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.
Keep and turn
butanedione into a redirect. Well Butadione, butandione and butanedione are all the same thing that is also called Diacetyl. So all these should redirect to diacetyl. Butanedione should just be a redirect, not a disambig, as Succinaldehyde is not a dione, but it is a dial.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 06:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep – I think Graeme Bartlett's analysis makes sense.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 09:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep and redirect the dab page as well. I retracted my own vote after noticing, too, that
succinaldehyde is not a dione. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 17:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment 1,4-butanedione is an accepted name for succinaldehyde, with diacetyl specifically being 2,3-butanedione. I almost lean toward keeping the chemindex and retargeting this redirect there, but would be okay with keeping this redirect, redirecting butanedione, and adding a hatnote at diacetyl.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 21:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Pokemon 2022
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.
Legoktm (
talk) 03:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect is frankly unnecessary. O.N.R.(talk) 21:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for being an orphan redirect with little chance of being linked to.
NasssaNser -
T — Preceding
undated comment added 00:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete neither of the two games that came in 2022 is known by this name.--
65.92.162.81 (
talk) 00:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete not the name of any particular title. Weak retarget to
Timeline of Pokémon as alternative but there have never been any pokemon titles that were named pokemon (year)
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 01:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Timeline of Pokémon as it is the most fitting option for any year + subject with ambiguity. Skipple☎ 04:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as vague. --
Lenticel(
talk) 05:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Skipple as a valid search term and a useful target for the search. Agree that similar titles don't exist, and I neither support nor oppose creation of similar redirects. Jay 💬 16:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Ambiguous and/or wrong, and unnecessary.
Neocorelight (
Talk) 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete its not even the only 2022 pokemon game.
Muur (
talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
New York Bar
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
New York bar which was converted recently into a DAB page, and therefore solving all of the concerns raised in this discussion.
(non-admin closure)CycloneYoristalk! 23:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Is the bar the same thing as the bar association? Same question for
New York bar.
Apokrif (
talk) 10:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Common way of referring to Bar associations.
Slywriter (
talk) 13:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
What I'm wondering is: can one be a member of someplace's bar without being a member of this place's bar association? E.g., in
Simone Gold, should "New York bar" send to
New York State Bar Association (was she admitted to the association and/or admitted to practice law in NY state?)
Apokrif (
talk) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The
New York State Bar Association is voluntary; meaning you can be admitted to practice ("admitted to the bar") without necessarily joining the association. I would suggest either retargeting, or taking care of it with a hatnote, except we don't seem to have an appropriate article to retarget or hatnote to. ~ ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)problem solving 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate between the state bar and the
New York City Bar Association, with a note indicating that admission to the bar in the state does not require membership in a bar association.
BD2412T 21:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Is there an article or section about the NY bar? (which IIUC is different from the NY bar association, so we need to disambig between three things).
Apokrif (
talk) 10:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The current target seems like the most plausible one to me. A hatnote can be added for the NYC group. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 13:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist. The redirect was not tagged for RfD and I have done it now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
That might make sense for
New York bar, but not the capitalized form. Even then, it could refer to the state and not the city.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 19:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
What you link to is appropriate.
Apokrif (
talk) 21:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not sure what that means. Can you elaborate?
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, he retargeted the redirect to
New York bar today, which I have reverted. Jay 💬 14:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as primary topic is the state bar association with the bar exam. Create disambiguation where
Harry's New York Bar (formerly and also known as New York Bar) in Paris can be added and the PTM for
New York City Bar Association and list of taverns.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 01:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have converted the
New York bar redirect to a disambig per the suggestions. I had missed bundling it to this discussion (although it was mentioned in the nomination), and did not want to bundle it now and prolong the discussion by another week. Jay 💬 03:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that this redirect (with the same target) was discussed at RfD in 2012, which I missed noticing during the tagging and procedural relist. However I have listed the previous RfD now. It was recreated 5 years after the delete, so wouldn't be fair to tag as a
WP:G4. Jay 💬 14:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Gaycism
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.
Legoktm (
talk) 00:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Speedy keep: We don’t delete redirects because they “could fuel possible trolls”. The redirect is already
semi-protected. If you want to raise the protection level go to
WP:RFPP.
Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor does the redirect have any use since I doubt anyone will actually use it
allanwiki123213.237.94.6 (
talk) 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
199 page views out of 263 million average monthly page views on Wikipedia is very small.
