This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 26, 2023.
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target. Sources of dubious reliability (
[1],
[2],
[3]) consistently identify Dixie as a location in
Mitchell County, Iowa, an article that also makes no mention of the place. I'm thus leaning towards deletion over redirecting there, and would appreciate additional input. signed,
Rosguill
talk
00:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬
04:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
21:33, 26 January 2023 (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).
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Bigun
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 20#East Buttress
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9#E³
Leftovers of Views on Shia Islam
- 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 all except
Shi'a and Islam which had no consensus. However, retargeting it to
Shia–Sunni relations as a supported target better than the current, for which there was no support.
Jay
💬
12:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
This is a series of redirects that formerly pointed to "Views on Shia Islam",
a now-deleted article, which have been retargeted to the general article on Shia Islam. It doesn't seem like the general article covers any of these topics, so I would propose deleting most of these redirects.
However, I am not certain on the last two redirects. I didn't find a suitable page that may fall under
Views on Shi'a Islam, though one may exist. In regards to
Shi'a and Islam, retargeting to
Shia–Sunni relations may make sense, however this is only about the interactions between Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni and Shia are definitely the largest branches by a significant margin, but one searching for "Shi'a and Islam" might be searching for more general relations between Shi'a Islam and other branches, such as with Ibadi or more historical branches.
Randi Moth (
talk)
19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the last two redirects
Views on Shi'a Islam and
Shi'a and Islam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬
07:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "And" can be used to signify a connection between the two, specifically as a shortened form of saying "Connection between Shi'a and the rest of Islam", such as
United States and the United Nations which still exists as the title despite the USA being a part of the UN. Similarly,
Shia–Sunni relations outlines the relations between Shi'a and Sunni Islam, as well as briefly touching on some historical branches of the religion. It can be a plausible redirect to there, but as before, it's more "Shi'a and Sunni" rather than "Shi'a and Islam". However, it might not be that plausible of a search term for that, as shown by the redirect barely getting any views.
Randi Moth (
talk)
13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:22, 26 January 2023 (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).
Journal of Medical Research
- 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!
20:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
There is a current, less reliable
Journal of Medical Research, as well as
a number of "X Journal of Medical Research" publications. It would be better to let the search results handle this, than risk misleading readers based on a name this journal abandoned 98 years ago. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
23:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- It seems reasonable as an alternative name. Is the less reliable journal notable? —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think it's encyclopedically notable, but in 2023 I'm guessing it's more likely what someone's thinking of when they search this term; note the hatnote on the target article. Usually in such cases we delete the redirect. That's probably what we should do for a lot of the redirects to pages with {{
confused journal}} on them, as that template is not actually in compliance with
WP:HAT and should probably be deleted; redirect deletion is the better solution for cases where a non-notable usage may have grown more prominent than a notable one. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
00:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Keep It's a former name of a notable journal that was in use for nearly 25 years and
represents the vast majority of cases (everything pre 1950 is definitely this journal. The X Journal of Medical Research journals started popping up in the mid 1990s). The modern predatory journal isn't notable, so it makes no sense to point that redirect to an article that shouldn't exist. If there's confusion that needs to be addressed, you can use {{
confused journal}} to clarify things, e.g.
Not to be confused with "Journal of Medical Research" (
ISSN
2395-7565), with the ISO 4 abbreviation 'J. Med. Res. (New Delhi)', published by AkiNik Publications.
-
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
04:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
Headbomb: I'm unconvinced that that template is acceptable under
WP:HATNOTE, as it does not actually disambiguate from any other article. Like I said above, the solution is to delete the ambiguous redirects, not add a noncompliant hatnote. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Hatnotes are notes, they don't exist solely to disambiguate to existing articles and aren't required to do so.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
02:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. The journal that appropriated this title is most certainly not notable and most likely will never be (unless they commit such stupid errors that they'll get coverage in the main press). It looks like an OMICS clone. I think that it is important to make clear that this title was a reputed journal before it got its current name. Headbomb's hatnote seems to do that very well. HATNOTE specifically states that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one such case. --
Randykitty (
talk)
23:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Randkitty, to help readers find good info, and understand different meanings, without giving over-exposure of current but poorer topics with the name.
DMacks (
talk)
22:11, 27 January 2023 (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).
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2#Roads in Madagascar
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2#Dorand
- 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, retargeting to
Inca Empire as a target better than the current, for which there was no support.
Jay
💬
08:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Maybe retarget to
Culture of South America (the most suitable potential target I could find after some digging) or something similar, but probably delete as unclear and unhelpful.
An anonymous username, not my real name
01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱
13:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬
10:45, 26 January 2023 (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).
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 3#Landing platform vessel