From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2023.

Surprise WikiProject redirects (A–D)

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

Different redirects make different levels of sense. Some of them seem plausible, some of them look like they ought to go to navboxes, and others are just confusing. Renominate individually, because any blanket close over these would be either too complex to implement or not actually solve any problems at hand. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

These templates redirect to a WikiProject banner, but typically navboxes (or sometimes sidebars) get the subject as the template name. (See Category:Navigational boxes by topic.) Because their targets are (in effect) a surprise, I suggest they be deleted. If a shortcut is desired for any of these, it's been standard to prefix a shortcut with "WP" to indicate a WikiProject template. I'm testing a small number of redirects for positive consensus prior to considering others. SWinxy ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all Super helpful and deleting would cause far more problems than keeping. Do you have any evidence of problems or issues with any of these? ― Justin (koavf)TCM 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all No real explanation for why these are problematic or a surprise. Handy shortcuts, not a surprise or a problem. Mburrell ( talk) 02:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    My point is the redirects are inconsistent with the larger pattern of template names. Take the navboxes on Astronomy, which are all the subject names... except for the subject of astronomy, which is Template:Astronomy navbar. SWinxy ( talk) 02:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I do not understand your point. So I go to Astronomy, and it has a navbox at the bottom of the page, plus others for related subjects. Astronomy navbox can be viewed at Template:Astronomy navbox, Major subfields of astronomy can be viewed at Template:Astronomy subfields, Natural science has it's own page, but at the bottom of the page is it's navbox, Template:Natural science. Solar System has it's own page, but at the bottom of the Solar System page is its navbox Template:Solar System, and so on. Are you expecting the Astronomy page to link to itself in it's navbox hyperlink? The purpose of the navboxes are to provide links to additional articles, hence the full name of navigation box. This is true of all major articles. If I go to The Rolling Stones, the article has a navbox to Template:The Rolling Stones, plus links to some of the articles for members of the band, but the Mick Jagger article also has a navbox Template:Mick Jagger. I guess I don't understand what the issue you are describing, because I don't see a problem. Mburrell ( talk) 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Nononono, I'm saying that Template:Astronomy navbox should be Template:Astronomy, consistent with the other navboxes on that page and the ones you linked to. It's inconsistent to have the word "navbox" in the template title. SWinxy ( talk) 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Some of these redirects, such as {{ Christianmetal}}, are banners left over from inactive WikiProjects which have been subsumed into their parent WikiProjects. While it may be less confusing to editors to use the currently active WP's name in the banner—and it clearly did confuse some people; I just finished removing all this WikiProject's duplicate talk page banners where both redirect and target banners were used—using a redirect instead of the target template makes absolutely no difference to the banner's actual appearance. It's only different "under the hood", so to speak. So, unless you have a bot ready to go that will overwrite these thousands of links to the redirect pages with links to the target templates, then you, as a responsible nomimator, will have a long slog ahead of you as you fix all the red links created by deleting the redirects. Deleting these redirects before removing every link pointing to them is putting the cart before the horse. -- GentlemanGhost (séance) 05:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yeah it kinda is putting the cart before the horse, but I reckon a trip to WP:AWBREQ would be sufficient. Replacing them first without a discussion here feels like an icky backdoor way of getting them deleted. SWinxy ( talk) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, handy shortcuts = timesavers. They will surprise nobody, because they are used by people who know them, and others don't see them. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Several of these, such as Template:Business, are redirects left by moving the page. These are rarely deleted, see WP:R#KEEP. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete all. I doubt my vote will change the outcome but I agree with the nom. Having shortcuts is ok, but even shortcuts should follow a naming convention which makes sense. Template names like Template:COMICS can be a valid "shortcut" for a large number of templates, not the least the infobox itself. Gonnym ( talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's certainly confusing that {{ Carnivorous plants}} is a navbox and {{ Carnivorous Plants}} is a redirect to {{ WikiProject Carnivorous plants}} (and there is no {{ WikiProject Carnivorous Plants}}). But the redirect has 864 transclusions that would need to be fixed before deleting it. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rethink. Per some comments above, most of these are probably fine, but there are some that logically should be the title for a template on a topic area rather than for a WikiProject, and in particular we should not have template titles leading to different places based on one letter of capitalization. BD2412 T 02:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – this is headed for trainwreck territory. I agree with BD2412 – some might be worth retargeting, some might not, but in a grouping like this figuring out the difference is hard. Also, I would guess "typically navboxes (or sometimes sidebars) get the subject as the template name" is because many navboxes have no correlating WikiProject; the linked category makes no distinction on those grounds. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Yes, trainwreck. This proposal has been disruptive to my work, as it's elevated something that's "not broken", strictly speaking, to make it bump above many long-term broken things in priority, by making it "broken". See Template talk:Redirect for discussion#False-positive error transclusions, and please respond there if you can answer my question. Lua module coders are taking the complexity of Wikipedia maintenance to 11, on a scale of 1–10. I suppose I can support the goal of bypassing these template redirects as that makes bot coding easier for someone like myself. But the first step should be to get consensus that these bypasses are not WP:Cosmetic edits which run afoul of the WP:COSMETICBOT policy. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry that the RfD template halted your workflow, but it's not my fault. The RfD template shouldn't be doing this, and I had no idea it would. I'm sorry. I had hoped that this discussion would be that consensus for the cosmetic edits necessary. SWinxy ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and renominate each redirect individually - Each of these redirects likely needs to be evaluated on its own merits, without the more than dozen of them grouped together. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

