Cross-namespace redirect to a humor page. Its appearance in the search bar,
Special:AllPages, etc., as a mainspace page is actively misleading, as it implies that this is a thing that happened, or might have happened, or at least an encyclopedically notable hoax. N.B.: This page has been deleted five times before, but never by a consensus discussion.
Reason: Created with the summary ix broken link. I can only assume that someone somewhere had linked to this instead of
WP:ASPERSIONS, but that's not a good reason to create an XNR. This could just be retargeted to
Aspersion, but I generally disfavor all-caps redirects where there's no reason to think our readers would be expecting all-caps, per
WP:COSTLY, hence I'd prefer to delete.
Reason: A section in a poorly-maintained, poorly-formatted projectspace page quoting some (unsourced!) mean things this person said about Wikipedia is not a good usage of a cross-namespace redirect, and in fact poses serious
BLP concerns.
Reason: This XNR related to a GLAM program may have
served some benefit when it was created, but isn't of any use now that the club is (apparently) no more.
Reason: This is
the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut of the format "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject". As that link shows, XNRs to WikiProjects are quite rare to begin with. Any "Wikiproject:" or "WikiProject:" pseudonamespace has been conclusively ruled out by past RfDs (see documentation
here), and I think "X Wikiproject" or "X WikiProject" should be treated the same, as the alternative would be opening the door to thousands of such XNRs.
Reason: This is
the only WikiProject cross-namespace shortcut with the format "X Project" or "X project". Everything I said below about
Ukraine Wikiproject stands, but here the greater concern is that it's a
surprising redirect. "Porn Project" refers to a number of things, most notably a Christian anti-pornography group.
Reason: Fear not, my last of the day. "Wine cats" could refer to a number of things, such as
this book. It's
surprising for this combination of two common words to instead link to an obscure projectspace subpage. No backlinks, low pageviews, and of course no way to know if readers visiting this link found what they were looking for.
Reason: Unused pseudo-namespace shortcut,
the only of its kind. While "T:" is a valid pseudonamespace for limited purposes (probably not including this) per
WP:PNS and
WP:SHORTCUT, there is no consensus for a "TP" pseudonamespace, and there's been an understanding for quite some time that no new pseudonamespaces should be created.
Reason: This phrase is not used at the target, and has been used in
a variety of contexts, including in
this journal article on the
First Chechen War. Even with the huge weight of current events and my Ukraine-heavy search history influencing the results, Google's first page doesn't give me a single thing on the current fiasco, instead reaching as far back as the
Russian Civil War.
Reason: This is borderline
G6 as unambiguously created in error, but it's been around a few years so I thought better to take it here. Moved from "neurosurgeon" to "processor"
4:38, 29 January 2019. Moved from "processor" to "professor"
4:39, 29 January 2019. Clearly not a plausible disambiguator, as Mr. Kumar is not any of the things that might be referred to as a
processor.
Reason: I just linked the former of these titles from
List of journalists killed covering the Russo-Ukrainian War to describe a Ukrainian journalist, and learned that such the link will be misleading due to its current target. There is definitely room for an article about military journalism worldwide, so suggest deletion of both per
WP:REDYES, to encourage creation of an article (probably at the latter title).
Reason: This is an {{r from move}}, the move's rationale having been The article is primarily about the medal itself. 11 years later, that's even more true: The vast majority of the article is about the physical medal and its trappings, with the word "medalist" only appearing once. I suggest a retarget to Lists of Olympic medalists, to which Olympic medalists already points.
Reason: Typo in disambiguator corrected
3 hours after article's creation. Negligible pageviews since. Suggest deletion as with most malformatted disambiguators.
Reason: Bit of a weird case. This was a copy-paste of the creator's own article
[3][4]—not an attempt at a cut-and-paste move, just a copy. Redirected 12 hours later, and judging from pageviews is not relied upon by anyone.
Reason: If Tradewind is ambiguous—which has been the editorial consensus
since 2006—then I think Tradewinds is as well. There's good reason to think that a reader spelling the term this way is looking for one of the eight entities called "Tradewinds" we disambiguate (or the one called TradeWinds), rather than for the concept of
trade winds, usually spelled as two words. Thus I think we should retarget to Tradewind.
Reason: Baksı is the Turkish word (see
tr:Baksı) for
bakshy. As that's an obviously more precise target than the current one, I was going to boldly retarget there, but I noticed that the bakshy article doesn't mention Turkey at all, and, while there's certainly a cultural connection between these two Turkic countries, I'm not sure that's enough of an affinity to justify an
RLOTE. Baksı Museum, however, does spell it that way, so I lean toward retargeting there with hatnote back to Bakshy and the DAB at Bakshi; doing it in the opposite direction would be reasonable too.I'm bundling Baksi, created by Eubot as an avoided double redirect, because its fate can't be disentangled from Baksı's. Since its creation, the article Baksi (surname) has been created. Per
WP:SMALLDETAILS, I think the best approach would be to move Baksi (surname) over the redirect and disambiguate as needed via hatnote. As a second choice, I would support matching wherever Baksı winds up pointing.
Reason: I think these both point to the wrong place. The only thing at the Hood DAB referred to as "'hood" is a
neighborhood. The only thing there referred to as "'Hood", at least when using sentence case (and often even in title case) is
'Hood (film). Thus retarget 'hood to Neighborhood and move 'Hood (film) to 'Hood, with hatnotes both ways. But I think reasonable cases could also be made for pointing both to the DAB or pointing both to Neighborhood.
Reason: These were the result of two unexplained pagemoves by a newer user—pagemoves that I will
AGF on not being deliberate hoaxing, but which neither
Plantdrew nor I have been able to verify as names for this species of pufferfish. After I reverted the moves based on an
RM/TR request from Plantdrew, we agreed to wait a month to see if pageviews dropped off, and
they indeed have, removing the only potential reason to keep these redirec. They should be deleted as supposed alternate names that fail verification.
Reason: Per its talkpage, created in 2004 to work around a bug that was
fixed in 2006. 188 views in the pageviews.wmfcloud.org epoch, only 6 last year; the talkpage is the second result when you search CAT:CSD, so perhaps a few people per year share my curiosity as to why
WIkipedia talk:CAT:CSD exists at all. Note that, despite the breadth of bz710/phab:2710, this is
the only page beginning with Wikipedia:CAT:.
