This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2022.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Uncle Clarence
- 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Years after draft promotion, would anyone ever need this?
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
09:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I noticed this one after disambiguating the title. Should we move the draft title accordingly? It seems cheap, but this seems like more waste of volunteer time... --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- That's an essay based on an RFC from 2016. This is becoming increasingly arcane :) --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
14:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
If the discussion here is on the Years after draft promotion
part, then yes it helps to keep the edit history right from the first edit, regardless of number of years.
Jay
(talk)
17:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Ok, I now get the point about the potential overhead of keeping the draft title in sync with the mainspace title over different moves over the years. It did take some time figuring out the page history of this case, since the mainspace article underwent a move without redirect. I may revise my vote depending on any strong opinions coming in.
Jay
(talk)
17:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The draft that was at this title is the article now at
Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka), so if it is kept it should be pointing there due to the "help article authors find their draft" rationale that pops up by the keepers of these redirects. However, the draft was accepted over five years ago and any benefits from this redirect have long since expired. Couple that with the title mismatch which makes it a bit more confusing to keep it around, so it should be deleted. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep WP:RDRAFT maybe Retarget to
Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka). As something that WOULD HAVE been an {{
R from avoided double redirect}} (but obviously dont tag as such since it isnt.) Happy Editing--
IAm
Chaos
02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. No real reason to delete a redirect like this. The benefits to keeping it are few, but even they outweigh the benefits of deleting it (which also takes more effort).
Glades12 (
talk)
13:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:18, 27 June 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 July 22#Natalie Mariduena
- 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
John Derbyshire (swimmer). Further suggestions to rename the target can be undertaken by editors proposing them or raised at
WP:RM. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Propose retarget to
John Derbyshire (swimmer), four-time Olympic swimmer, gold medalist, and coach featured in International Swimming Hall of Fame, where he is called "Rob Derbyshire" see (
International Swimming Hall of Fame and
Olympedia). (In fact, I propose to also rename John Derbyshire's page to "Rob Derbyshire" and have "John Derbyshire (swimmer)" redirect to "Rob".)
Cielquiparle (
talk)
10:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- It was created as a redirect to the swimmer and this stayed for close to 3 years before being retargeted to present target. Disambiguate or hatnote from the primary target.
Jay
(talk)
20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
22:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
John Derbyshire (swimmer) as his alternative name.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
22:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:18, 27 June 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.
✗
plicit
23:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
I think it would be better to redirect to
WP:edit count.
Q28 (
talk)
12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, WP:Edit count is an essay while the actual list is a stand-alone daily undated accurate list of English Wikipedia edit counts. 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Randy Kryn (
talk •
contribs)
- Oppose. Agree with Randy Kryn, and it has been traditionally so, it isn't some new, astounding shortcut.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
15:15, 27 June 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 July 4#Friedrich Linde
- 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 disambiguate. Issues with the disambiguation page may be taken up through the editorial process, discussion on its talkpage, or an AfD. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
05:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Per
WP:R#DELETE #1. Another Johannes Buder is mentioned at
University of Wrocław Botanical Garden. They appear to be different people; the Olympian studied philology, while the other Johannes led the Botanical Garden.
WP:REDLINK may also apply, as it is possible that the other Johannes is notable.
BilledMammal (
talk)
13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
05:09, 27 June 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 retarget to
Childbirth. I see a weak consensus for retargeting
Childbirth. Among the retarget suggestions it is the clear front runner, and enjoys some second-choice support from delete and keep camp editors. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Another bad redirect from UserTwoSix. Humans are not the only species to bear childern. This should either be deleted or retargeted to something more general (
Reproduction?
Pregnancy?)
192.76.8.78 (
talk)
19:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Veverve (
talk)
21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Retarget to
Bear#Reproduction and development. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I actually think this is a pretty reasonable redirect to exist, since "bear children" is a phrase someone could easily hear, not know, and search Wikipedia for. In which case the question is what the phrase usually refers to. We usually don't call other animals' young children. The article
Childbirth is about just birth in humans, for that reason. And I think that's the right logic here, so retarget to Childbirth. Hatnote to Tavix' proposed target (which is also the target of
Bear cub):
{{
redirect|Bear children|bear cubs|Bear#Reproduction and development}}
--
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
01:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, or Retarget to
Childbirth per Tamzin. I found this RfD from the first paragraph of
Dwarfism, a use case which would best lead to
Childbirth or the current target, either of which is perfectly reasonable. I think it is incorrect to say that other species "bear children", so a more general redirect is unnecessary and would likely break many existing wikilinks. Redirecting to
Bear is ridiculous, bordering on humorous, as I have never, ever, heard someone using the phrase in that sense; bears have cubs, not children. Hence, I support the current target,
Human reproduction, or Tamzin's suggestion,
Childbirth, but I oppose deletion and the other suggested retargets.
Toadspike (
talk)
13:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Childbirth, per Tamzin. -
BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK)
22:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Childbirth per above. The phrase bear children is usually applied to humans; other species are more often said to bear young. —
Mx. Granger (
talk ·
contribs)
07:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Initially I thought this was a Neelix redirect because it certainly sounds like one. However, it is too ambiguous whether it is referring to
bear children or bearing children, therefore it should be deleted to let the search engine actually do its job. Redirects that interfere with the proper functioning of search shouldn't be allowed to stand.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
18:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
| This user supports the right to arm bears. |
(Off-topic ... bear with me) Note that
Bear arms (disambiguation) has a See also to
Bear#Morphology.
Jay
(talk)
20:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Childbirth. The possibility of someone using this phrase to search for the children of bears or for carrying children seems vanishingly remote.
BD2412
T
02:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I prefer [Bear # Reproduction and development] over childbirth. I think it is a bit WP:SURPRISE ing to go to humans when you type the word bear. I get that it is a verb, but it seems quite implausible for everyday speech. Happy Editing--
IAm
Chaos
02:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. While the origin of the term may refer to "bearing down" during childbirth, in common use the term is used more broadly to refer to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth, so the current target seems more appropriate. For that matter,
Child bearing currently redirects to
Pregnancy. However, I'm not strongly opposed to a retarget to
childbirth. A hatnote to
Bear cub can be used for anyone searching for that.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
02:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
05:02, 27 June 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.
Oshkosh International Folk Festival
- 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
12:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:59, 27 June 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, also move
Fool's Day. The main question here became whether the song is the primary topic for "Fool's Day". Based on three explicit !votes to move
Fool's Day to
Fool's Day (song) and two other comments (CycloneYoris' and Mx. Granger's) getting at that, I find consensus to move it. With that eliminating the logic for retargeting to the song, there is a clear preference for keeping over the remaining option, retargeting to the DAB.
- There was little explicit discussion of what to do with the Fool's Day title after moving the song; I've taken the most straightforward approach of retargeting to match the three listed redirects, but
Jay or anyone else is welcome to start an
RM if they think that
Fool's Day (disambiguation) should be moved to that title. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
08:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Retarget to
Fool's Day, or delete altogether: Whereas it only takes moving the apostrophe to go from "Fools' Day" to the song, the April Fools' Day page does not state that the day is simply known as "Fools' Day". Also, the redirect is unlinked to. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
07:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or retarget all to
Fool's Day (disambiguation) but do not retarget to the song. Not sure how retargeting to an obscure song (that likely the vast majority of readers haven't even heard of) would be considered helpful.
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Leaning towards retarget to the DAB page
Fool's Day (disambiguation) since these seem like reasonable search terms for April Fools Day but also reasonable slight mis-spellings of the songs. If kept I think a hatnote should be added from
April Fools' Day to
Fool's Day (disambiguation).
A7V2 (
talk)
10:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Fool's Day. I don't think an apostrophe should make the difference in this case, especially since the article is about a song (typically listened to, so readers searching for it may not be sure what the punctuation should be). In response to
CycloneYoris's point, if the song is too obscure to be the primary topic, then it should be moved to
Fool's Day (Blur song); in that case, all of these redirects and
Fool's Day can target either the disambiguation page or
April Fools' Day. —
Mx. Granger (
talk ·
contribs)
10:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep.
April Fools' Day (
April Fool's Day) of course can be simply called "
Fools' Day" or its variants. It's so apparent that it does not need to be stated in article
April Fools' Day. A proof is that even
Fool's Day (
Blur's
2010 song), which the nominator proposes retargeting these redirect pages to, is actually talking about
April Fools' Day (see its lyrics: "
...On the first day of April..."). --
Neo-Jay (
talk)
22:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Wouldn't the Day be more often called "April Fools" instead of "Fools Day"?