World War II/Infobox

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Participants did not settle on a single option out of the many proposed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Not useful search terms. However, they contain useful edit history; if they are not deleted, they probably need to be moved without leaving a redirect elsewhere. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on World War II/Infobox.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for disucssion of Jay's move suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. (Wow, I forgot all about this thing ... I was the nominator...)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Histmerge World War II/Edited Text, Keep World War II/Infobox. Per that /GA1 RFD (I don't feel like searching for it), I don't think there's a valid reason to remove World War II/Infobox from mainspace, as there is a talk page there and clicking "Article" will take you to the WWII article. 64 makes a good point on the Edited Text article; the only content related human edit after 2001 is the one converting the page into a redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close the June 22 logpage. (I can't believe that this is the fourth relist in as many months!) It seems that participants either want these two redirects to be kept, moved without redirect, or histmerged into the main World War II article, but it's unclear what we should actually choose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather ( talk) 22:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Finnish redirects that turn ä into ae

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Finnish redirects that turn ä into ae

Hansik

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Korean cuisine and added a hatnote pointing to the previous target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hansik is a commonly used English transliteration of 한식, which means Korean cuisine. See for example: [1], [2], [3], etc. :3 F4U ( they /it) 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You can also see the overwhelming usage as "Korean food" in this Google scholar search :3 F4U ( they /it) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Erlenmeyer rule

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Erlenmeyer rule

Cam The Ham

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Maria Pia of Savoy the younger

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Parma. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Parma - Presumably the intended target as this redirect was created before that article. estar8806 ( talk) 19:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC ( talk) 12:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Beatrice, Queen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget. Uncontroversial with no basis to oppose (unsynced R from sort name). Calling WP:SNOW here. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Queen Beatrice - Ambiguous. estar8806 ( talk) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Draft:Maarten Rijkers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Draft:Maarten Rijkers

Draft:Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Redirect exists in main namespace. estar8806 ( talk) 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete There's already a proper redirect under this name. Keivan.f Talk 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG OM DStJ PC FRS HonFRSC

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Far too long to be plausible search terms. estar8806 ( talk) 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Edward, Elector Palatine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. as an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 10:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - No evidence presented in the article, or found elsewhere, suggests that Edward was ever Elector Palatine himself. estar8806 ( talk) 18:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Prince henry of prussia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Prince Henry of Prussia per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947 edits 08:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dabify - With the other two Princes Henry of Prussia, Prince Henry of Prussia (1862–1929) and Prince Henry of Prussia (1747–1767). estar8806 ( talk) 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Caroline of Nassau

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Caroline of Nassau

Frederick (1766-1839)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Unhelpful search term as there was surely more than one person by the name of Frederick with those dates of life. estar8806 ( talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Giorgio di Hannover

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 12:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Per WP:UE. Implausible and theoretically ambiguous search term. estar8806 ( talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The name is in Italian (?) and the subject was not associated with Italy in any way, shape or form. If we were to create redirects for each article in all of its different languages, we would end up having thousands of redirects per page. We have to go with common names used in English sources. Keivan.f Talk 04:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 12:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Unlikely search term, particularly considering it should be and the United Kingdom. estar8806 ( talk) 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The subject is never referred to in this manner. It is not a plausible search term, cannot be used in text, and is grammatically incorrect (as nominator pointed out, "the" is missing before "United Kingdom"). Keivan.f Talk 04:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Stolen election conspiracy theories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Stolen election conspiracy theories