Reason: Created in 2006, when the DAB had
three redlinks on it for people named Mikhail Morozov. Those redlinks were subsequently removed from the DAB though, and there are no Mikhail Morozovs at
Morozov (surname). Thus this should be deleted as misleading.
Reason: A
peasant is a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord. While this could arguably apply to certain working arrangements in very rural parts of the country, such a conclusion would be
WP:OR; the word "peasant" appears nowhere at the target article.
Reason: Apparently this is the opening line of the second track listed, "Little April Shower". To me what comes to mind first is
Duck, duck, goose § Drip, Drip, Drop, the
only thing referred to in the encyclopedia's voice as "drip drip drop". I would suggest a retarget there (indifferent as to hatnoting back), second choice deletion and let the search results handle it.
Reason: Not all personal information is private, or expected to be. Meanwhile there's much information that is private but not PII. I would suggest a retarget to
Privacy with hatnote to the current target,
Secrecy, and the film Private Information. The Secrecy article itself could also be a viable target, though.
Reason: After the hyphen variant was deleted at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7 § Dave Cummings ((pornographic actor)), AnomieBOT recreated it as a variant of the en-dash title. I was going to just delete the en-dash one in the spirit of the previous RfD, but then I noticed that it's an {{r from move}}, so I guess this should have a second RfD. Pageviews on the en-dash one were weirdly high for a while, but have dropped off since 2019; on the hyphen one, they've been consistently high, but I assume that's due to the link at Martin Mere, which I've just removed. So I think both are safe to delete. Also we should block AnomieBOT for edit-warring.[Joke]
there is no proof that this school is independently notable--a few references don't make that point. alumni are already at
List of University of Oregon alumni, and note that the list here didn't separate faculty and alumni
Three years of back-and-forth BLARing and restoring has ensued, with Drmies,
Mccapra,
Orangemike,
Viewmont Viking, and
Spf121188 favoring redirection; and
Zdemars,
Oregonian20, and
Nmkru favoring an article.
The Grid also spoke in favor of redirection at the RfD. Arguments for inclusion have included
Notability was substantiated in the talk section, quoted here: "The School of Journalism and Communication is notable. It is over 100 years old and was one of the original 34 schools to be accredited by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. It has thousands of students and has created 15 Pulitzer Prize Winners as well as other notable alumni."
from Oregonian20 and
I’m an alum of the University of Oregon, and the UO School of Journalism and Communication is relevant in the industry. There are far smaller schools represented on this platform, and the school has a 100+-year history. It's also one of the oldest schools of journalism and communication in the nation and one of the first to be accredited.
Reason: This was created under the wrong title. In May, I moved it to the correct title based on
a request by
Animalparty, and resolved to wait a bit to see if pageviews dropped off, before RfDing. The incorrect title got all of 4 views in the month after the move, and 0 in the second month, so I think it can be safely deleted.
Reason: The logic for this title is, I assume, one of
WP:DIFFCAPS, but I don't think that applies here. Considering the canonical examples in the policy,
ice cube and
iron maiden are consistently capitalized as lowercase. There are, however, no consistent capitalization norms for listing one's pronouns. One sees "they/them", "They/them", and "They/Them" alike. Examples of people who describe their pronouns as "They/Them" include
Mauree Turner[7],
David Morgan (comedian)[8] (in the middle of a normally-capitalized sentence), and
Temmie Ovwasa[9] (ditto).
LinkedIn's three default sets of pronouns are "She/Her", "He/Him", and "They/Them".Given that "They/Them" is a reasonably common variant of "they/them" (unlike "Ice Cube" for "ice cube"), this article should be moved to
They/Them (film) and the redirect should be retargeted to
Singular they as an {{avoided double redirect}} of
they/them.
Reason: This BLP's subject has submitted a
WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST at
ticket:2022080910002407. He does not meet the revised
WP:NOLYMPIC guidelines, and, even if he could otherwise be shown to be notable as an athlete, would only be marginally so. As such I think his request should be honored.
Reason: This subpage was created as a result of
Talk:Love jihad/Archive 3 § Subpage creation. It is intended as a forum exclusively for discussing whether
love jihad is a conspiracy theory (thus de facto for complaints from people who disagree with the article's characterization of it as such). I've raised my objections to this at
Talk:Love jihad § Please refer conspiracy theory comments to discussion subpage (
permalink), and been told that expressing concerns is disruptive, so I bring this here for review instead. A subpage like this is a bad idea for three reasons:# If content is too disruptive to be included on the main talk page, it is too disruptive to be included on a subpage. Wikipedia does not have holding pens for disruptive editing.# This subpage has nine watchers. The parent talkpage has 218. This is problematic both because vandalism and disruption is much more likely to go unnoticed here—see
Special:PageHistory/Talk:Maryland/North (Mid-Atlantic State) vs South (Southern State) for what this page's future may hold—and because it removes most stakeholders from discussion: People who watchlist an article expect to get watchlist updates for discussions about it. They will not be aware of discussions on the subpage, and no "consensus" on the subpage could ever be binding.# Editors here to push a love jihad POV are not in fact the kind of people who tend to listen to banner notices saying they need to do that POV-pushing on a different page. So this page largely goes ignored by the people it's intended to corral.As I've explained at the parent talkpage, there are a variety of remedies available to handle disruptive edit requests on talkpages for controversial articles, and plenty of talkpages, such as
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and (of late)
Talk:Recession, are able to handle things using those remedies without resorting to this non-solution. This subpage should be deleted. (It could be first archived to the parent page's current archive if desired, but there's not much to preserve.)
Reason: I don't see an indication in the target article, nor at
[10], that the subject's name is frequently stylized as "CORPSE". Even if it were, Corpse would be a more natural target. But since that is a common noun with no affinity to an all-caps rendering, I think better to delete.
Reason: Same issue as at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aerobird/CSA Citizen Userbox: Not even the ambiguity of the "Southern culture" excuse, by explicitly associating users with the CSA itself, an entity built to perpetuate the systemic enslavement, rape, and murder of Black people. There's lots of ways to show Southern pride that don't involve supporting that.