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 20:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Also on “Reasons for deleting” number 8
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Racism means a hatred towards a
Race. Homophobia means a hatred towards
LGBT. Makes sense to combine the “cism” of Racism and
Gay to create a word that means a hatred towards Gays which Homophobia is the closest target for this kind of thing. So basically,
redirects are cheap.
Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
i already know that. but Wikipedia isn’t an urban dictionary
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 06:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment only seen one media article that used it in the article section.
[2] the rest have been mostly as user comments.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 01:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we aren't Urban Dictionary, we shouldn't have redirects like this just because they sound cool. We just deleted a redirect called
Scholarcaust (real clever pun, because joking about 6 million dead people is the pinnacle of comedy {sarcasm, obviously})
MightyArms (
talk) 13:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I would have not voted if it weren't for the fact that it got over 100 views last month. Clearly this is a plausible search then. It is a likely combination of "gay" and "-ist" and takes the readers to where they want to go.
RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 00:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
like I said, Wikipedia isn’t an urban dictionary and the word “gaycism” is seen more as a joke in social media.
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 06:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The view spike seems to be related to the page being edited back and forth between its state as a redirect and a page that says View talk page
talk:gaycism. If we look at October, which didn't have that Nov 1 and Nov 4 edit/reverts, the monthly views are down to 18 for all of October. That is still > 0.5 pageview/day, FWIW.
TartarTorte 14:49, 24 November 2022
Delete or Soft Redirect to Wikitionary
[3]. As noted in the previous discussion, this is an ambiguous term but it's not mentioned on wikipedia.
A7V2 (
talk) 04:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to
wikt:gaycism per A7V2. The only mention of this term in Wikipedia is in an article title in
Racism in the LGBT community § Further reading; that seems less useful than Wiktionary at the moment (though of course in the future it could be expanded to discuss the term in the article body).
61.239.39.90 (
talk) 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and MightyArms. Not mentioned anywhere (except at wiktionary, but I'm not convinced that a soft redirect there would be appropriate). I understand where the nom is coming from, and how this term could be viewed as derogatory, so deletion seems best IMO.
CycloneYoristalk! 08:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The nomination rationale was regarding the use, or rather abuse, of redirect titles of the form "Y-ian Z", in the lead of politician biographies. However participants found them helpful, without touching upon their use as links. With regards to usage value, one participant found them similar to the non-nominated exceptions (American politician, French politician, etc.) which continue to be used as links. The discussion about the practice of linking "Y-ian Z" titles in the lead of biographies can continue in a different forum, and need not be limited by this close. Jay 💬 08:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete all. These are recently-created redirects which link a pair of words, neither of which needs to be linked (a common country or nationality, and a common word), and direct them to the article on the country's politics, which is unlikely to be any use to the readers. I find that a similar redirect exists for
British politician: it is used in just 9 articles, similarly
English politician in 2 articles,
French politician in 20, and
American politician in just over 250, in every case being a tiny proportion of the articles on people of this kind, so the established precedent is not to link the words when they occur in the standard lead of "X is a Y-ian politician". I suggest that these 6, which I have already unlinked, should all be deleted as redirects which are never going to be appropriately used.
PamD 21:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Further comment by nominator: I had a look at the use of
American politician. It's linked from 420 pages including some talk pages etc, but clicking on a small sample finds only articles in two categories: (a) articles created 2008 and earlier where the term was linked in the lead in the initial article creation, and (b) articles created recently by the same editor who has created
Bulgarian politician etc. This again supports the view that linking "Y-ian politician" is not current practice, and we should probably move to do something about those American politicians.
PamD 08:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep all. They target where they should. These terms could be considered helpful, considering that these phrases are used in disambiguators.
Steel1943 (
talk) 01:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget to categories comprising politicians from these countries. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿) 18:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
That is usually only done if there is no applicable page in the article namespace which to target these redirects since
WP:XNRs from the article namespace are best avoided. And, in this case, the applicable pages in the article namespace are the redirects' current targets.
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per Steel1943. I'm also a bit confused by the nomination showing how similar redirects are used. Since they are used, that makes them useful, no? --
Tavix(
talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix: My point is that almost every biography starts with "X is a Y-ian Z", but we do not link "Y-ian Z", either as individual words or as a term. The existence of these redirects encourages their unnecessary use in leads of articles, indeed they were created, in the last few weeks, to be so used. Looking at the uses of
American politician suggests that it was used in Wikipedia's early days but is not generally used nowadays, suggesting that the current consensus is not to link the term, or, by extension, any other "Y-ian Z" term.