Anti-white racism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Both deleted last November after lengthy discussion (which the user who recreated the pages apparently missed, although they specifically noted the RfD before that one in their edit summary). AFAIK nothing has changed since then to make this redirect more useful or necessary. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_16#Anti-white_racism this had consensus to redirect it to reverse racism and the article even calls it that --17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky ( talkcontribs)
    The article calls it an unsupported belief some people have. Not the same thing. And you're ignoring the more recent consensus to delete. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination,[1] is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism."

    good enough for a redirect-- FMSky ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I disagree. Users following the link or searching for "anti-white racism" should reasonably be able to expect landing at a page describing anti-white racism itself as a topic or subtopic, rather than a particular US-centric concept associated with opposition to affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs. In short, "reverse racism" may refer to purported "anti-white racism", but "anti-white racism" doesn't necessarily imply "reverse racism". — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Then what about redirecting it to Racism instead -- FMSky ( talk) 21:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I looked at all the uses of the word "white" on the Racism page, and didn't see any description of anti-white racism itself as a topic, apart from a brief summary of the reverse racism article. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I dont want to assume bad faith but what im getting from this discussion is that you're denying that racism against whites even exists, is that correct? FMSky ( talk) 12:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Which part of the Racism article do you feel is describing the topic of anti-white racism? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I dont think there is much point discussing with someone like this any further -- FMSky ( talk) 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per last consensus and possibly salt. We don't need to debate this every year. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My reading of the last discussion is that, while there was indeed consensus that there was at present no satisfactory target, there was also a general view that that was because a focused article on anti-white racism (in the non-"reverse racism" sense) had not yet been written, though it is touched on in several articles (for example, regarding Britain, Africa, more specifically South Africa, and more obliquely in some ethnic conflict-related articles. It is clearly a legitimate subject that readers will search for and hopefully something will be written. In any case, I do not think that the criteria required by WP:SALT have been met. Davidships ( talk) 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It was even straight up called "anti-white racism" in the hatnote of the reverse racism article until someone recently felt the need to remove it from there too: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reverse_racism&diff=prev&oldid=1169306647 -- FMSky ( talk) 16:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Augusta Charlotte

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Actually called "Charlotte Augusta". This is an incorrect format which I've found no usage referring to her. estar8806 ( talk) 15:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Seems to add nothing of value.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete The order of the names is wrong, so it is both an unlikely search term and not useable in text either. Keivan.f Talk 04:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Olav VI of Norway

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not his actual numeral. estar8806 ( talk) 15:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, LG, GCVO, CD

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Highly unlikely search term. There is also the dispute over whether Alexandra is a "LG" or "KG" (Lady or Knight of the Garter). estar8806 ( talk) 15:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete It's an unlikely search term, but it is also highly unlikely that it can be used in a text. And yes, there is also the issue of whether she is a KG (Knight of the Garter) or LG (Lady of the Garter). Keivan.f Talk 04:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra Helen Elizabeth Olga Christabel, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, Royal Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - In now way is this a plausible search term. estar8806 ( talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Excessive. Not a plausible search term either. Keivan.f Talk 04:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Maria Henrietta Stuart I

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - The addition of the roman numeral would make this a highly unlikely search term. estar8806 ( talk) 14:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Friedrich Ludwig, Prince of Orange

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) estar8806 ( talk) 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Sophia Dorothea's children were Princes of Prussia, not of Orange, so this makes no sense. Unless somebody else knows something I don't? estar8806 ( talk) 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The King of Prussia claimed the Principality of Orange from 1702 and it was used as a courtesy title for his eldest son's eldest son. Opera hat ( talk) 15:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I knew they had claimed it at some point, but I thought it was far later on. I'm going to go ahead and speedy close this as withdrawn. estar8806 ( talk) 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

First Duke of Cambridge

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Duke of Cambridge#Dukes of Cambridge. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Duke of Cambridge#Dukes of Cambridge - Could realistically refer to any of the first Dukes of Cambridge from any creation, including Prince William. estar8806 ( talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Augusta Matilda Charlotte