Reason: The miscapitalization of two words makes this implausible. I would have no objection to a correctly-capitalized Birds flying high, you know how I feel, although targeted to the full article, not just the Bublé section.
Reason: I don't see why these two are unambiguous if King's speech and King's Speech aren't. The first four entries at the DAB are all ambiguous under a queen as well. I would suggest we retarget to King's speech; would also be open to the converse move, moving King's speech to King's speech (disambiguation) and retargeting the two king titles to Speech from the throne. If anyone's interested in doing it that way, please tag King's Speech and leave a note at
Talk:King's speech. (Stray thought, probably best answered at
WT:RfD: Should there be a "This DAB is implicated by an ongoing RfD" template?)
Reason: Until today, the target article claimed that Ryan's birth name was Jessie Irene Noblitt; it in the past
very briefly said Noblett, while DAB Noblett linked to redlink
Jessie Irene Noblitt till today. Also today, I
removed the "Jessie" claim after determining it fails verification, and (kinda) sorted out the ambiguity of Ryan's maiden name having been spelled three different ways by reliable sources."Jessie Irene Noblett" appears in a number of non-RSes, and sometimes that's reason to keep an incorrect redirect, but in this case it has pretty low pageviews, so I would say on balance the better thing is to delete this and avoid misleading readers who might see it in the search bar.
Reason: One of a number of questionable {{r from misspelling}}s created by this user. I was going to
R3 it as I have with some others by them, but apparently "
Saftware" is
Scots for software (or
might be;
CiphriusKane, any thoughts?). So I guess I'll bring it here as an
RLOTE with no affinity to the other language.
Reason: A misspelling of 'aqd, in turn an ASCII-only transliteration of
عقود (ʿaqd). Neither 'aqd nor ʿaqd exists, and none of these three spellings can be found at the current target. Those terms should probably stay red under
WP:REDYES, as contracts under Islamic law are a notable topic that currently do not get focused coverage in any article or section I see. However, even with ʿaqd blue, I think this would be an implausible misspelling, so delete for any combination of unmentioned, REDYES, and implausible. N.B.:
This was an article for less than 5 hours in 2009; it would stand a
snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD, so I think restoring would be
needlessly bureaucratic.
Reason: I couldn't make up my mind where to target this redirect, so I created it just to bring it here (arbitrarily picking one of the two options for now). Either this should point to Glaucoma § Signs and symptoms as an {{
avoided double redirect|Glaukomflecken}} + {{r from misspelling}}, or it should point to Dr. Glaucomflecken as an {{r from short name}}. On the one hand,
WP:SMALLDETAILS would tend toward the latter, since the former is always(?) spelled with a k. On the other hand, Dr. Glaucomflecken's name is not generally abbreviated to just his fictional surname, so one could argue that someone searching just this word is more likely misspelling the glaucoma symptom. Thoughts? Again, the current target was an arbitrary choice, and for now I am undecided.
Reason: Simple enough: Neither of these people is called "Chris Chan", at least not according to their articles (one of which I'll note the creator wrote just to have an excuse to create this DAB), and thus both fail
MOS:DABMENTION. The obvious ulterior motive here, as noted, was to get around longstanding consensus at
Talk:Kiwi Farms that the prose of that article should not mention an individual known by the nickname "Chris Chan". There have furthermore been
multiple consensuses at AN and one at DRV to not have any article on Chris Chan. On that basis, I have removed the "see also" to
Kiwi Farms—but besides, a "see also" doesn't count toward a DAB page being useful or not; it's an extra little thing for not-quite-ambiguous titles. This is pure
gaming the system, and this DAB page does not in any way benefit the encyclopedia. (If Chris Chan → Chris Chann [the page the DAB's creator wrote] is a plausible redirect, that can be decided separately.)As a housekeeping note, if there is consensus to keep this, the closing admin should move this to the salted title
Chris Chan, as there is no need for the "(disambiguation)" here when there's no article at that title.
Reason: The article Wikipedia is not about the article Wikipedia. Such an article would be titled something like Wikipedia (Wikipedia article). To my knowledge, we only have one Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article: Jar'Edo Wens hoax. Perhaps someday we will have a Wikipedia article about the Wikipedia article Wikipedia, but until then, a redirect like Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article is inappropriate for Wikipedia
.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Per target article, Kathy Hammond's full first name is Kathryn, not Kathleen. There are a few Kathleen Hammonds who are at least little-n notable, like
this academic and this book reviewer
[11][12], the latter of whom is who I was looking for when I came upon this redirect. Suggest deleting as misleading.
Reason: Previously pointed to Square-up; suggest reverting both to that as a clear
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I recognize a potential
WP:DIFFCAPS aregument for the uppercase variant, but I'm generally opposed to splitting a pair of two-word redirects based only on the capitalization of the first letter of the second word. If there's consensus against retargeting Square Up, then Square Up (EP) should be moved there per a request made by
2600:1700:9DD0:8FD0:4933:3749:3F94:549C at
WP:RM/TR, which I challenged in favor of this RfD.
Reason: Pink Friday II Roman Reloaded appears to be
occasionally used (although without the colon), and is the kind of redirect I personally would not create but also would not RfD. However, none of those nine hits contain a colon, and more importantly the parenthetical does not appear anywhere (if ostensibly part of the title) or is nonstandard as a disambiguator (if intended that way). Created by a user with a history of hoaxing, but I think falls shy of
G3.
Reason: This seems like a pretty clear case of
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Keeping in mind that The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary, "Salaam" primarily refers to the greeting used by Muslims and others, which we discuss at the article As-salamu alaykum. WikiNav
shows that page as 3:1 ahead of the next-most-clicked entry, despite the fact that it was not linked as prominently as it should have been until a few days ago. We should move to Salaam (disambiguation) and retarget the redirect to As-salamu alaykum.
Reason: Given that the film's title and VHS cover are both references to the iconic
Silence=Death Project poster, I think this is a
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. This is borne out by the lion's share of Google results for "silence=death", all about the poster or the group that created it, not about the film. And I don't see room for
WP:SMALLDETAILS disambiguation here (which would entail retargeting [[:]] but keeping this), as the spacing around the equals sign in reference to the poster and its creators is not consistent in RS.
[13][14]I propose a move to Silence = Death (film) and a retarget of the resulting redirect to Silence=Death Project.