PamD 22:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
But I don't see the problem with using these redirects. If I wanted to know what an "American politician" was, I'd be helped by reading the
Politics of the United States article. --
Tavix(
talk) 01:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix: So should every article which starts "X is an
American politician..." have those two words linked, even though both come into the category of "common words which should not be linked"? Would you extend it to every nationality+occupation pair, like
Indian author (recently created) or
Belgian architect which could redirect to
Architecture of Belgium, to pick a random example?
PamD 09:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep all per Steel and Tavix. These are helpful redirects that target where they should. I honestly don't see how deletion would be beneficial.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 04:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep all. Somewhat plausible search terms, no good reason to delete, and a
WP:XNR isn't necessary in this case.
Clyde!Franklin! 08:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 02:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Another pointless dig at Neelix. He redirected it to
Eternia which would have mentioned it at the time. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 11:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Blackwashing
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. However pointing them to
Color-blind casting as a suitable target replacing
Racism for which there was no support. Jay 💬 12:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per OP's rationale. Racebending is the general term here. Blackwashing should certainly not redirect to Racism, which appears
WP:POINTy.
Generalrelative (
talk) 13:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that the support here was for the original nomination statement referring to Racebending, now struck. Jay 💬 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: The term is not used in a consistent enough fashion to overcome its neutrality issues. The additions to racebending were a violation of
WP:NPOV, but they get to a deeper heart of the concept of blackwashing as identified in the redirects in that it's a very non-neutral term. Other than a few scholarly articles debating whether blackwashing exists, the use of the term seems to be in odd youtube videos and urban dictionary. It seems with a term this fraught and without substantial using in
WP:RS other than specifically noting that the term has been used in reference to the remake of the Little Mermaid to justify
WP:RNEUTRAL, it should be deleted. I, as well, in my research found a completely different definition for blackwashing as well (more comparable to the notion of
pinkwashing) where a company uses statements without any actual change in support of causes like BlackLivesMatter. This seems to itself pose a
WP:XY problem.
TartarTorte 02:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The redirect(s) are not ambiguous in the sense of being in the form
"X and/or Y", but if they are that seldom used by RSes, then I think deletion is OK as well. Readers can use search to find the few relevant uses that do exist in cited sources (there don't seem to be any in the encyclopedia itself). --
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 12:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per TartarTorte. Seems made-up and would rather just delete entirely. Second preference is to retarget as nom suggests.
SnowFire (
talk) 04:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep and turn
butanedione into a redirect. Well Butadione, butandione and butanedione are all the same thing that is also called Diacetyl. So all these should redirect to diacetyl. Butanedione should just be a redirect, not a disambig, as Succinaldehyde is not a dione, but it is a dial.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 06:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep – I think Graeme Bartlett's analysis makes sense.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 09:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep and redirect the dab page as well. I retracted my own vote after noticing, too, that
succinaldehyde is not a dione. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 17:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment 1,4-butanedione is an accepted name for succinaldehyde, with diacetyl specifically being 2,3-butanedione. I almost lean toward keeping the chemindex and retargeting this redirect there, but would be okay with keeping this redirect, redirecting butanedione, and adding a hatnote at diacetyl.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 21:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Pokemon 2022
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.
Legoktm (
talk) 03:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect is frankly unnecessary. O.N.R.(talk) 21:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for being an orphan redirect with little chance of being linked to.
NasssaNser -
T — Preceding
undated comment added 00:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete neither of the two games that came in 2022 is known by this name.--
65.92.162.81 (
talk) 00:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete not the name of any particular title. Weak retarget to
Timeline of Pokémon as alternative but there have never been any pokemon titles that were named pokemon (year)
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 01:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Timeline of Pokémon as it is the most fitting option for any year + subject with ambiguity. Skipple☎ 04:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as vague. --
Lenticel(
talk) 05:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Skipple as a valid search term and a useful target for the search. Agree that similar titles don't exist, and I neither support nor oppose creation of similar redirects. Jay 💬 16:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Ambiguous and/or wrong, and unnecessary.
Neocorelight (
Talk) 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete its not even the only 2022 pokemon game.
Muur (
talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
New York Bar
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
New York bar which was converted recently into a DAB page, and therefore solving all of the concerns raised in this discussion.
(non-admin closure)CycloneYoristalk! 23:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Is the bar the same thing as the bar association? Same question for
New York bar.
Apokrif (
talk) 10:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Common way of referring to Bar associations.
Slywriter (
talk) 13:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
What I'm wondering is: can one be a member of someplace's bar without being a member of this place's bar association? E.g., in
Simone Gold, should "New York bar" send to
New York State Bar Association (was she admitted to the association and/or admitted to practice law in NY state?)