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Her actual name was "Charlotte Augusta Matilda" and the incorrect format returns no use at all referring to the subject. estar8806 ( talk) 14:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The order of the given names is wrong, so it cannot be used in text and is not a plausible search term either. Keivan.f Talk 03:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Regency Bill

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Regency Acts. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Regency Acts - People using this specific search term are most likely looking for the laws rather than the crisis. estar8806 ( talk) 14:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Matilda of Wales

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Caroline Matilda of Great Britain. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Caroline Matilda of Great Britain - Any results for "Matilda of Wales" I've found result in Caroline Matilda. This Maud seems to have been solely called "Maud" and never "Matilda". estar8806 ( talk) 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC ( talk) 01:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Albert, Henry William Frederick

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - If "Albert" were the surname this redirect could make sense. But it is not, so this is an implausible search term. estar8806 ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC ( talk) 01:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete The whole thing is just wrong. Albert is one of the subject's given names, whereas the surname (which is rarely used for royals) is Windsor. The redirect is malformed, not useable in text, and not a plausible search term either. Keivan.f Talk 03:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

To do the needful

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#To do the needful

Doing the needful

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Doing the needful

Crack stem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Crack stem

Christe qui lux es et dies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It seems strange to redirect a classical Latin hymn to the biography page of the compiler of a hymn book which includes someone else's setting of this hymn (by Johann Hermann Schein). Most information we have on wiki seems to be at Te lucis ante terminum, but a red link to encourage article creation might also be an option. Felix QW ( talk) 06:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Urozhaine, Ukraine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Urozhaine. Some participants believe there is a primary topic, however this can be a separate discussion. Jay 💬 16:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This redirect originally went to List of villages in Ternopil Oblast, however there are multiple villages named Urozhaine are located in Ukraine, one of which is been in the news recently due to the war. I moved the redirect to Urozhaine, Ternopil Oblast to disambiguate it from the other villages, and now propose we either delete the old redirect or turn it into a disambiguation page listing all of the Ukrainian villages called Urozhaine. Physeters 04:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Nantucket ferry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Nantucket ferry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2023.

Surprise WikiProject redirects (A–D)

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

Different redirects make different levels of sense. Some of them seem plausible, some of them look like they ought to go to navboxes, and others are just confusing. Renominate individually, because any blanket close over these would be either too complex to implement or not actually solve any problems at hand. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