Reason: HolmKønøman moved Presidential library to Presidential library system back in June, which I think was a good move. This article was previously at Presidential library (disambiguation), but I moved it to this title when I rewrote it as a
SIA, since a SIA shouldn't be at a "(disambiguation)" title. But given that presidential libraries are a concept that exist outside of the United States—including "Presidential Library" being the name of the largest library in Turkey, a country of 83 million people—I think it would make more sense to move this to the primary landing page of Presidential library. The list's first entry will still ably direct people to the current target.
Reason: These names are only mentioned at the target article in the context of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, so I think it would make more sense to retarget to Asiana Airlines Flight 214 § In popular culture. (Note: The fourth name used in the prank, Sum Ting Wong, is a DAB.)
Shouldn't they redirect to
Jeopardy!#Gameplay? Because the second part of the game is "Double Jeopardy", I've often heard the first part called "Single Jeopardy", and it's reasonable that someone would think of Final Jeopardy as "Triple Jeopardy".
Double Jeopardy! already redirects to
Jeopardy!#Gameplay. The proposed target is definitely not a good target for these redirects.
I disagree with that logic. Triple Jeopardy! is a thing on Celebrity Jeopardy!, whereas on regular Jeopardy! it could only refer to a misnomer for Final Jeopardy! Even if that's a misnomer that comes up at all (and no evidence has been presented that it is), a correct usage should almost always trump an incorrect usage. Revert to the original target.
Reason: I PRODded this, and
Guliolopez found some more sources and de-PRODded, which I'm grateful for, because I think that, as edited, this does merit a full discussion. But what it comes down to is: Three sources give between two and three different names for this person, depending how you count it. They are all very very common names in Ireland (in fact, my great-great-uncle was also a John/Sean Kelly). All Wikipedia articles need to be
verifiable, and there's just no way to write a verifiable article on someone named either Jim Kelly or John Kelly and/or Sean Kelly when we have very little other information on him. Notability-wise, this is an
WP:NOLYMPIC fail, and a
GNG fail for the same reasons it's a V fail.
Reason: This is a straightforward
G11 speedy, entirely sourced to the company's own self-promotional media but for a single sentence sourced to
this routine coverage of a transaction. Despite the fact that there is no time limit on G11, and despite the fact that there have only been a combined 13 words added
[15][16] since the article's creation in 2008, G11 was declined. So here we are. Delete as unsalvageably promotional. I don't see
SIGCOV, but even if there's an article to be written here,
this isn't it. Companies don't get a free pass on spamming just because they fly under the radar for 14 years, and it's a shame we'll now have to spend volunteer time on re-establishing what the community has already reached consensus on in the form of the
CSD policy.
Reason: At
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6 § Guancha, a number of editors, including myself, voiced the opinion that this news site is the primary topic for Guancha, but the decision was deferred since there was at the time no article on the news site. Now that The Account 2 has kindly created this article, it's worth revisiting that question. Guancha is one of five syonyms for Clathrina, while Guancha.cn is an influential news site in a country of a billion people. Per
[17], "Guancha.cn", "Guancha.com", "Guancha", and "Guancha News" are all used to refer to the site; in addition to having an apparent slight numerical advantage, Guancha is the most
concise. Thus we should move Guancha.cn there and move Guancha to Guancha (disambiguation). My second choice would be to move the DAB and then retarget Guancha to Guancha.cn.Courtesy pings to those who commented on PTOPIC status at the RFD: @
Vaticidalprophet and
Shhhnotsoloud; 61.239.39.90 notified on talkpage.
Reason: I think this is a
WP:DIFFCAPS situation. The primary meaning of "whet", capitalized thusly, is a synonym for "sharpen". I suggest we retarget to Sharpening stone (target of Whetstone), with hatnotes on both that page and the current target. The hatnote at Sharpening stone could potentially also link to
wikt:whet.
Reason: The word "Sorbonne" in English since 1970 overwhelmingly refers to
Sorbonne University (a.k.a "the Sorbonne" or "la Sorbonne"). While it is true that the Sorbonne University's name derives from the building, being the original sense of a word does not automatically confer
PTOPIC status; cf. Watergate (redirects to Watergate scandal, not Watergate complex). When I Google "Sorbonne", it takes me till the second page to see a single result about the building, the fourth page to see a second one. Every link I've spotchecked in WhatLinksHere intends Sorbonne University or, if in a pre-1970 context, the
University of Paris; but never the building. This should be moved to Sorbonne (building) and the redirect should be retargeted to Sorbonne University (or, second choice, Sorbonne (disambiguation) should be moved over the redirect).I'll note that the article does have one section that's not about the building, § Sorbonne name dispute. Move or no move, that should either be split off into its own article or merged with Sorbonne University Association into something like Successors to the University of Paris, as it is not within this article's stated scope.
Reason: I think this may be the rare case where a misspelled sense is the
primary topic over a correctly spelled one. Google Search, Google News, and Twitter search (for a splash of vernacular usage) all suggest that the primary usage of "Gray Poupon" is as a misspelling of "
Grey Poupon", with this fairly obscure album from 2011 being a distinctly secondary usage. This is unsurprising, given that Grey Poupon is popular in the United States, where "gray" is the prevailing spelling when that word is used as a common noun. Suggest move to Gray Poupon (album) and retarget redirect to Grey Poupon.
Reason: After a fair amount of digging, the best I can say about this article (created as an account's only edits in 2007, and only touched since to clear up confusion with
Tranbjerg J) is that it's not an outright hoax. The one linked reference (
archive) gives no coördinates, but gives the JOG number NN32-02, and Gazetteer of Denmark and the Faroe Islands: Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names does record a Tranbjerg with that JOG number near Årre. However, Danish Wikipedia has nothing on this Tranbjerg, and Google yields only
one relevant result that I can find: about the
Tranbjerg Østergaard farm, at almost the exact coördinates given in the gazetteer. So I think this is one of those cases where one database got mixed up about whether something was a settlement or not, and that error propagated a little bit. But, whatever is in Tranbjerg, farmhouse or village, there does not seem to be enough
verifiable information to support a Wikipedia article.
