This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2022.
Indelible spiritual mark
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 expression "indelible spiritual mark" is extremely vague, and can refer - among other things - to either any permanent magical effect, or to any lasting influence a religion left on a culture or another religion.
Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted.
Veverve (
talk)
11:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
idiom is used only for Sacramental character No. No, you're misunderstanding "idiom". "Sacramental character" is a specific kind of "indelible spiritual mark". Since this is the only meaning beyond the literal, dictionary meaning of "indelible spiritual mark" we have on Wikipedia, we redirect there as a {{r from hypernym}}. Paradoctor (
talk)
06:25, 18 September 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.
Insect pest of grape
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 other redirects you list (Insect pests of grape, Insect pests of grapes, Insect pests of vines, Grape pest insects) would be desirable. They should have the same targets.
"Insect pests of grape" is very bizarre phrasing; it reads like an incomplete search, and I don't think incomplete terms warrant a redirect. One would expect "
insect pests of grapes", "
insect pests of grape species", "
insect pests of grape vine", or "
insect pests of grape clusters", etc. I generally agree with Invasive Spices that "diseases" and "pests" are two different topics, so I lean towards creating a separate list. A better title for a hypothetical list article would be
List of grape pests with a subsection on insects. That said, I think this redirect in particular should be deleted, although I don't object to replacing it with more plausible search terms. If those redirects are created, they should point to the category until a list article is created. –
Scyrme (
talk)
17:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reply to Scyrme and Pppery: I had not considered whether the phrasing would appear strange. It's not really strange. This is normal phrasing in the relevant industry – the singular "grape" is very common.[1][2][3]
Only the first and second references support what you say, the middle one uses singular "grape" in very very different contexts and generally uses "grapes" or "grape vine" in the relevant contexts; however, the other two don't just use it in a relevant context but actually explicitly refer to "insect pests of grape", so I'll accept that I was wrong about this being implausible. –
Scyrme (
talk)
00:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Votes to delete are incorrect per
WP:R#DELETE. This is not a harmful redirect and so should not be deleted as such. Note additionally that many misspellings have redirects and this is not a misspelling.
Invasive Spices (
talk) 3 September 2022 (UTC)
That's just not true; see 5 ... redirect makes no sense (argued above: a pest is not a disease) and 10 ... redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article (argued above: a list article was suggested). I don't understand your point about misspellings since you seem to agree that this isn't a misspelling, and therefore {{r from misspelling}} doesn't apply. You seem to be suggesting that redirects shouldn't be deleted just because they're implausible, but that's not true at all. Implausible redirects are often deleted, and may even skip this process as speed deletions in some cases (see 8 ... Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created). This is all present at the guideline you linked to. However, I have changed my view in light of the references you've provided. (Also, what's with the reply button not showing up after your signature?) –
Scyrme (
talk)
00:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep(revised view) unless a list article is created, otherwise retarget to that list. The references linked earlier demonstrate that this phrase is attested in relevant literature. The category is the most helpful target until a proper article is created, since readers can navigate to relevant articles from there. Again, if anyone wants to create a list article, I would suggest the broader title
List of grape pests, with a subsection on insects which this redirect could point to. –
Scyrme (
talk)
00:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
(argued above: a pest is not a disease) Yes. I am the one who argued against redirecting to the disease list. I made this to redirect to
Category:Grape pests. (Also, what's with the reply button not showing up after your signature?) I don't know. That's a good question.
Invasive Spices (
talk) 4 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
Fabric Freshener
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.
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, if anything this is worse than the now twice deleted lowercase, since it has the same problems but is also not in sentence case. –
Scyrme (
talk)
23:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. You will find hits for it in Google and even in a few (printed) publications, so people occasionally run into the term (in upper- and lowercase variants) in the real world wondering what it is, then turning to Wikipedia and rightfully expecting to get an answer. If we don't have an entry point for it, we are doing them a disservice and leave them uneducated - this is against our goal to create an encyclopedia for everyone to use. Our normal procedure for misnomers like this is to create a redirect to the correct term and tag the redirect with the special rcat {{
r from misnomer|correct term}} (as we already do), so that it cannot be confused with a "proper" term. The rcat allows for automatic bot correction of the term if someone would link to it. Per our criteria for redirects
WP:REDIR, this redirect cannot cause any kind of confusion as we are explicitly telling users that this is not the official term. It will be only entered into the search box by people running into the term in the real world, and for them, it is clearing up the confusion they are under by pointing them to the correct term per
WP:R#KEEP #3. This is not weaking Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but strenghening it, and by deleting the redirect, we would not improve Wikipedia in the slightest, but making it less reliable. Therefore, keep.
You offered your opinion based on a mere essay which however does not reflect community-consensus and did not convince me as following it is detrimental in the community's quest to achieve the goals of this project.
However, as in the real world, we have users who are here spending their precious spare time to construct the most comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia ever and users who seek to destroy what they don't understand or like. Seems unavoidable to deal with, as in the real world. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: There's less merit to keeping this than the one that was deleted due to casing. Wikipedia does not need to explain jokes in redirects as that is not their purpose. Anyone searching the joke either would know the joke and would be able to get to the right term or anyone not knowing the joke and searching that term on the off chance that happens would likely be
surprised by the result they get as there is no explanation in the article (and no place in the article for explanation) of the joke. As an aside, this joke is improperly targeted as the joke itself should target RPN, not standard Polish Notation, so it has not ever really been that helpful of a redirect as it's targeting the wrong thing; having said that, it should not target RPN because as stated above, it's not the job of redirects to explain fairly obscure jokes.
TartarTorte14:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
As has been explained at length in the old thread, we do not care about explaining jokes, but we very much care about providing encyclopedic contents to users of any background and therefore we systematically create redirects for any plausible input into the search box to the corresponding contents in Wikipedia. That's the purpose of redirects per
WP:REDIR - and that is the goal of Wikipedia per
WP:PURPOSE. The reversed spelling certainly isn't the most likely search term, but since it is occasionally used in real world publications, it was actually used by people as input into our search box (as the usage statistics of the old redirect clearly showed), so we could help them out of their confusion. Deleting the redirects we can't. That no good at all. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong delete, we don't need a redirect here just because a few people have made a joke once. Highly implausible. (Also per previous discussions.)
eviolite(talk)01:11, 24 September 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.
Red.nar
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.
Small People Throwing A Ring Into A Volcano
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 this is an accurate summary, but not a useful search term (and if it was it should be in sentence case as it is a description not title of the work).
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:30, 17 September 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.
P:W
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.
Redirects with a different target to the one discussed are only G4 candidates if the content of the new target page is essentially the same as the old one (e.g. the page or content was moved).
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:16, 17 September 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.
Hôtel
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 or set up a disam page It's not true that "This term just means "hotel" in French". When used in English it is likely to mean some kind of large town house - ie a Hôtel particulier - that "inn" French usage for "hotel" came in from English I think, and typically lacks the accent. Bear in mind that the invariable French term for
Town hall is
Hôtel de ville, but don't try booking a room. A disam page might be an idea. The
Hôtel-Dieu, Paris is a historic hospital and
another one a theatre, while the
Hôtel Matignon is the official residence of the Prime Minister of France, and so on.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: Hôtel pariculier essentially covers what a
WP:DAB for Hôtel would cover. It covers Hôtel de Ville and Hôtel-Dieu, which are two of the more common times people would common across hôtel.
TartarTorte19:57, 16 September 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.
Λυκάνθρωπος
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.
Is this needed on the English encyclopedia? Of course, there are alternate spellings for different languages, but this one uses the Greek letters, and as such is of no use to anyone using keyboard's based on English letters. Delete?
TNstingray (
talk)
16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: Name is mentioned in the lead. There is a specific affinity from Greek to werewolf with the alternative name lycanthrope (λυκάνθρωπος).
TartarTorte18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although Greek has no special affinity with "werewolf" it does have affinity with "
lycanthrope" (and its shorter derivative "lycan"), a synonym for "werewolf" common in some contexts such as fantasy fiction, including some prominent films/franchises. The first sentence opens by naming both "werewolf" and "lycanthrope" as the subject of the article. Accordingly the target of the redirect is related to this language via the latter subject. –
Scyrme (
talk)
17:57, 17 September 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.
Delete - Searching dinosavr on Google and looking past the first page brings up a number of results in Slavic languages, particularly Russian where the word for "dinosaur" is динозаврdinozavr; although a direct 1:1 transliteration would have a Z not an S, evidently some people prefer to transcribe it with an S. Russian often converts an intervocalic S into a Z (eg. physics <-> физикаfizika) in loanwords, and the inverse is sometimes done in transcription. The Cyrillic динозавр is also the word for "dinosaur" in an number of other languages which write in Cyrillic, such as Kazakh, but the results I found for the transcription were mostly Russian.
Since the word "dinosaur" and the study of dinosaurs don't have any particular affinity for languages written in Cyrillic this should be deleted. Additionally, dinosavr also brought up results for apps called DinosaVR and DinoSAVR; they don't have Wikipedia articles, afaik, but it might be best not to pollute the search results for people looking for them. –
Scyrme (
talk)
18:39, 16 September 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.
Wikipedia:ARCHIVES
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 current redirect is for a failed proposal from 2006. I would think it's more beneficial to have
WP:ARCHIVE and
WP:ARCHIVES point to the same page
Help:Archiving a talk page. Therefore, I propose the following
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.
Tattooing in China
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.
Chupacabras (Legend and Failures)
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.
Unnecessary redirect. Seems like some user made their own chupacabra page back in 2011 and it was cleared and redirected to the actual page. It is an improbable search entry. Delete.
TNstingray (
talk)
12:31, 16 September 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.
Locless monster
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 per nom; online search results are mostly for a product named "Lockless Monster". Was a duplicate article when created but that appears to have been at least partly a copyvio.
1234qwer1234qwer418:29, 16 September 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.
Barias
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.
Bigfoot the bigfooted
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.
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.
A very poor title, dating back to when Wikipedia was still a bit shacky. The article was moved to
Thought of Thomas Aquinas in 2008, so there is nothing to worry about attribution.
The name is very unlikely to be typed, and is archaic.
Therefore, I propose this redirect be deleted.
Veverve (
talk)
02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Extremely janky title. It is actually misleading because it reads as if this is some singular philosophical concept developed by Aquinas.
TNstingray (
talk)
12:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: In a similar vein to TNstingray, this reads to me as it would be about a Part I of a book called "Thought of Thomas Aquinas". I can't imagine anyone using this as a search term.
TartarTorte12:40, 16 September 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.
This was recently made into a disambiguation page (see this version ) which I
PROD-ed with the rationale "The term "Metro-1" isn't used in the articles Moscow Metro or Metro 2033 and there are no pages linking to Metro-1 so there seems to be no need for this disambiguation page". That has been reverted to the initial redirect to
Moscow Metro but the problem remains that the target page does not mention "Metro-1".
Pichpich (
talk)
22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Metro Line M1 (Budapest Metro), where the lead bolds "Metro 1" as an alternative name (the only article I've found that does so), alternatively we could retarget to
Line 1, a dab page listing 88 systems with Metro in the name that have a line 1 (Google finds a couple of results related to Paris Metro's line 1 on the first page).
Thryduulf (
talk)
00:38, 9 September 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.