This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2022.
FREC event that was cancelled. All other FREC events were deleted for lack of notability as per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Le Castellet Formula Regional European Championship round, but this one wasn't nominated with the others because of the cancellation. An AfD was later opened specifically for this article (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Nürburgring Formula Regional European Championship round), but it was closed as redirect despite most votes being delete.
Therefore I request deletion.
MSport1005 (
talk)
23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason for "Janga Gana Mana" to be a redirect to Jana Gana Mana. No alternate spellings, pronunciation of "Jana Gana Mana" gives us "Janga Gana Mana". --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 22:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The back cover can refer to a back external side of any medium, like a book, an album, a single, or any other. Like front cover, the page should be retargeted to cover dabpage. George Ho ( talk) 22:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Patrick sylvestre
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Gordon S.
Retracted While I believe the current state is fine, there has been an edit war over this topic for the past two months, so a formal discussion as requested by Donaldd23 is necessary to get the involved parties to settle the matter in a constructive manner. Paradoctor ( talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of WP:BLAR, going to do that. Thanks. Paradoctor ( talk) 19:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Implausible redirect, violation of WP:WESTBANK even if it were not Nableezy 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Voluntary agency
Seems part of an effort to create a walled garden adding nn person to various places by linking to the disambiguation page through a misspelling. I deleted use of this link from San Dimas, California, where it pretended to be a link to the person. Hyperbolick ( talk) 09:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This will probably be controversial, but I think it makes sense on the face of it. This template currently redirects to {{
clear}}, which uses div tags to create a break on a page. I think it should redirect instead to {{
break}}, which uses a simple <br />
tag to create a line break. If we were starting from scratch with these names, I think it would be obvious that {{
br}} should redirect to {{
break}}, since br=br.
The reason that we are here is because {{
br}} used to provide a <br />
tag, and it was changed over the years via various redirects to point to {{
clear}}, which uses div tags. When the redirects were being discussed, {{
break}} did not use br tags, but now it does. Each logical step made sense at the time, but nobody appears to have stepped back recently to say "Wait a minute, having a template called 'br' point to a template that supplies div tags instead of br tags makes no sense."
Having {{ br}} insert div tags instead of br tags causes good-faith errors like this insertion of Template:br into templates that can't handle div tags inside them.
Since this redirect is widely used, I propose that a bot be used to change every call to {{ br}} to {{ clear}}, on the assumption that the existing uses are not broken, and then {{ br}} be redirected to {{ break}}. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's rough consensus here, the redirect has not been tagged. {{
subst:rfd}}-tagged templates still work, and {{subst:rfd}} has a showontransclusions
option, so that would be a good thing to do, just like advertising a TfD through transcluded messages. Only catch is that the message that displays is too large for a template that doesn't display at all. I'm going to look into adding something like the tiny version of {{
subst:tfd}}. For now, relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
08:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
{{br}}
-as-in-<br />
was removed and {{br}}
-as-in-{{clear}}
was later added) is low, but that's the only way (well, not the only way, but the "easiest" way) I can think of to do it. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
21:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)<br />
. —
W.andrea (
talk)
19:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Replaces
<br />
where this is unsuitable, for example the rare cases where it is necessary to duplicate<br /><br />
which will be "fixed" by bots.
While valid forms without the
/
(such as<br>
or<br >
) will work properly in the rendered page, the uncommon form<br >
can break several of the available syntax highlighters for wiki code in the editing view (mis-highlighting all text in the page after the occurrence of that tag), and so should be avoided. As of April 2019, [update] the rather common form<br>
also causes this incorrect display in some of them, and is thus better avoided for the time being.