Reason: Disambiguation page that doesn't seem to disambiguate any plausible search term. Energy density was already listed at Density (disambiguation), and I've added the other two there as well. And Power density has a hatnote to Surface power density. If this were a plausible search term I might just redirect to the main DAB, but I don't think it's something anyone would type in naturally; pageviews are likely from search suggestions.
Reason: Long-stalled list meant to serve as an alternative for
a list that's already pretty navigable, on an axis that isn't that useful. Suggest either deleting or redirecting to
Template:Reflex, which does essentially the same thing but better.
Reason: Was split from Freemasonry in March of 2003 and merged back in July of 2005, only for a new Anti-Masonry to be written in October 2005, at least some of which seems to have been taken from Freemasonry. Suggest histmerge without redirect, discarding the 5 edits that postdate July '05.
Reason: There's a somewhat confusing history here, but if I'm correctly reading the long-ago actions of Nat Krause and
Kwamikagami, this page's historical content was all merged into Kalto language. (See that article and Nihali language for information on confusion between the two.) So move without redirect to Kalto (language), an available redlink.
Reason: A different flavor of mainspace-page-for-talk-subpage, using the old /Comments subpage system. Delete for same reason we've deleted /Archive mainspace pages.
Reason: After the news site Guancha was made the primary topic in
Talk:Guancha § Requested move 3 November 2022, this has become a
WP:ONEOTHER DAB, or maybe one-and-a-half-other since there's the see also to La Guancha (disambiguation). This page has an unusually long history for a brief DAB—
an AfD,
an RfD, and the RM—but I think it may have now outlived its necessity. Disambiguation can be handled with a hatnote at Guancha: {{about|the news site|the genus of sea sponge|Clathrina{{!}}''Clathrina''||La Guancha (disambiguation){{!}}La Guancha}}.
Reason: This is a result of a move by
MB a year ago, on the basis that Adriano (footballer, born January 1982) and Adriano (footballer, born April 1982) both exist. I was going to retarget this to Adriano § Brazilian footballers, as I usually do when someone has moved a page for ambiguity but not retargeted the redirect, but couldn't help but notice the massive pageview disparity between the February Adriano and the January and April ones.
WP:INCOMPDAB says In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a
primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. Is this such a case? If so, the move should be reversed. If not, the redirect should be retargeted to the DAB section.
Reason: I don't see any reason to think that the presence of an apostrophe makes this exclusively an abbreviation for fanzine, rather than an alternate spelling of zine. Dictionary.com, based on Random House,
has them as synonymous. (It then says both are abbreviations of fanzine, but I think that's because most sources don't consider zine and fanzine as distinct topics, and I'm not entirely convinced we should; but that's beyond RfD's scope.) So as long as Zine and Fanzine are distinct articles, we should retarget to Zine.
Reason: This
mixture of Pepsi and milk is not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere except a mention in a reference at
Lindsay Lohan on screen and stage. I have no objection to a redirect to a target that discusses the beverage, but so long as there isn't one, delete.
Reason: Crotch bulge is a broader concept than just camel toe. Specifically, there is ~50% of the population covered by the former and not the latter. Suggest retarget to Crotch, which covers the term more broadly (albeit briefly) and which still links to Camel toe.
Reason: Procedural nomination. There was
RfD consensus in 2020 to restore this article and not have it redirect to Demographics of Tanzania, which does not mention white Tanzanians. Several editors have nonetheless attempted to restore the redirect, contrary to that consensus, and have declined to take it to AfD as is the correct procedure; thus I am bringing it here without an opinion of my own. Courtesy pings @
Rsk6400,
Scope creep,
Thryduulf, and
Narky Blert:.
Reason: There's some argument for a
WP:DIFFCAPS split here relative to Trans sexuality, but the current target is based on a single episode of a relatively obscure TV series (800 views/month for the article), and if I Google the phrase, the first result capitalized that way is a video by
Stef Sanjati, not this episode of Slutever. I think it's much more likely that people typing "Trans Sexuality" are looking for the topic of
transgender sexuality and just capitalizing it "wrong" (not really wrong, just inconsistent with
WP:AT); I suggest retargeting to Transgender sexuality and adding Slutever to the hatnote there.
Reason: I don't dispute the finding in 2018 that this is not the primary topic for "The Advocate", but there was insufficient discussion there about whether a double-disambiguator is necessary.
The Advocate § Magazines lists two other magazines, but neither is actually called "The Advocate". The Harvard Advocate can be referred to, abbreviatedly, as "the Advocate", yes, but likewise The New York Times can be called "the Times", and we nonetheless treat The Times (of London) as primary topic there. I don't see how this is any different. There is only one magazine on Wikipedia called "The Advocate", and this is it. (Likewise I doubt
[19] is notable, and, even if it is, it is vastly less significant then the most prominent publication for the largest LGBTQ community in the world.)
Reason: This was no-consensus in 2009, and then kept in 2012, but the lead article in the bundled 2012 AfD was deleted at a quieter 2nd AfD
5 years later. The real question here is simple: Is this something people talk about as a set? Not just the concept of live-action media based on video games but, specifically, actors in such media. I see articles about specific subsets of this cohort—
Game Informer ("respected" actors),
Business Insider ("terrible" movies)—but there does not seem to be any RS interest in the general concept of actors who've played characters who happen to originate from video games. And, importantly, such a list does not appear useful to anyone. This gets 120 views per month. It is not linked from any other articles. Its only recent "improvements" have been a slate of IMDb refs (the only references in the list). As cross-categorization goes, this is both arbitrary and unimportant.
Reason: Per the target article, a dirt road is not the only kind of unpaved road. Unpaved roads can be
made of gravel, for instance. I lean toward retargeting to
road surface, but I also think restoringSpecial:Permalink/44277639 is something to consider, especially if someone's willing to spruce it up a bit, either as a set index article or by moving some of the off-topic content currently at Dirt road.
Reason: In rewriting this article,
theleekycauldron and I—both Americans—could not think of any reason it should be at the American spelling of the brand name. Capri-Sun was founded in Germany, is still based in Germany, and is primarily sold outside the United States; the United States is the only country (or maybe also Canada? unclear) where the brand name is two words rather than hyphenated. We should move to the more international title.
