This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2022.
Mary Charlton (Q18762037)
- 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!
21:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
WP:EE currently redirects to
WP:WikiProject EastEnders, an inactive WikiProject about a British Soap Opera. This is by and large not the dominant use of the term "EE" on Wikipedia; in particular I find that the acronym is used far more often to refer to Eastern Europe rather than to the British television show. As such, I propose that we retarget the redirect to either
WP:WikiProject Eastern Europe or
WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
18:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
22:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Nothing has changed since February.
Thryduulf (
talk)
23:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I concur that nothing has changed since February.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
23:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate the target project is inactive therefore the redirect is useless. So it should be disambiguated --
64.229.88.43 (
talk)
03:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the recent discussion. No problem that will be solved by deletion has been advanced, meanwhile existing links will be broken if deleted. As I said in the previous discussion, it doesn't matter if it's ambiguous if it isn't being used to refer to other things as this is not in mainspace, and I don't see any evidence of it being used for the wrong target.
A7V2 (
talk)
03:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- A badly used shortcut to a dead project blocking other uses to properly active targets seems like a very bad way to use a redirect --
64.229.88.43 (
talk)
04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Evidence please that this is "badly used". The previous discussion came to the conclusion that at least the significant majority of incomming links are currently correctly targetted and nobody presented any evidence that any change would bring benefits that would outweigh the costs of breaking them, and they still haven't done so.
Thryduulf (
talk)
08:56, 23 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Flatiron Partners
- 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
Social media use by Donald Trump. Unanimous consensus to unrefine/retarget to top of article
(non-admin closure)
Tartar
Torte
19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Should these redirects point to the top of the
Social media use by Donald Trump article or the
Twitter section? My view is that the top of the article is preferable, given that the majority of the article, and the majority of the lead section, are about Trump's use of Twitter, and the reader is more likely to arrive at a thorough understanding of Trump's use of Twitter from reading the lead section followed by the Twitter section than vice versa. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
19:05, 22 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
- 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
While the French did
annex the Dominican Republic for 14 years, it was not called République dominicaine. During that era, it was part of French "Saint-Domingue", and as there is very little french spoken in the modern Dominical Republic, this seems like
WP:RLOTE to me.
Tartar
Torte
16:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep. What the nominator states could very well be the case (I don't know anything about the history of the Dominican Republic), but if at one point the country had a strong affiliation with the French language, that means the French language has a connection to the target and these redirects are probably the closest English-to-French translation of its English name.
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. There's a connection, and both French and English are mandatory school languages there, with Haïtian créole also being widely spread, being right next to Haïti.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
00:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was unable to verify the claim that French and English are mandatory courses of instruction in the Dominican Republic, having searched both our relevant Wikipedia articles and Google Scholar. As the validity of the non-weak keep !vote hinges on this claim, relisting for further clarity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
Rosguill: Figure I'll ping
Headbomb since your relist comment is in direct response to their vote in an attempt to have them clarify.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
Rosguill:
Dominican Republic#Languages: Schools are based on a Spanish educational model; English and French are mandatory foreign languages in both private and public schools,[187]...
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
-
Headbomb, looking at that claim (I had gone straight to
Education in the Dominican Republic and
Languages of the Dominican Republic, which make no such claim), the sources don't seem to back it up. I can't find any mention of French, English, or foreign languages in the source that the claim is directly cited to (
[1]), and the following citation attached to
although the quality of foreign languages teaching is poor.
(
[2]) mentions English instruction, but not French (and FWIW does not suggest that English is actually a mandatory subject at the moment). My sense is that the information at
Dominican Republic is incorrect and should be removed. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- If so, the historical connection and the close relations with Haiti should still be enough for a keep.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I'll note that
[3] mentions French/English as mandatory, but this is possibly a citogenesis kinda thing.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep - I feel like RLOTE is one of the "weak" reasons to delete a redirect since no real harm comes from keeping but more we want to discourage creation. But given it's not clear whether this is an RLOTE issue, I think better to just keep as the amount of effort invested in deciding if RLOTE applies is far exceeding the benefit of deletion.
A7V2 (
talk)
06:37, 26 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
23:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
The company released no game by this name, and the title does not occur in the target article.
IceWelder [
✉]
16:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:47, 22 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Hario V60
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
23:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a DUE mention can be added at the target. signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:17, 22 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. I deleted all non-article edit history and MWR'd the article history to
De Gruyter Open (chosen because it's the base title). I then restored the redirect history already at
De Gruyter Open so those edits were not lost. --
Tavix (
talk)
17:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely search term. You'd search for either De Gruyter Open or Versita, not both together.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:51, 22 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
Religious exemption (U.S.)
Google Scholar and academic libraries
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Google Scholar and academic libraries
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 3#Niggaracci
Environmental Law (Law Review)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep.
(non-admin closure)
CycloneYoris
talk!
23:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Error in the act of disambiguation. There's already
Environmental Law (law review).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
03:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as a {{
R from other capitalisation}}. Anyone using this redirect will be taken to the content they are looking for - the exact purpose of a redirect.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:RDABs aren't created with variations in capitalizations. We have
Environmental Law (law review), and that is enough. We don't need (law review), (Law review), (law Review), (LAW REVIEW), and (Law Review) on top of those.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- We don't need them, but once they are created there is no benefit at all to deleting them. It makes no sense for the part before the brackets to be completely flexible with capitalisation but insist that the part in the brackets be absolutely correct and if you guess wrong in a case-sensitive environment then we will go out of our way to make your life harder.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. It should not have been created but we are now in
WP:CHEAP territory. It's really not worth exuding the extra effort over.
casualdejekyll
17:20, 24 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
Functional Ecology – journal
- 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Incorrect way to dab things. We have
Functional Ecology (journal) already.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Both redirects were the original locations of the article before a page move was performed. There could be several backlinks to it from the old revisions of linking articles. Deleting the redirect will break those links without much apparent benefit. —
CX Zoom[he/him] (
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 07:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- I checked (
https://ahrefs.com/backlink-checker) and no such backlink exists anywhere on the internet.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 07:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparent divide between "undeserved error" deleters and
WP:CHEAP keepers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
03:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I've also bundled two Higher Education redirects from another nomination into here, since these two additional redirects have almost identical formatting. Any other similarly formatted journal redirects (i.e. in the form "Journal dash journal") can also be bundled if discovered. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
04:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
Mellohi!: Looks like
CX Zoom's comments were altered as a result of the merge since their comments were not the same on both discussions. For that reason, I'm pinging them here to ensure what is written with their signature reflects their full opinion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Hi, thanks for the ping. I've added my reply and Headbomb's response as blockquote above. —
CX Zoom[he/him] (
let's talk • {
C•
X})
12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- It's worth noting that that backlink checker is not 100% accurate. I've just tested it with
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/386051730117/ an event that I know has been shared on, at least, Facebook, Twitter and the website of the group organising it but the backlink checker says it has 0 backlinks. It obviously also cannot see links that are offline, and I read something (but can't now find it again) that implied sites that use nofollow for links are excluded.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Probably
Functional Ecology - journal should have been included in this nomination. Keep the - dash ones, especially
Higher Education - Journal since the current article was at that title for a couple of months (obscured in the history due to a bot moving it to
Higher Education – Journal), with the other one only for a couple of hours. No real reason to delete these. They shouldn't have been created but discussions for very old unambiguous redirects like these are really a waste of time. No matter how unlikely someone searching these is, they will be taken to exactly what they were looking for.
A7V2 (
talk)
08:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Good catch, added. Also
Higher Education - Journal has no links to it. Both from on Wikipedia and from anywhere on the web (I checked). It is literally useless.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all - they unambiguously take someone to the content they are looking for.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:34, 22 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
07:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Similar rationale as the Superman redirects listed below.
1. These movies are never called that.
2. These films are part of two completely separate universes, grouped together as though they were continuations of the original 1989-97 Batman film series.
3. Batman Begins isn't even the 5th Batman film as you also have
Batman (1966 film), making these redirects completely incorrect.
MightyArms (
talk)
00:33, 22 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Debut issue
- 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
Thanks.
czar
16:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
This longstanding (2005) redirect was recently retargeted by
User:Tree Critter to
wikt:thank and then again (after I reverted that retargeting during new page patrol) to
B-cell activating factor, claiming that
Gratitude doesn't actually mention the term. That may be, but it is nevertheless the common meaning and the page should still target there.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- No it shouldn't, as it fails
WP:R#DELETE. If
Gratitude can't add anymore to the understanding of the word then it shouldn't be leading there.
Tree Critter (
talk)
20:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Thank you: While a
PTM it seems like, Thank you encompasses this the best. While I have no issue with
THANK going to
B-cell activating factor, it is a bit of a
SURPRISE for
Thank to do the same.
Tartar
Torte
14:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Thanks, a disambiguation page, so readers can figure out whatever the heck they could possibly be trying to find that isn't a dictionary definition since I'd have no clue, and I think the previous comment validates this point. (However, since "Thanks" is not an exact title match, I'm also weak delete per my default stance I've had in the past with such situations, but this one just seems ... different. Also, very weak retarget to
Wiktionary:thank since I'm fairly confident if they are searching this term on Wikipedia then the definition is not what they are looking for on an encyclopedia, though it is still plausible.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Thanks, disambiguation seems best here, as the route to bring readers to what they are most likely looking for.
BD2412
T
16:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if this should be retargeted to
Thanks or to
Thank you... or should it be kept to target
Gratitude?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
00:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reply
As nominator I am fine with either
Thanks or
Thank you as targets, although I am somewhat surprised the forrmer has been a disambiguation page uncontroversially since 2008 and the latter exists as a separate article. (I would have expected both of those to be redirects to Gratitude).
* Pppery *
it has begun...
02:52, 22 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.