<br/>
with no change or with an improvement, and that in most cases this was likely the editor's intention. For instance, did someone really intend to put a bunch of {{
clear}}s into the infobox at
Cuban Revolution? Or the infobox at
Heckler & Koch HK416? It seems much much more likely that those editors thought they were adding actual breaks. To confirm this anecdotal impression, I fiddled around quite a bit with some regex searches to gauge how often this template is used immediately after a file, and found
9 such transclusions out of
3,883... but that use case only accounts for
3,265 of {{clear}} and its other redirects's
3.4M transclusions... So I likely need to broaden the regex for more use cases. Improvements welcome. If there's any way to come up with a manual replacement or "smart" bot replacement here, I think that would be preferable. One starting point might be assuming that a {{
br}} midway through an infobox parameter is always meant as a <br/>
.P.S. Bundling {{
BR}}. Fortunately this one only has 20 transclusions, a lot easier to deal with. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
23:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)showontransclusion=yes
parameter to the template. That said, I still think it would be worth doing. If you look
here, you'll see that only an eighth of the transcluding pages (563) use the template more than once, and if you increase the 2
in the
regex there, you'll see that the number decreases pretty linearly, down to a quarter of that (136) for pages that use it six times or more. I've previewed what a number of multiple-transclusion pages would look like with the tag on them, and to me it did not seem much of an eyesore, at least no more than when some high-visibility templates have been TfD'd. If the concern is about confusing readers, one could compromise with an autoconfirmed-show
or extendedconfirmed-show
class on it in this special case. (Would be easy to add that logic to
Module:RfD.) I'll leave the final determination tagging-wise to someone else, but that's my rationale for it. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
extendedconfirmed-show
(by setting transclusiontagvisibility=extendedconfirmed
) or to revert me outright, without discussion. And just going to put this in boldface for anyone coming here from one of these tags: The tags are only visible to autoconfirmed users. (If you want an easy way to spot autoconfirmed-only (and such) material, there's a guide to setting that up in
my common.css.) --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
03:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Cho Jun-young
Appears to have been a speculated new model (eg see [1]) which was never produced. Not mentioned at target or anywhere. I would suggest delete, or potentially retarget to BMW Z if others feel a mention is justified (I do not). A7V2 ( talk) 07:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Not mentioned at the target. Searching online, I found results for...whatever this is. It certainly looks like cult-adjacent mumbo jumbo that could plausibly be connected to Happy Science, but it does not appear to actually mention "Happy Science" or other terms related to it. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
07:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox Church of Byzantium
I can't find anything on Kypris online that is independent of Wikipedia, let alone independent content linking this deity to Aphrodite. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 02:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox civilization
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Fundamental theory (canon law)
No mention of this expression being one of the
main ways to designate the Catechism of the Catholic Church at
Catechism of the Catholic Church. The expression itself is too broad and vague.
I recommend deletion.
Veverve (
talk)
01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
No mention of this "Independent Catholic Church USA" denomination in the target article. I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 00:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2022.
FREC event that was cancelled. All other FREC events were deleted for lack of notability as per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Le Castellet Formula Regional European Championship round, but this one wasn't nominated with the others because of the cancellation. An AfD was later opened specifically for this article (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Nürburgring Formula Regional European Championship round), but it was closed as redirect despite most votes being delete.
Therefore I request deletion.
MSport1005 (
talk)
23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason for "Janga Gana Mana" to be a redirect to Jana Gana Mana. No alternate spellings, pronunciation of "Jana Gana Mana" gives us "Janga Gana Mana". --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 22:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The back cover can refer to a back external side of any medium, like a book, an album, a single, or any other. Like front cover, the page should be retargeted to cover dabpage. George Ho ( talk) 22:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Patrick sylvestre
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Gordon S.
Retracted While I believe the current state is fine, there has been an edit war over this topic for the past two months, so a formal discussion as requested by Donaldd23 is necessary to get the involved parties to settle the matter in a constructive manner. Paradoctor ( talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of WP:BLAR, going to do that. Thanks. Paradoctor ( talk) 19:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Implausible redirect, violation of WP:WESTBANK even if it were not Nableezy 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Voluntary agency
Seems part of an effort to create a walled garden adding nn person to various places by linking to the disambiguation page through a misspelling. I deleted use of this link from San Dimas, California, where it pretended to be a link to the person. Hyperbolick ( talk) 09:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This will probably be controversial, but I think it makes sense on the face of it. This template currently redirects to {{
clear}}, which uses div tags to create a break on a page. I think it should redirect instead to {{
break}}, which uses a simple <br />
tag to create a line break. If we were starting from scratch with these names, I think it would be obvious that {{
br}} should redirect to {{
break}}, since br=br.
The reason that we are here is because {{
br}} used to provide a <br />
tag, and it was changed over the years via various redirects to point to {{
clear}}, which uses div tags. When the redirects were being discussed, {{
break}} did not use br tags, but now it does. Each logical step made sense at the time, but nobody appears to have stepped back recently to say "Wait a minute, having a template called 'br' point to a template that supplies div tags instead of br tags makes no sense."
Having {{ br}} insert div tags instead of br tags causes good-faith errors like this insertion of Template:br into templates that can't handle div tags inside them.