Reason: "Washington", as a place name, is ambiguous. Even setting aside George Washington, Washington, United States redirects to the Washington DAB, not to Washington (state). In
the informal discussion above, there's been some discussion of whether Washington, D.C.,'s corresponding article being at ... in the District of Columbia is sufficient for disambiguation. Per
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. Thus, ... in the District of Columbia may resolve the ambiguity at that article, but it does not resolve the ambiguity at this one, no more than moving Washington, D.C. would make it acceptable to retarget Washington, United States to Washington (state). (I'm not even sure that ... in the District of Columbia is the correct title, especially as D.C. uses that form of its name less and less, but that's a matter for another RM I guess.)I'm open to other ways to disambiguate this, e.g. ... in Washington state or ... in the state of Washington, but I do think it needs to be moved from its current title to some unambiguous one, with the base title disambiguated.Courtesy pings @
Mudwater,
SounderBruce, and
Reywas92.Note to closer: I have moved my previous DAB page to Draft:Gun laws in Washington. If this is closed as move, please move that back to mainspace. Is this is closed as keep, you can delete/tag the draft as
G7 (linking to this comment), or just ping me and I'll delete it.
Reason: I want to be clear that this RM is not born of any desire to censor this title. There are plenty of articles where including the N-word or another slur in the title is the correct thing according to policy and guidelines. I do not think, however, that this article is one of them. I'm hesitant to reach that conclusion after the massive amount of attention this article got in yesteryear, but it seems pretty clear to me.
Wikipedia:Article titles § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations advises, Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (emphasis added). The latter is clearly met here, given that
Talk:GNAA (disambiguation) § Requested move found consensus to redirect GNAA to this article. As to the former question, that of known primarily by its abbreviation, here is an assessment of the English-language independent sources cited in the article and available online (omitting dupes and ones that don't name it at all). "Full name" includes censored variants, and typos etc. are counted as their intended meaning.;Full name (2):
The Atlantic;
The Scotsman;Full name in quote, not mentioned in source's voice (1):
TechCrunch;Full name 1st reference, "GNAA" thereafter (2):
BetaBeat;
Lih 2009;"GNAA" 1st reference, with expansion; back to "GNAA" on later refs, if any (3):
Dean 2010;
Death & Taxes;
Torrenzano 2011;Just "GNAA" (7):
Attwood 2010; BuzzFeed News[20][21];
DailyTech;
KQED;
Softpedia;
Stereoboard;
ViceThis comes out to 10–5 or 12–3 for the acronym, depending how you count it. Beyond this, most relevant Google News hits
for the organization's full name are emphasizing it in the context of
weev, not treating that as the name used in general discourse. Almost no one called this by its full name. Not today, not then, not in casual discourse, not in reliable sources. I remember getting into an argument with another Wikidata admin in 2013 about whether it made sense to revdel the letters "GNAA"... the takeaway from that being, even GNAA trolls were just using "GNAA", not the expanded acronym. So is the subject ... known primarily by its abbreviation? I would say yes. And in that case
WP:COMMONNAME says we should move.
Reason: Does not appear to meet
WP:GNG,
WP:NAUTHOR, or
WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Google News shows some passing coverage in the context of local politics, but nothing approaching significant coverage in reliable sources, and shows no coverage at all of him as an author. Tagged for notability for 6+1⁄2 years.
Reason: The article
previously mentioned a claim that this number frequently appears as a phone number due to integer overflows. That line has since been removed from the article, and is unlikely to return, given that even
the source doesn't vouch for its truthfulness. Unlike the one other redirect that is a fully formatted U.S. phone number (full disclosure: my (re)creation; see edit summary there), this is a private individual's phone number, so we should probably delete it. (N.B.: Have already checked with an
oversighter that this does not meet OS criterion #1.)
Reason: Short-lived (3 weeks) title of a promotional parallel article duplicating the current target. Current redirect is a result of a move to Stephen Bruner and a subsequent
BLAR. Pageviews are negligible (2 last year), so I think this can be safely deleted.
Reason: The first two are simply grammatically incorrect ("protests rollback"). The third through fifth wrongly imply that the protests had an adverse effect on women's rights. I assume an "against" was intended in all cases, but even if corrected none would be a particularly plausible search term, so delete all.
Reason: Almost everything currently in this article appears
unverifiable. The only maybe-minimally-reliable source cited is
this survey, but it's rather out of date. The only RS coverage I can find is
a brief local FOX segment that discusses how a
Publix was eventually built around the cemetery. A cemetery on a supermarket's land would be an interesting thing to have an article on, but 2 minutes on local news isn't
significant coverage (else basically any local landmark would be notable), and as far as I can tell no
SNG applies here. If this isn't deleted, I think
WP:TNT applies due to the article's apparent reliance on
self-published sources and/or
original research (note the creator's apparent
COI with its restoration), and would suggest stubbing it.
Reason: Very unexpected target. There's room for a DAB also including
Publication § United States and maybe
Public display of affection or some things relating to display of bodies before funerals, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle thin
Reason: Ambiguous with various articles about display of bodies before funerals. We could DAB, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle things.
Reason: This was moved by
Brookeenglish in 2017 to be consistent with Sex worker. However, that misses an important distincton. "Sex worker" is an occupation (or broad description for a set of occupations). "Transgender sex worker", however, is not. Transgender sex workers are sex workers who happen to be transgender. Their significance is as a group, not as an occupation, as born out by the articles' sources. Per
WP:NCPLURAL, articles on groups usually have plural titles, so the previous title here should be restored.
Reason: This is one of those "point-and-laugh" small-time criminal articles that represent the very worst of what's possible on Wikipedia, serving only to attract
BLP violations while presenting no encyclopedic benefit. On some occasions, we are forced to maintain such articles because they pass
GNG, but that is not the case here. All of the coverage is routine local news articles, each consisting of "Man gets arrested/convicted" and then a summary of past routine coverage, with the sole exception of
[22], which is mostly an interview and not stated in the source's own voice.Every city in America has a number of career criminals who gain some modicum of local interest such that they're written up whenever they're arrested. This is particularly true in Florida where, famously, the media are notified of all arrests upon booking. That kind of routine local coverage is not what "significant coverage" refers to; it's the very reason we put "significant" there. An encyclopedia has better things to do than regurgitate tabloids and crime blotters.
Reason: As verbs, these terms have a much stronger likelihood than they do as nouns of referring to one of the other meanings listed at
Bailout (disambiguation). I encountered this when writing that someone had posted bail for someone else, and was
surprised to be taken to the current target. Retarget to DAB.