Apokrif (
talk) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The
New York State Bar Association is voluntary; meaning you can be admitted to practice ("admitted to the bar") without necessarily joining the association. I would suggest either retargeting, or taking care of it with a hatnote, except we don't seem to have an appropriate article to retarget or hatnote to. ~ ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)problem solving 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate between the state bar and the
New York City Bar Association, with a note indicating that admission to the bar in the state does not require membership in a bar association.
BD2412T 21:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Is there an article or section about the NY bar? (which IIUC is different from the NY bar association, so we need to disambig between three things).
Apokrif (
talk) 10:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The current target seems like the most plausible one to me. A hatnote can be added for the NYC group. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 13:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist. The redirect was not tagged for RfD and I have done it now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
That might make sense for
New York bar, but not the capitalized form. Even then, it could refer to the state and not the city.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 19:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
What you link to is appropriate.
Apokrif (
talk) 21:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not sure what that means. Can you elaborate?
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, he retargeted the redirect to
New York bar today, which I have reverted. Jay 💬 14:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as primary topic is the state bar association with the bar exam. Create disambiguation where
Harry's New York Bar (formerly and also known as New York Bar) in Paris can be added and the PTM for
New York City Bar Association and list of taverns.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 01:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have converted the
New York bar redirect to a disambig per the suggestions. I had missed bundling it to this discussion (although it was mentioned in the nomination), and did not want to bundle it now and prolong the discussion by another week. Jay 💬 03:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that this redirect (with the same target) was discussed at RfD in 2012, which I missed noticing during the tagging and procedural relist. However I have listed the previous RfD now. It was recreated 5 years after the delete, so wouldn't be fair to tag as a
WP:G4. Jay 💬 14:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Gaycism
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.
Legoktm (
talk) 00:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Speedy keep: We don’t delete redirects because they “could fuel possible trolls”. The redirect is already
semi-protected. If you want to raise the protection level go to
WP:RFPP.
Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor does the redirect have any use since I doubt anyone will actually use it
allanwiki123213.237.94.6 (
talk) 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
199 page views out of 263 million average monthly page views on Wikipedia is very small.
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 20:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Also on “Reasons for deleting” number 8
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Racism means a hatred towards a
Race. Homophobia means a hatred towards
LGBT. Makes sense to combine the “cism” of Racism and
Gay to create a word that means a hatred towards Gays which Homophobia is the closest target for this kind of thing. So basically,
redirects are cheap.
Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
i already know that. but Wikipedia isn’t an urban dictionary
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 06:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment only seen one media article that used it in the article section.
[2] the rest have been mostly as user comments.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 01:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we aren't Urban Dictionary, we shouldn't have redirects like this just because they sound cool. We just deleted a redirect called
Scholarcaust (real clever pun, because joking about 6 million dead people is the pinnacle of comedy {sarcasm, obviously})
MightyArms (
talk) 13:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I would have not voted if it weren't for the fact that it got over 100 views last month. Clearly this is a plausible search then. It is a likely combination of "gay" and "-ist" and takes the readers to where they want to go.
RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 00:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
like I said, Wikipedia isn’t an urban dictionary and the word “gaycism” is seen more as a joke in social media.
213.237.94.6 (
talk) 06:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The view spike seems to be related to the page being edited back and forth between its state as a redirect and a page that says View talk page
talk:gaycism. If we look at October, which didn't have that Nov 1 and Nov 4 edit/reverts, the monthly views are down to 18 for all of October. That is still > 0.5 pageview/day, FWIW.
TartarTorte 14:49, 24 November 2022
Delete or Soft Redirect to Wikitionary
[3]. As noted in the previous discussion, this is an ambiguous term but it's not mentioned on wikipedia.
A7V2 (
talk) 04:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to
wikt:gaycism per A7V2. The only mention of this term in Wikipedia is in an article title in
Racism in the LGBT community § Further reading; that seems less useful than Wiktionary at the moment (though of course in the future it could be expanded to discuss the term in the article body).
61.239.39.90 (
talk) 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and MightyArms. Not mentioned anywhere (except at wiktionary, but I'm not convinced that a soft redirect there would be appropriate). I understand where the nom is coming from, and how this term could be viewed as derogatory, so deletion seems best IMO.