Since this redirect is widely used, I propose that a bot be used to change every call to {{ br}} to {{ clear}}, on the assumption that the existing uses are not broken, and then {{ br}} be redirected to {{ break}}. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's rough consensus here, the redirect has not been tagged. {{
subst:rfd}}-tagged templates still work, and {{subst:rfd}} has a showontransclusions
option, so that would be a good thing to do, just like advertising a TfD through transcluded messages. Only catch is that the message that displays is too large for a template that doesn't display at all. I'm going to look into adding something like the tiny version of {{
subst:tfd}}. For now, relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
08:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
{{br}}
-as-in-<br />
was removed and {{br}}
-as-in-{{clear}}
was later added) is low, but that's the only way (well, not the only way, but the "easiest" way) I can think of to do it. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
21:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)<br />
. —
W.andrea (
talk)
19:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Replaces
<br />
where this is unsuitable, for example the rare cases where it is necessary to duplicate<br /><br />
which will be "fixed" by bots.
While valid forms without the
/
(such as<br>
or<br >
) will work properly in the rendered page, the uncommon form<br >
can break several of the available syntax highlighters for wiki code in the editing view (mis-highlighting all text in the page after the occurrence of that tag), and so should be avoided. As of April 2019, [update] the rather common form<br>
also causes this incorrect display in some of them, and is thus better avoided for the time being.
<br/>
with no change or with an improvement, and that in most cases this was likely the editor's intention. For instance, did someone really intend to put a bunch of {{
clear}}s into the infobox at
Cuban Revolution? Or the infobox at
Heckler & Koch HK416? It seems much much more likely that those editors thought they were adding actual breaks. To confirm this anecdotal impression, I fiddled around quite a bit with some regex searches to gauge how often this template is used immediately after a file, and found
9 such transclusions out of
3,883... but that use case only accounts for
3,265 of {{clear}} and its other redirects's
3.4M transclusions... So I likely need to broaden the regex for more use cases. Improvements welcome. If there's any way to come up with a manual replacement or "smart" bot replacement here, I think that would be preferable. One starting point might be assuming that a {{
br}} midway through an infobox parameter is always meant as a <br/>
.P.S. Bundling {{
BR}}. Fortunately this one only has 20 transclusions, a lot easier to deal with. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
23:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)showontransclusion=yes
parameter to the template. That said, I still think it would be worth doing. If you look
here, you'll see that only an eighth of the transcluding pages (563) use the template more than once, and if you increase the 2
in the
regex there, you'll see that the number decreases pretty linearly, down to a quarter of that (136) for pages that use it six times or more. I've previewed what a number of multiple-transclusion pages would look like with the tag on them, and to me it did not seem much of an eyesore, at least no more than when some high-visibility templates have been TfD'd. If the concern is about confusing readers, one could compromise with an autoconfirmed-show
or extendedconfirmed-show
class on it in this special case. (Would be easy to add that logic to
Module:RfD.) I'll leave the final determination tagging-wise to someone else, but that's my rationale for it. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
extendedconfirmed-show
(by setting transclusiontagvisibility=extendedconfirmed
) or to revert me outright, without discussion. And just going to put this in boldface for anyone coming here from one of these tags: The tags are only visible to autoconfirmed users. (If you want an easy way to spot autoconfirmed-only (and such) material, there's a guide to setting that up in
my common.css.) --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
03:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Cho Jun-young
Appears to have been a speculated new model (eg see [1]) which was never produced. Not mentioned at target or anywhere. I would suggest delete, or potentially retarget to BMW Z if others feel a mention is justified (I do not). A7V2 ( talk) 07:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Not mentioned at the target. Searching online, I found results for...whatever this is. It certainly looks like cult-adjacent mumbo jumbo that could plausibly be connected to Happy Science, but it does not appear to actually mention "Happy Science" or other terms related to it. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
07:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox Church of Byzantium
I can't find anything on Kypris online that is independent of Wikipedia, let alone independent content linking this deity to Aphrodite. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 02:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox civilization
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Fundamental theory (canon law)
No mention of this expression being one of the
main ways to designate the Catechism of the Catholic Church at
Catechism of the Catholic Church. The expression itself is too broad and vague.
I recommend deletion.
Veverve (
talk)
01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
No mention of this "Independent Catholic Church USA" denomination in the target article. I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 00:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
05:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)