Reason: Surely this should point to
WP:Common knowledge? Of 5 backlinks, 2 clearly intend that, and the other 3 are ambiguous but I think more likely mean that than the current target (which does not contain the phrase "common knowledge" once).
Reason: @
WWGB: I have no clue how this move was controversial, seeing as you didn't actually give a reason for reverting it, but if you insist on going through the formality of an RM for a straightforward application of
MOS:GEOCOMMA, alrighty, here we are: This article should be moved as a straightforward application of
MOS:GEOCOMMA; some amount of trout may also be in order.
Reason: Redirect pointing to the business's competitor; it is not mentioned in that article. Perhaps the creator got it mixed up with neighboring Raging Waters, which is part of Morey's Piers and is mentioned.
Reason: Entirely unsourced, entirely in-universe article, with no evidence of standalone coverage. No mention at
parent article, so not suitable for redirection.
Reason: There have been several previous RMs here, but all focused on the two extreme options of simply Yesterday or the doubly-disambiguated Yesterday (Beatles song). Per
WP:INCOMPDAB and
WP:PDAB, a partly-disambiguated title may still have a primary topic; a rule of thumb I often see used is whether the article gets more pageviews than all other candidates combined. Well, let's see.
For the past year:*
Yesterday (Beatles song): 241,137 pageviews in 2022*
Yesterday (Toni Braxton song): 5,210*
Yesterday (Shanice song): 1,061*
Yesterday (Black Eyed Peas song): 1,022That is a 33:1 pageview ratio in favor of the Beatles song over the three others combined. Similarly,
WikiNav shows that the Beatles song got 35.91% of outbound clicks from the Yesterday DAB in April, the highest of any song and the second-highest overall (after the recent film); no other song cracks the top 6 (which bottoms out at 1.8%). In addition to that technical data, there is the fact that the Beatles song is one of the most influential, most covered, and most popular songs of all time. I think there is a strong case here for it to be the primary topic for "Yesterday (song)".
Reason: Whether a given work counts as "hard" science fiction is subjective. Some of these articles may mention critics characterizing them as "hard", but most do not, with categorization instead representing individual editors' opinions. Even in the rare cases where "hard"ness is of encyclopedic relevance, it is generally not defining. This is better left to the lists at
Hard science fiction § Representative works.
Reason: The United States is not the only place where desegregation has occurred (hence the page being moved), and this is gradually attracting incorrect bluelinks from editors who reasonably expect this to be about desegregation in general—see e.g. backlinks at
Joram van Klaveren and
Bermuda. I propose to bypass all U.S.-specific redirects and then retarget to Racial integration as an {{r from related term}}/{{r with possibilities}}.
Reason: It's been 4 years since the last RM closed with no consensus, and I think this is worth revisiting. Yes, the nautical sense of the term is older, but that is not the standard that decides primary-topic status. It would only be relevant if "poop" to mean feces were a neologism, but after 250 years that sense seems to be sticking around. Yes, "poop" is also a verb, but see Netoholic's point in the previous RM; the more logical search term for someone looking for Defecation is "pooping". Thus neither counterargument from the previous RM seems very persuasive. What is clear is this: In modern English, "poop" overwhelmingly refers to feces. Per
WikiNav, in April 59.61% of outbound clicks were to Feces, 12.19% to Defecation, and 6.86% to Poop deck. This page should be moved to Poop (disambiguation), and the redirect should be targeted to Feces, which is both the common-sense primary topic and the subject of an outright majority of outbound clicks.
Reason: This was created in 2012, then overwritten in 2016 with an article that was then speedily deleted. As the correct procedure in such a case is to restore the redirect, not delete the page outright, I have restored the redirect on procedural grounds. However, it's unclear to me (and, based on the history, perhaps also to
Paine Ellsworth) why this redirect exists, and thus I bring it here.
Reason: [Context of this page's creation:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § MathematicsAndStatistics.] This is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything. Neither the article Mathematics nor the article on Statistics is about the topic of "Mathematics and statistics". Rather, they are respectively about mathematics and about statistics. The former does at least briefly discuss statistics, so a case could be made for redirecting there, but the more sensible answer is to delete, as this is not a plausible term for our readers to search; if anything it will just confuse people seeing it as a search suggestion.
Reason: {{old rfd list|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 7#Tim Apple|retarget from
Tim Cook to
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Tim Apple|keep at Tim Cook|Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_12#Al_Frankenstein|no consensus}}Procedurally renominating as closer of
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12 § Al Frankenstein after an inconclusive result in that very large nomination.
Jay's proposal to retarget this to Tim Cook, endorsed by
Red-tailed hawk, seems reasonable, but there was consensus against that target at two previous RfDs, meaning that further discussion is merited.
Reason: Missiles are not the only things that can be wire-guided. Other wire-guided projectiles include torpedoes and submersibles. The French Wikipedia has
a broad article on wire guidance, and so could we, so we should delete these all per
WP:REDYES.
Reason: This does not seem like an appropriate category because very few shootings are explicitly categorized as "defensive gun use". Most of the articles in this category are cases where someone shot someone and claimed self-defense, and either was not charged or was charged but acquitted; but none of that really represents a reliable source saying that "defensive gun use" occurred. Rather, the use of this category to characterize the listed shootings seems to be
original research and, in many cases, potentially
POV-pushing. If there were a clear definition of "defensive gun use" I would support just removing those that don't meet that definition, but it's a subjective term and so any category will be subjective too.
Reason:
Previously RfD'd but trainwrecked without discussion of that entry. Biden is surely the most notable Joe to be a president, but he isn't the only one.
Joe Shirley Jr. was the longest-serving president of the
Navajo Nation, a sovereign entity with 165,000 citizens; unlike Biden, his first name actually is just Joe. Several Josephs, some of whom may be known as Joe, have been presidents as well:
Kasa-Vubu and
Kabila (Congo);
Estrada (Phillipines);
Jenkins Roberts and
James Cheeseman (Liberia);
Urusemal (Micronesia);
Lamothe,
Davilmar Théodore, and
Nemours Pierre-Louis (Haiti);
Saidu Momoh (Sierra Leone);
Lagu and
James Tombura (Southern Sudan); and
Allison (Orange Free State). Given Biden's primacy, this redirect might be reasonable if he were frequently referred to mononymously, but he is not, so this should be deleted.