These templates redirect to a WikiProject banner, but typically navboxes (or sometimes sidebars) get the subject as the template name. (See Category:Navigational boxes by topic.) Because their targets are (in effect) a surprise, I suggest they be deleted. If a shortcut is desired for any of these, it's been standard to prefix a shortcut with "WP" to indicate a WikiProject template. I'm testing a small number of redirects for positive consensus prior to considering others. SWinxy ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all Super helpful and deleting would cause far more problems than keeping. Do you have any evidence of problems or issues with any of these? ― Justin (koavf)TCM 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all No real explanation for why these are problematic or a surprise. Handy shortcuts, not a surprise or a problem. Mburrell ( talk) 02:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    My point is the redirects are inconsistent with the larger pattern of template names. Take the navboxes on Astronomy, which are all the subject names... except for the subject of astronomy, which is Template:Astronomy navbar. SWinxy ( talk) 02:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I do not understand your point. So I go to Astronomy, and it has a navbox at the bottom of the page, plus others for related subjects. Astronomy navbox can be viewed at Template:Astronomy navbox, Major subfields of astronomy can be viewed at Template:Astronomy subfields, Natural science has it's own page, but at the bottom of the page is it's navbox, Template:Natural science. Solar System has it's own page, but at the bottom of the Solar System page is its navbox Template:Solar System, and so on. Are you expecting the Astronomy page to link to itself in it's navbox hyperlink? The purpose of the navboxes are to provide links to additional articles, hence the full name of navigation box. This is true of all major articles. If I go to The Rolling Stones, the article has a navbox to Template:The Rolling Stones, plus links to some of the articles for members of the band, but the Mick Jagger article also has a navbox Template:Mick Jagger. I guess I don't understand what the issue you are describing, because I don't see a problem. Mburrell ( talk) 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Nononono, I'm saying that Template:Astronomy navbox should be Template:Astronomy, consistent with the other navboxes on that page and the ones you linked to. It's inconsistent to have the word "navbox" in the template title. SWinxy ( talk) 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Some of these redirects, such as {{ Christianmetal}}, are banners left over from inactive WikiProjects which have been subsumed into their parent WikiProjects. While it may be less confusing to editors to use the currently active WP's name in the banner—and it clearly did confuse some people; I just finished removing all this WikiProject's duplicate talk page banners where both redirect and target banners were used—using a redirect instead of the target template makes absolutely no difference to the banner's actual appearance. It's only different "under the hood", so to speak. So, unless you have a bot ready to go that will overwrite these thousands of links to the redirect pages with links to the target templates, then you, as a responsible nomimator, will have a long slog ahead of you as you fix all the red links created by deleting the redirects. Deleting these redirects before removing every link pointing to them is putting the cart before the horse. -- GentlemanGhost (séance) 05:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yeah it kinda is putting the cart before the horse, but I reckon a trip to WP:AWBREQ would be sufficient. Replacing them first without a discussion here feels like an icky backdoor way of getting them deleted. SWinxy ( talk) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, handy shortcuts = timesavers. They will surprise nobody, because they are used by people who know them, and others don't see them. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Several of these, such as Template:Business, are redirects left by moving the page. These are rarely deleted, see WP:R#KEEP. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete all. I doubt my vote will change the outcome but I agree with the nom. Having shortcuts is ok, but even shortcuts should follow a naming convention which makes sense. Template names like Template:COMICS can be a valid "shortcut" for a large number of templates, not the least the infobox itself. Gonnym ( talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's certainly confusing that {{ Carnivorous plants}} is a navbox and {{ Carnivorous Plants}} is a redirect to {{ WikiProject Carnivorous plants}} (and there is no {{ WikiProject Carnivorous Plants}}). But the redirect has 864 transclusions that would need to be fixed before deleting it. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Rethink. Per some comments above, most of these are probably fine, but there are some that logically should be the title for a template on a topic area rather than for a WikiProject, and in particular we should not have template titles leading to different places based on one letter of capitalization. BD2412 T 02:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – this is headed for trainwreck territory. I agree with BD2412 – some might be worth retargeting, some might not, but in a grouping like this figuring out the difference is hard. Also, I would guess "typically navboxes (or sometimes sidebars) get the subject as the template name" is because many navboxes have no correlating WikiProject; the linked category makes no distinction on those grounds. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Yes, trainwreck. This proposal has been disruptive to my work, as it's elevated something that's "not broken", strictly speaking, to make it bump above many long-term broken things in priority, by making it "broken". See Template talk:Redirect for discussion#False-positive error transclusions, and please respond there if you can answer my question. Lua module coders are taking the complexity of Wikipedia maintenance to 11, on a scale of 1–10. I suppose I can support the goal of bypassing these template redirects as that makes bot coding easier for someone like myself. But the first step should be to get consensus that these bypasses are not WP:Cosmetic edits which run afoul of the WP:COSMETICBOT policy. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry that the RfD template halted your workflow, but it's not my fault. The RfD template shouldn't be doing this, and I had no idea it would. I'm sorry. I had hoped that this discussion would be that consensus for the cosmetic edits necessary. SWinxy ( talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and renominate each redirect individually - Each of these redirects likely needs to be evaluated on its own merits, without the more than dozen of them grouped together. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

World War II/Infobox

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Participants did not settle on a single option out of the many proposed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Not useful search terms. However, they contain useful edit history; if they are not deleted, they probably need to be moved without leaving a redirect elsewhere. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on World War II/Infobox.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for disucssion of Jay's move suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. (Wow, I forgot all about this thing ... I was the nominator...)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Histmerge World War II/Edited Text, Keep World War II/Infobox. Per that /GA1 RFD (I don't feel like searching for it), I don't think there's a valid reason to remove World War II/Infobox from mainspace, as there is a talk page there and clicking "Article" will take you to the WWII article. 64 makes a good point on the Edited Text article; the only content related human edit after 2001 is the one converting the page into a redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close the June 22 logpage. (I can't believe that this is the fourth relist in as many months!) It seems that participants either want these two redirects to be kept, moved without redirect, or histmerged into the main World War II article, but it's unclear what we should actually choose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather ( talk) 22:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Finnish redirects that turn ä into ae

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Finnish redirects that turn ä into ae

