This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2022.
Mexican Australians
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.
No mention of Australia or Peru and minimal mention of Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador, Argentina, or Italy at the target, delete. signed, Rosguilltalk19:48, 6 February 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.
Spanish immigration to Paraguay
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 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.
維基大典:卷首
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.
Classical Chinese, actually :) This is the redirect used by people who change "zh-classical" to "en" in the URL of the Classical Chinese Wikipedia. There's about as many of them as you'd expect. —
Kusma (
talk)
19:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The other redirects created by that user almost all meet the Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products clause of
WP:RLOTE; they are Chinese names of Chinese companies, Chinese railway stations, or Chinese games. The only exception I could find was
伦敦 →
London, which would need a separate discussion.
61.239.39.90 (
talk)
02:12, 7 February 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.
List of goods
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.
Reconsidering my position and striking the delete option. "
Goods", in its current form, is an enumeration and definition of different types of economic goods, and is therefore a suitable redirect for "
List of goods".
pburka (
talk)
19:01, 7 February 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.
Invasive native
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.
Delete or redirect somewhere else, such as
native species. The most common definitions of invasive species exclude native species, so this is a misleading redirect. Per common terminology, an invasive species must be introduced in the area it is acting invasively. The term "aggressive" native species is sometimes used, e.g. Solidago altissima in lower Midwest prairie ecosystems.
Hyperik⌜
talk⌟18:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose as creator – Thank you for notification. I oppose because "Invasive native" is commonly used:
[1][2][3][4] –
Invasive Spices (
talk) 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Scientist hat on for a second, but we do discuss native species as being invasive, especially when they suddenly shift their range. Usually though, we discuss non-natives that are invasive because it's much more common for a niche to open up to them through transport, etc. For natives, that usually is a different barrier to the niche, though geography can sometimes do it too.
Editor hat on instead, and this redirect works. There's no real harm in having it, and it leads to an explanation if someone actually does search for the term. If someone makes a common mistake of thinking invasive only means non-native, this helps there, which is the goal of an encyclopedia.
KoA (
talk)
18:51, 7 February 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does this have another target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk)15:24, 6 February 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.
Specific city
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.
Not mentioned at the target, does not appear to be a term of art based on a GScholar search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk18:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: @
Rosguill: I thought this title sounded familiar; last year, the edit history at this title was fractured when an editor moved the edit history that was previously sitting at
Specific city to another title. (I have since fixed this issue.) This title was previously nominated at RfD a few years back, but it was not documented at
Talk:Specific city until I just fixed the history and placed the template. (Not sure if this changes your stance in the matter for this redirect, but may be worth reviewing this information.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete As I mentioned at the last RfD (I had a different IP back then), "specific city" seems to be an attempt at translating the term 특정시 (teukjeongsi). This translation is very rare outside of Wikipedia scrapers
[5], and teukjeongsi is just a colloquialism for what
Regional Autonomy Act Article 198 really calls a "big city" (대도시) or "special-case city" (특례시).
ko:특정시 (teukjeongsi) is a redirect to
ko:대도시 (대한민국) (
big city (South Korea)) which doesn't mention the term teukjeongsi either.
61.239.39.90 (
talk)
05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that at the time of nomination,
the target actually statedSpecific city(특정시, 特定市) is an unofficial term for big city with municipal status. However I think we should probably rephrase that to remove the Wikipedian-invented translation "specific city", and just replace it with the
Revised Romanization transcription of the Korean term. Also I added
Specific City to this nomination.
61.239.39.90 (
talk)
06:09, 7 February 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.
Serbo-Romanian language
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there another target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk)09:42, 6 February 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.
Stephen Mann (theater owner)
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.
Not notable enough to keep an own article, so it was redirected, and now has been deemed not notable enough at the target article, merged info was removed. Happy editing--IAmChaos06:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. The redirect does no harm, serves to direct people interested in Stephen Mann to the correct cinema chain (there are two of similar name), and covers the attribution problem if someone undoes my removal of the text from the
Mann Theatres (Minnesota) article. I'm not sure what benefit is gained by deleting it?
Espresso Addict (
talk)
07:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep added a mention back to the article. The section blanking seems to have been very premature, as it literally took a single Google News search to find
WP:RS confirming that he and his brother operated the business after their father's death.
61.239.39.90 (
talk)
23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as mention was added back. There is plenty of history at the redirect and content was merged to the target, hence we need it for attribution per Espresso Addict. Jay(talk)14:36, 12 February 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.
Tectonic Plates
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. Almost every conceivable solution has been suggested, with none of them commanding a decisive following. signed, Rosguilltalk22:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Only some of the many ways people use to access Wikipedia content are case insensitive. There is no benefit in making it harder for those who use case sensitive methods from accessing the content they are looking for.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as plate tectonics is without question what our readers are looking for. Plate tectonics is also the primary topic for tectonic plates, so a disambiguation at tectonic plates is not appropriate.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
04:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I was referring to your other options #1 (which is not part of a subsequent RfD). Are you saying you are not considering such an option any more? Jay(talk)05:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Ho hum. It's difficult to see an optimal solution here. We could either have both redirects (
Tectonic plates and
Tectonic Plates) go to the same target and add a hatnote there for the film, or we can turn the title-case one into a dab page because of
WP:SMALLDIFFS (which will unfortunately still require a hatnote). The film is really obscure (see how much views it gets compared to all the three relevant redirects
[6]), so in either scenario we'll be creating navigational machinery that will be relevant to a tiny proportion of readers who use it. Leaving the film aside, the most appropriate target of the redirects is
Plate tectonics (the target of the singular
Tectonic plate) and not the list – this matches the long-standing status quo, it received support in the linked Wikiproject Geology discussion, and it fits with the overall patter of similar redirects (The redirect
Animals goes to
Animal, not to
Lists of animals,
Countries redirects to
Country and not to
List of countries, etc). –
Uanfala (talk)14:56, 21 February 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.
Leah Gordon
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.
Deletion of the redirect. This redirects to
Vance McAllister#References, where this person is not mentioned. She is mentioned elsewhere in the article, once. Here's that sole mention: "McAllister's aide Leah Gordon was alleged to have leaked the video to the Ouachita Citizen. Both aides resigned in 2014." Deleting this -- to my mind, utterly unnecessary -- redirect would allow
Leah Gordon (photographer) to be moved to plain
Leah Gordon. I'd delete the redirect myself without a second thought -- except that McAllister is, or recently was, a US politician, which can be a touchy area.
Hoary (
talk)
23:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Move
Leah Gordon (photographer) to
Leah Gordon, as the only notable (and thus primary) topic for that term. We could consider adding a hatnote to the
WP:1E researcher but probably shouldn't for such a minor event. If moving a different article is considered ultra vires for RfD then retarget to the photographer with a view to moving later.
Certes (
talk)
12:59, 9 February 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.
Giurtelecu Şimleului Jewish Cemetery
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 next in my
"Măeriște series", there are an unusually high number of redirects for a Jewish cemetery/graveyard (30!). The article does mention there is a cemetery, but gives no additional information about it. If a searcher is using any of these terms, they would have already known that; they would be wanting additional information that Wikipedia does not have. Therefore, "searchers" (using the term in quotes because I am skeptical of the plausibility of all of them) are going to be disappointed by where they end up and will not find the redirects to be useful. --
Tavix(
talk)00:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)reply
keep and expand It is mentioned in the target, on the last line of the history section. only a few of these should be kept, I would suggest the first. There is fairly extensive coverage available for most Jewish cemeteries (existing or destroyed) in Europe, and there's potential for an article. Keeping place for one is an appropriate function of a redirect. DGG (
talk )
07:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Most (or all) of these were listed in a 2013 RfD (which I just added to this discussion), and it had to be withdrawn because the list was exhaustive. The same may need to be done for the current, and may need to be covered with shorter nominations. I am fine with deleting the titles having "Giurtelecu Şimleului" in them, others need to be looked at individually. Oppose DGG's workaround of keeping the first in the list, and deleting the rest. Redirects are discussed on their own merit, and not on their listing position in the nomination. Jay(talk)07:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. That's below the granularity for which we provide redirects: as Tavix has pointed out, the only information in the target article is the one that's already present in the titles of each redirect. Maybe the topics are noteworthy and more content could eventually be added, but that shouldn't be taken for granted, as the information in the article is only sourced to an (apparently defunct) database of over 10,000 cemeteries: that doesn't guarantee there'd be much to say about each entry. Also, these redirects crowd out from the search results the actual articles about Jewish cemeteries that are out there (see
Category:Jewish cemeteries). There are also several sets of redirects that are undesirable for additional reasons: the ones with "
jidov" make gratuitious use of an ethnic slur, while
Jewish Cemetery from Transylvania and the ones that only mention Giurtelecu are ambiguous: the
Giurtelecu of that article isn't the only one with a Jewish cemetery in it, and that's also obviously not the only one in Transylvania. –
Uanfala (talk)02:10, 25 February 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 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.