CycloneYoristalk! 08:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The nomination rationale was regarding the use, or rather abuse, of redirect titles of the form "Y-ian Z", in the lead of politician biographies. However participants found them helpful, without touching upon their use as links. With regards to usage value, one participant found them similar to the non-nominated exceptions (American politician, French politician, etc.) which continue to be used as links. The discussion about the practice of linking "Y-ian Z" titles in the lead of biographies can continue in a different forum, and need not be limited by this close. Jay 💬 08:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete all. These are recently-created redirects which link a pair of words, neither of which needs to be linked (a common country or nationality, and a common word), and direct them to the article on the country's politics, which is unlikely to be any use to the readers. I find that a similar redirect exists for
British politician: it is used in just 9 articles, similarly
English politician in 2 articles,
French politician in 20, and
American politician in just over 250, in every case being a tiny proportion of the articles on people of this kind, so the established precedent is not to link the words when they occur in the standard lead of "X is a Y-ian politician". I suggest that these 6, which I have already unlinked, should all be deleted as redirects which are never going to be appropriately used.
PamD 21:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Further comment by nominator: I had a look at the use of
American politician. It's linked from 420 pages including some talk pages etc, but clicking on a small sample finds only articles in two categories: (a) articles created 2008 and earlier where the term was linked in the lead in the initial article creation, and (b) articles created recently by the same editor who has created
Bulgarian politician etc. This again supports the view that linking "Y-ian politician" is not current practice, and we should probably move to do something about those American politicians.
PamD 08:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep all. They target where they should. These terms could be considered helpful, considering that these phrases are used in disambiguators.
Steel1943 (
talk) 01:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget to categories comprising politicians from these countries. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿) 18:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
That is usually only done if there is no applicable page in the article namespace which to target these redirects since
WP:XNRs from the article namespace are best avoided. And, in this case, the applicable pages in the article namespace are the redirects' current targets.
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per Steel1943. I'm also a bit confused by the nomination showing how similar redirects are used. Since they are used, that makes them useful, no? --
Tavix(
talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix: My point is that almost every biography starts with "X is a Y-ian Z", but we do not link "Y-ian Z", either as individual words or as a term. The existence of these redirects encourages their unnecessary use in leads of articles, indeed they were created, in the last few weeks, to be so used. Looking at the uses of
American politician suggests that it was used in Wikipedia's early days but is not generally used nowadays, suggesting that the current consensus is not to link the term, or, by extension, any other "Y-ian Z" term.
PamD 22:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
But I don't see the problem with using these redirects. If I wanted to know what an "American politician" was, I'd be helped by reading the
Politics of the United States article. --
Tavix(
talk) 01:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix: So should every article which starts "X is an
American politician..." have those two words linked, even though both come into the category of "common words which should not be linked"? Would you extend it to every nationality+occupation pair, like
Indian author (recently created) or
Belgian architect which could redirect to
Architecture of Belgium, to pick a random example?
PamD 09:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep all per Steel and Tavix. These are helpful redirects that target where they should. I honestly don't see how deletion would be beneficial.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 04:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep all. Somewhat plausible search terms, no good reason to delete, and a
WP:XNR isn't necessary in this case.
Clyde!Franklin! 08:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 02:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Another pointless dig at Neelix. He redirected it to
Eternia which would have mentioned it at the time. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 11:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Blackwashing
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. However pointing them to
Color-blind casting as a suitable target replacing
Racism for which there was no support. Jay 💬 12:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per OP's rationale. Racebending is the general term here. Blackwashing should certainly not redirect to Racism, which appears
WP:POINTy.
Generalrelative (
talk) 13:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that the support here was for the original nomination statement referring to Racebending, now struck. Jay 💬 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: The term is not used in a consistent enough fashion to overcome its neutrality issues. The additions to racebending were a violation of
WP:NPOV, but they get to a deeper heart of the concept of blackwashing as identified in the redirects in that it's a very non-neutral term. Other than a few scholarly articles debating whether blackwashing exists, the use of the term seems to be in odd youtube videos and urban dictionary. It seems with a term this fraught and without substantial using in
WP:RS other than specifically noting that the term has been used in reference to the remake of the Little Mermaid to justify
WP:RNEUTRAL, it should be deleted. I, as well, in my research found a completely different definition for blackwashing as well (more comparable to the notion of
pinkwashing) where a company uses statements without any actual change in support of causes like BlackLivesMatter. This seems to itself pose a
WP:XY problem.
TartarTorte 02:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The redirect(s) are not ambiguous in the sense of being in the form
"X and/or Y", but if they are that seldom used by RSes, then I think deletion is OK as well. Readers can use search to find the few relevant uses that do exist in cited sources (there don't seem to be any in the encyclopedia itself). --
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 12:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per TartarTorte. Seems made-up and would rather just delete entirely. Second preference is to retarget as nom suggests.
SnowFire (
talk) 04:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).