Hansik

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Korean cuisine and added a hatnote pointing to the previous target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hansik is a commonly used English transliteration of 한식, which means Korean cuisine. See for example: [1], [2], [3], etc. :3 F4U ( they /it) 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You can also see the overwhelming usage as "Korean food" in this Google scholar search :3 F4U ( they /it) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Erlenmeyer rule

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 15#Erlenmeyer rule

Cam The Ham

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Maria Pia of Savoy the younger

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Parma. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Parma - Presumably the intended target as this redirect was created before that article. estar8806 ( talk) 19:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC ( talk) 12:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Beatrice, Queen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget. Uncontroversial with no basis to oppose (unsynced R from sort name). Calling WP:SNOW here. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Queen Beatrice - Ambiguous. estar8806 ( talk) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Draft:Maarten Rijkers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Draft:Maarten Rijkers

Draft:Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Redirect exists in main namespace. estar8806 ( talk) 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete There's already a proper redirect under this name. Keivan.f Talk 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG OM DStJ PC FRS HonFRSC

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Far too long to be plausible search terms. estar8806 ( talk) 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Edward, Elector Palatine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. as an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 10:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - No evidence presented in the article, or found elsewhere, suggests that Edward was ever Elector Palatine himself. estar8806 ( talk) 18:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Prince henry of prussia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Prince Henry of Prussia per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947 edits 08:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dabify - With the other two Princes Henry of Prussia, Prince Henry of Prussia (1862–1929) and Prince Henry of Prussia (1747–1767). estar8806 ( talk) 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Caroline of Nassau

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Caroline of Nassau

Frederick (1766-1839)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Unhelpful search term as there was surely more than one person by the name of Frederick with those dates of life. estar8806 ( talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Giorgio di Hannover

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 12:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Per WP:UE. Implausible and theoretically ambiguous search term. estar8806 ( talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The name is in Italian (?) and the subject was not associated with Italy in any way, shape or form. If we were to create redirects for each article in all of its different languages, we would end up having thousands of redirects per page. We have to go with common names used in English sources. Keivan.f Talk 04:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 12:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Unlikely search term, particularly considering it should be and the United Kingdom. estar8806 ( talk) 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The subject is never referred to in this manner. It is not a plausible search term, cannot be used in text, and is grammatically incorrect (as nominator pointed out, "the" is missing before "United Kingdom"). Keivan.f Talk 04:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Stolen election conspiracy theories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Stolen election conspiracy theories

Anti-white racism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Both deleted last November after lengthy discussion (which the user who recreated the pages apparently missed, although they specifically noted the RfD before that one in their edit summary). AFAIK nothing has changed since then to make this redirect more useful or necessary. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_16#Anti-white_racism this had consensus to redirect it to reverse racism and the article even calls it that --17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky ( talkcontribs)
    The article calls it an unsupported belief some people have. Not the same thing. And you're ignoring the more recent consensus to delete. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination,[1] is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism."

    good enough for a redirect-- FMSky ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I disagree. Users following the link or searching for "anti-white racism" should reasonably be able to expect landing at a page describing anti-white racism itself as a topic or subtopic, rather than a particular US-centric concept associated with opposition to affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs. In short, "reverse racism" may refer to purported "anti-white racism", but "anti-white racism" doesn't necessarily imply "reverse racism". — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Then what about redirecting it to Racism instead -- FMSky ( talk) 21:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I looked at all the uses of the word "white" on the Racism page, and didn't see any description of anti-white racism itself as a topic, apart from a brief summary of the reverse racism article. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I dont want to assume bad faith but what im getting from this discussion is that you're denying that racism against whites even exists, is that correct? FMSky ( talk) 12:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Which part of the Racism article do you feel is describing the topic of anti-white racism? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I dont think there is much point discussing with someone like this any further -- FMSky ( talk) 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per last consensus and possibly salt. We don't need to debate this every year. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My reading of the last discussion is that, while there was indeed consensus that there was at present no satisfactory target, there was also a general view that that was because a focused article on anti-white racism (in the non-"reverse racism" sense) had not yet been written, though it is touched on in several articles (for example, regarding Britain, Africa, more specifically South Africa, and more obliquely in some ethnic conflict-related articles. It is clearly a legitimate subject that readers will search for and hopefully something will be written. In any case, I do not think that the criteria required by WP:SALT have been met. Davidships ( talk) 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It was even straight up called "anti-white racism" in the hatnote of the reverse racism article until someone recently felt the need to remove it from there too: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reverse_racism&diff=prev&oldid=1169306647 -- FMSky ( talk) 16:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Augusta Charlotte