Reason: Since
United States Heraldic Registry's deletion in 2017, this has only linked to two things:
United States House of Representatives and
Islamic taxes § Ushr. The first fails
MOS:DABABBR, and I don't think the sources support "USHR" being nearly a common enough abbreviation for the House for that term to be added to the target article. And the second doesn't need disambiguation because
WP:DIFFCAPS applies; no one had made Ushr till today, but I've gone and done that. Since this does not help readers arrive at any page explaining the usage of "USHR" in all-caps, it should be deleted.
Reason: I declined a
G6 speedy on this as out-of-process, and
G14 would not apply because the target is a DAB (which I'm going to convert into a list of lists in a sec, but that's still DAB-like for G14's purposes). However, miscapitalized "(disambiguation)" titles are not helpful except when there's significant page history, so I bring this here for consideration of non-speedy deletion.
Reason: Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PRODded in 2020 by LearnIndology (no-pinged; TBANned and inactive) for reason It is just a social media slang and not enough scholarly sources are available for this term. Instead
BLAR'd by
Capankajsmilyo. Restored by
आज़ादी, BLAR'd again by LearnIndology because has nothing except a dictionary source; restore redirect, and finally
brought to RfD, where I found consensus to restore and send to AfD. A number of RfD voters favored redirecting to
BIMARU states, which this AfD should consider.
Reason: This is inappropriate in the article for the same reason that a fair-use image would be on a BLP. It is fundamentally replaceable because Bean is a living person who can be photographed. There might be a fair-use case if the logo were discussed in the article, but it isn't.That said, there might be an argument that this is below the U.S. threshold of originality—would depend on how creative the shading of the letters is, I'd think. It's above the TOO in the UK, so isn't eligible for Commons, but if it's below the U.S. TOO this could be redesignated as a local public-domain file.
Reason: I'm deeply skeptical that there is enough structured data about genders and sexual identities to justify infoboxen. On some articles like Bi-curious this just wraps a flag. On others like Bisexuality it's just a flag plus a repetition of prose content from the article's lede sentence. When more detail is given, it's often
original research or questionable takes, like Asexuality including
demisexuality as a subcategory or Pansexuality having an ostensible "Parent category" of
bisexuality (what???). Yes, these are fixable on a per-article basis, but the fundamental issue is the genders and sexualities are not cognizable things. They are vague ideas of human feelings and subcultures, no more suited for infoboxen than emotions or broad ideological movements. They cannot be reduced to simple metadata in the manner of, say, a person or country. Delete, replacing with flag images as appropriate.
Reason: If this were to point somewhere about computers, Drag and drop would be the more obvious target, but I don't see why that would be primary over
dragging death,
police drag, or any other sense described at
wikt:drag § Verb. (I found this while looking for enwiki content on the "criticism" sense, in relation to
cancel culture, which should be mentioned somewhere but currently isn't.) So retarget to DABDrag for want of a primary topic.
Reason: This is a case where following
WP:DIFFCAPS means that the sentence-case version should simply be a redlink. There is no encyclopedic primary topic for the general concept of "half measures", and over time a redirect like this risks racking up erroneous bluelinks. While I wouldn't hugely oppose a soft-retarget to
wikt:half-measure, I think readers are better served simply by the search results, mirroring redlinks
half measure,
half-measure, and
half-measures. The Breaking Bad episode will still be the top result in those search results.
Reason: Mentioned neither at current target nor at previous target Homer's Phobia. Christmas gift-bringer is a halfway viable target, but deletion makes much more sense.
Reason: This seems like a
WP:COMMONNAME situation. This entity refers to itself primarily
as the Harvard Corporation, only noting in a subheading that it is Known formally as the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
This recent NYT article takes a similar approach, The Harvard Corporation—formally known as the President and Fellows of Harvard College. A Google search shows other cases like that, and some citations of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, but not anyone using the current name as the primary one for the entity. The closest is the Harvard Gazette (see citations in article), which does sometimes (
[23] but not
[24]) say "President and Fellows" on first reference... but still uses "Corporation" from then on.
Reason: A home planet is a planet that is the home of an entity being discussed. Because of humans' limited venture beyond our gravity well, the term is mostly confined to science fiction, where it usually refers to any planet but Earth. Planet would resolve the issue of focusing on Earth, but contains no content about the concept of a "home planet", so I favor deletion for want of a suitable target.
Reason: Procedural nomination as closer of
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § Janes Place, California. I am neutral. In 2019
Reywas92 BLAR'd this as locality not notable, redir to county.
WeirdNAnnoyed took it to RfD, writing Target article never mentions Janes Place, or gives any hint about what or where it was. Very obscure place, unlikely search term. Reywas commented at the RfD Topo map shows it as an isolated cabin.
Reason: This is a previous title of Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes, which was redirected to the target at AfD in 2006. That redirect is of marginal utility, but this one is outright misleading: There are many metrics by which one can compare post-war Germany and post-war Japan, of which attitude toward war crimes is but one.
Reason: The article is a reasonable target for Big butt, but, as it does not characterize steatopygia in medical terms, redirecting "Big butt disease" here seems misleading.
Reason: I had originally targeted this to F1NN5TER. Wbm1058 has retargeted with the argument redirect to the more likely misspelling – only one extra letter is there, no digits. I would agree with that if this were an arbitrary typo, but, as established in the prose of the article itself, this is a known misspelling of the subject's screen name—not borne of fat fingers, but people deliberately converting the
leetspeak canonical name to regular characters—even occurring in marginally reliable sources
like Game Rant. If you search Twitter for finnster you'll see the misspelling is ubiquitous, with F1NN5TER being the subject of an outright majority of tweets containing the string. Googling the string—even Incognito, on public wifi, with before:2024—the clear majority of hits I get are about F1NN5TER; the handful of exceptions are about non-notable animals and a one-off SNL character who had no lines. On the other hand,
none of the articles about people named Finster reference this misspelling. Based on all this, I think F1NN5TER is the clear primary topic for the misspelling, and the
least astonishing approach for our readers would be to redirect to his article with hatnote to Finster.