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
21:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Even though the Day is more often called "
April Fools" than "
Fools Day", it does not mean that "
Fools' Day" and its variants should not be redirect pages to
April Fools' Day. They are still the Day's alternative names.--
Neo-Jay (
talk)
23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
07:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Would it be a
malplaced dab if we were to have
Fools' Day ->
Fool's Day (disambiguation), notwithstanding the
small detail of the apostrophe? In this case, should we consider moving
Fool's Day (disambiguation) to
Fools' Day?
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
03:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think it would be malplaced (since Fool's Day currently has a primary topic), but it's an open question what title a dab page should have when multiple ambiguous terms are disambiguated there (combined dab page) per
WP:DABNAME.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
00:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and I also support moving
Fool's Day to
Fool's Day (song). The song is a clear reference to the day. The day clearly can be (and is) called "Fool's Day" sometimes, regardless of whether this is expressly mentioned in the article...
[1] This google nGram shows that "Fool's day" is used at the start of a sentence without saying "April", but searching for "fool's day -april"
[2] returns 0 results, showing that these references to a "Fool's day" are in fact referring to the one in April. Despite the existence of the disambiguation page, this is an unambiguous redirect with a primary topic. If they were actually looking for the song, they can easily find the disambiguation page once they reach the page for the day.
Fieari (
talk)
04:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all as they imply the April Fools day. Move
Fool's Day to
Fool's Day (song) to make way for the moving of
Fool's Day (disambiguation). The new
Fool's Day dab will have
April Fools' Day as primary topic, even though the apostrophes don't match.
Jay
(talk)
06:37, 14 July 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 retarget to
Decolonization. There is a clear consensus that these redirects should point to somewhere directly about anti-colonialism efforts, and
Decolonization seems to emerge as the most relevant target. No prejudice against creating an
Anti-colonialism article later, though.
(non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
20:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Should this redirect to our
Decolonization article, as
anticolonial movements currently does?
QueenofBithynia (
talk)
08:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per nom, seems like a better target.
Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my
talk page)
13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget - It's more fitting than the current redirect. --
BirdCities (
talk)
21:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per nom --
Lenticel (
talk)
00:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Should these redirects also pointing to the same target be bundled?
Anti-colonialism,
Anticolonialism,
Anti-colonisation,
Anti-colonial,
Anticolonial,
Anti-colonialisms,
Anticolonialisms,
Anticolonialist,
Anti-colonialist. Pinging the corresponding creators/redirectors
Pharos,
Esperant,
Lapaz,
Tazmaniacs.
Jay
(talk)
09:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle per Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
01:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:56, 27 June 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 retarget to
Minecraft.
Jay
(talk)
04:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
A few searches doesn't suggest to me that there is a significant differance in meaning between these two capitalisations, so I think they should be syncronised to point at the same place. From a few searches the overwhelming primary topic here seems to be minecraft.
192.76.8.78 (
talk)
16:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per nom to MC Happy Editing--
IAm
Chaos
02:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:52, 27 June 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.
Triple threat (entertainer)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Template:School
- 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 soft delete. Based on
minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired
PROD (a.k.a.
"soft deletion"). Editors can
request undeletion of these pages.
✗
plicit
12:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Four inactive delsorts that were redirected in 2007. I had intended to create a delsort for Tanzania, as many English-language media sources exist from this country and the associated WikiProject has about 7,000 articles. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
04:14, 27 June 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.
Jay
(talk)
04:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Delete. The man is not mentioned at the article.
Neocorelight (
Talk)
03:18, 27 June 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.
Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel
- 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
12:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Implausible. People will not type the four apostrophes.
Neocorelight (
Talk)
02:58, 27 June 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.
Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game
- 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
Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats#Geo.
✗
plicit
14:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Another cross-namespace redirect, yes, it has existed for quite a while but the only links to this page are from two User space subpages. And I also can not find the term "Geouf" any where on the target space, as either a word or acronym.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
14:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:18, 27 June 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.
University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication
- 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 restore and send to AfD. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
00:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
School is worthy of article but article is a bit promotional and needs to be cleaned up
Wiseoleman17 (
talk)
00:05, 27 June 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.