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Actually called "Charlotte Augusta". This is an incorrect format which I've found no usage referring to her. estar8806 ( talk) 15:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Seems to add nothing of value.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete The order of the names is wrong, so it is both an unlikely search term and not useable in text either. Keivan.f Talk 04:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Olav VI of Norway

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not his actual numeral. estar8806 ( talk) 15:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, LG, GCVO, CD

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Highly unlikely search term. There is also the dispute over whether Alexandra is a "LG" or "KG" (Lady or Knight of the Garter). estar8806 ( talk) 15:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete It's an unlikely search term, but it is also highly unlikely that it can be used in a text. And yes, there is also the issue of whether she is a KG (Knight of the Garter) or LG (Lady of the Garter). Keivan.f Talk 04:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra Helen Elizabeth Olga Christabel, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, Royal Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - In now way is this a plausible search term. estar8806 ( talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Excessive. Not a plausible search term either. Keivan.f Talk 04:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Maria Henrietta Stuart I

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - The addition of the roman numeral would make this a highly unlikely search term. estar8806 ( talk) 14:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Friedrich Ludwig, Prince of Orange

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) estar8806 ( talk) 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Sophia Dorothea's children were Princes of Prussia, not of Orange, so this makes no sense. Unless somebody else knows something I don't? estar8806 ( talk) 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The King of Prussia claimed the Principality of Orange from 1702 and it was used as a courtesy title for his eldest son's eldest son. Opera hat ( talk) 15:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I knew they had claimed it at some point, but I thought it was far later on. I'm going to go ahead and speedy close this as withdrawn. estar8806 ( talk) 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

First Duke of Cambridge

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Duke of Cambridge#Dukes of Cambridge. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Duke of Cambridge#Dukes of Cambridge - Could realistically refer to any of the first Dukes of Cambridge from any creation, including Prince William. estar8806 ( talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Augusta Matilda Charlotte

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Her actual name was "Charlotte Augusta Matilda" and the incorrect format returns no use at all referring to the subject. estar8806 ( talk) 14:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The order of the given names is wrong, so it cannot be used in text and is not a plausible search term either. Keivan.f Talk 03:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Regency Bill

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Regency Acts. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Regency Acts - People using this specific search term are most likely looking for the laws rather than the crisis. estar8806 ( talk) 14:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Matilda of Wales

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Caroline Matilda of Great Britain. (non-admin closure)DaxServer ( t · m · e · c) 12:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Caroline Matilda of Great Britain - Any results for "Matilda of Wales" I've found result in Caroline Matilda. This Maud seems to have been solely called "Maud" and never "Matilda". estar8806 ( talk) 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC ( talk) 01:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Albert, Henry William Frederick

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - If "Albert" were the surname this redirect could make sense. But it is not, so this is an implausible search term. estar8806 ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. 2601:249:9301:D570:463:8F0D:7A59:36FC ( talk) 01:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete The whole thing is just wrong. Albert is one of the subject's given names, whereas the surname (which is rarely used for royals) is Windsor. The redirect is malformed, not useable in text, and not a plausible search term either. Keivan.f Talk 03:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

To do the needful

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#To do the needful

Doing the needful

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Doing the needful

Crack stem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Crack stem

Christe qui lux es et dies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It seems strange to redirect a classical Latin hymn to the biography page of the compiler of a hymn book which includes someone else's setting of this hymn (by Johann Hermann Schein). Most information we have on wiki seems to be at Te lucis ante terminum, but a red link to encourage article creation might also be an option. Felix QW ( talk) 06:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Urozhaine, Ukraine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Urozhaine. Some participants believe there is a primary topic, however this can be a separate discussion. Jay 💬 16:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This redirect originally went to List of villages in Ternopil Oblast, however there are multiple villages named Urozhaine are located in Ukraine, one of which is been in the news recently due to the war. I moved the redirect to Urozhaine, Ternopil Oblast to disambiguate it from the other villages, and now propose we either delete the old redirect or turn it into a disambiguation page listing all of the Ukrainian villages called Urozhaine. Physeters 04:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Nantucket ferry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Nantucket ferry


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook