Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3

April 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 3, 2024.

Curse bowl

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11#Curse bowl

Harrow View

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 12#Harrow View

Controversy over study buddies for international students 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. However targeting to the section Recent history (1980–present) as a suggested refinement. Jay 💬 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over study buddies for international students in China → Shandong University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely search term that is a bit generic and may or may not refer to Shandong University. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the page history, it appears that the former contents of that page got merged into the final sentence of Shandong University#Recent history (1980–present), after it got PRODded yesterday (see this version of the page). Not sure off the top of my head what the protocol for this situation is, but I suppose that knowing the context may be of some use for this discussion. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm the editor who originally PRODded the article, and I still think there should not be an article on this, for the reasons I stated there (it's not an encyclopedic topic, just a one-off event). I agree with the nominator that even if this content is preserved somewhere else, the present redirect is not a likely search term. The only reason I can see for keeping it is to avoid breaking incoming links, but there are very few of those anyway (few enough that it would be trivial to manually fix them), and most of them are just see-alsos in articles with no more than a vague relationship to this one.
My only caveat is that almost-blanking the page and then deleting the redirect might be seen as having sneakily deleted the article while circumventing AfD. Deleting the article is the outcome I favor anyway, but I can understand if others might see this as unfair. 2001:49D0:8511:2:61FD:D141:8697:4A7F (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If both PROD and BLAR are contested then the content should be restored and sent to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and ship to AfD as per Thryduulf. There's a sneaking suspicion that we have a cold front coming in, looking at the article, but if it's contested, then I do think the contest should be given a proper arena. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine target to Shandong University#Recent history (1980–present) - Content exists on wikipedia, target is unambiguous, I see no reason to delete this WP:CHEAP redirect. If I saw the original article at AfD, I'd suggest redirecting it to here anyway. Not article worthy, but a sentence or two in the main article is fine, and a redirect to it is likewise fine. Fieari (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to AfD per Thryduulf and WP:BLAR--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - It appears some content from this article was moved to Shandong University. Isn't it important to keep this redirect and its history for attribution purposes? ~Kvng (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore or refine? Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Fieari. No opinion on and no prejudice against attempts at article creation at this title either. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Name, image, and likeness

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. Editors remain divided between keep, retarget, and disambiguation after two relists. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name, image, and likeness → Student athlete compensation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I propose to retarget this to Personality rights. Name, image, and likeness are stock terms in reference to personality rights of all sorts of celebrities, far beyond student athletes. See, e.g., Monk v. N. Coast Brewing Co., Case No.17-cv-05015-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2018), contesting use of "the name, image and likeness of Thelonious Monk"; Lucchese, Inc. v. John Wayne Enters., LLC, EP-17-CV-135-PRM (W.D. Tex. Jul 31, 2017), regarding "rights to famed actor John Wayne's name, image, and likeness"; Cousteau Soc'y, Inc. v. Cousteau, 498 F.Supp.3d 287 (D. Conn. 2020), regarding "use of Jacques-Yves Cousteau's name, image, and likeness", etc. BD2412 T 02:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dab? The existing incoming links all refer to student athlete compensation. For decades in the US, university athletes were not allowed to be paid. This specifically deals with the newer rules in US college sports. Seems like a disambiguation page is an option. Not sure if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also note that the Nil dab page only has an entry the the student athlete topic, in case the abbreviation also applies to the general personality rights' use.—Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bagumba: There is nothing to disambiguate, as these are not two different things. They are the same thing, whether applied to student athletes or movie stars. See Sarah Wake and Addison Fontein, NCAA Athletes Will Need a New Playbook to Score on Tax Day, Bloomberg Law (September 2, 2021): "Individuals typically have the right to control the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, and likeness, which is known as the right of publicity or personality rights". BD2412 T 03:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412: From a legal perspective, I understand. Unless Personality rights is deemed the primary topic (no opinion yet), I'm not sure if it makes sense for a reader that's looking specifically for college sports to have to wade through a large article, find the US portion, then skim to find the link to the relevant dedicated page.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps a hatnote could solve that, or a restructuring of the text. BD2412 T 03:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably no need to have similar discussions in two places at once (see Talk:Student athlete compensation), but copying my comment from there: One or even a handful of random uses of the words as a phrase are not enough to make it a generic term. A search for "name image and likeness" on Google Scholar shows results only about college athletics on the first I don't know how many pages. Even limited just to sources from before 2020, I don't see a stock use of the phrase until result 15, and then not again 30. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "scholarly" phrase, it's a legal one. If you look at legal cases, they arise in hundreds of them with respect to celebrities of all kinds. If you want me to provide hundreds of examples, I will. The phrase is practically a synonym for personality rights. BD2412 T 03:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't doubt that it's widely used, but the college athletics sense still seems to be a primary meaning even in a legal context. See, e.g., this Justia search (it's less total but still most when limited to law texts). I agree with your comment above that a hatnote would be justified either way. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate — Name, image, and likeness (NIL) is a common phrase used to refer specifically to the NCAA regulations. The NCAA policy is notable enough for its own article, either at Name, image, and likeness or something like Name, image, and likeness (NCAA policy). That's currently a redirect but should/could be developed into its own article. I understand the point that the college NIL rights are "the same thing" as the NIL rights in other industries, but the specific college regulation appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the phrase. Add disambiguation page then decide later if it should live at Name, image, and likeness or Name, image, and likeness (disambiguation) or be solved by hatnotes. PK-WIKI (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence presented above suggests this is the primary topic. A hatnote can be added for disambiguation purposes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman. This appears to be the primary topic for this phrase, whether it is the primary topic for the concept doesn't really matter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary topic. Poor timing to nominate this during an ongoing RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @162 etc.: It's just such a mind-boggling exercise in recentism. The phrase is temporarily associated with student athletes because that was the controversy that was most recently resolved. BD2412 T 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Language can evolve. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. 162 etc. (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  We might as well redirect Touchdown to College football on Saturdays, since the sources will then be reporting on touchdowns occurring in collegiate games. BD2412 T 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nomination. I am unimpressed with the disambiguation or keep arguments above. Both are recentist, and in the former case, I think as a general principle we ought to retarget to the broadest meaning of a term that could be either more general or more specific, since readers who want the more specific definition can always find it within the broader article. Sdkb ^talk 04:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom and sdkb. Not a single word in this phrase is specific to athletics, much less specifically student athletics, so I'm having a very, very hard time believing that their primary target when together would be Student athlete compensation. It'd be, for example, like if someone claimed that Uniform should be a redirect to High school football in North America because the clothes that high school football players wear are referred to as a 'uniform.' ...Heck, if it weren't for nom laying out a case for it being a legal term, my knee-jerk would be to delete as an WP:XY of name, image, and likeness. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hatnote, the term is specifically used in the media for references to the current target and thus primary. I'll trust Bagumba on the fact that incoming links support that also, unless proven otherwise. Respublik (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the last update here, the RM discussion to move "Student athlete compensation" → "Name, image, and likeness" closed as Not moved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Retarget vote stands, and in fact is probably strengthened by the RM vote closing as Not Moved. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Several redirects to Guaporé River

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 14:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mequéns River (Guaporé River tributary) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mequéns River (São João River tributary) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mequens River (Sao Joao River) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mequéns River → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mequens River → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mequéns River (São João River) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mequéns River (Guaporé River) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

São João River (Verde River) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Sao Joao River (Verde River) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

São João River (Verde River tributary) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Escondido River (Brazil) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Escondido (Brazil) → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cantarinho River → Guaporé River (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no mention in the target article of these rivers, and without a mention these redirects are confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Zaporozhye Oblast

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 Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Jay 💬 06:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaporozhye Oblast → Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target of this redirect has been changed multiple times over the years, so I wanted to bring this to a discussion instead of just reverting. Essentially, I feel that this could just as easily refer to Zaporizhzhia Oblast as the Russian occupation article - there are (mostly older) sources that refer to the city by its Russian name, and Zaporozhye already redirects to the city. Maybe it could be converted to a disambiguation page? HappyWith (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: Zaporizhzhia Oblast is a plausible target and the more generic concept, so the reader should be sent there. If people disagree with that, then a disambiguation page might be an alternative solution. Furius (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

FIFA 2003

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11#FIFA 2003

EFinancialCareers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#EFinancialCareers

Pro-

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 List of Greek and Latin roots in English/P–Z#P. Anarchyte (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro- → List of commonly used taxonomic affixes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While this might be a taxonomic prefix, a reader is quite likely to be looking for some information on the prefix in general. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the fact that we have information on this specific usage is sort of arbitrary. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all these prefixes should be redirected to pages like List of Greek and Latin roots in English/P–Z#P, but it would be better if there was an anchor for each prefix. Kk.urban (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would a retarget to wikt:pro-#English be a good idea? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 27 March 2024 (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, Jay 💬 12:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Greek and Latin roots in English/P–Z#P, where there is relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Western era

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. There was no support for Modern era as a target, hence tetargeting to Post-Western era as one better alternative. Jay 💬 06:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western era → Modern era (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Western era" not mentioned in the target article. The implication of "modern era", "modern history", and "modern times" from the article is that this is happening right now, and equivalent to western in usage. Was created by the creator of Post-Western era; that seems to be a better location to talk about the concept of a "western era", if any suffice. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT keep at current location. Referring to the modern era as the 'western era' is... extremely euro-centric??? Heck, with how pervasive Japanese and Chinese culture are right now, you could just as easily call the Modern era the "Eastern era" and be just as correct as if you called it the "Western era". Either delete, or retarget to somewhere else. I'm loathe to target it to Post-Western era mostly because that article is... just as eurocentric???

Could perhaps target to American frontier (the target of Wild west)? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or secondarily delete, this is neither common usage nor an equivalence I'd like to see promoted. "Western" doesn't usually seem to imply "wild west" except in fairly narrow American history contexts. Post-western era seems like a good target, since it implictly defines "western era". Westernization would be my second choice but at that point I think it may be better to delete. Rusalkii (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to turn it into a disambiguation page, with the "Wild West era"-related page being one possible redirect. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Post-Western era. I think this is plausible and helpful, and does have a hatnote to Old West on it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a clear consensus is formed Okmrman (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westernization might be another potential target? 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

2022 Second Division Football Tournament

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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Second Division Football Tournament → 2022 Maldivian Second Division Football Tournament (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This Maldivian event does not seem to be the primary or most notable topic readers might be looking for when searching "2022 Second Division Football Tournament" – a Google search turns up large numbers of other results. This was left over from a page move when the creator forgot to include the world "Maldivian". It doesn't seem that this is the official name of the tournament either, which should just be "FAM 2nd Division", but that's a point for the main article, not here. Toadspike (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator acknowledged the error in this move rationale [1] "Misspelled: Incomplete article page name in the initial move." I think this should be uncontroversial. Toadspike (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Trang Chính

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 speedy delete per criterion G4. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trang Chính → Main Page (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The search term is unhelpful because the target provides no information in Vietnamese. See WP:RFOREIGN and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#Trang Chính. Certes (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the policy and discussion linked explain this case clearly. Toadspike (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, this could be speedy deleted since it clearly falls under the G4 Criteria: Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion Okmrman (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Wikipedia:REVERT

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:Reverting. Jay 💬 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:REVERT → Help:Reverting (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

All other redirects such as WP:RV, WP:REV and WP:REVERTING and all redirect to WP:Reverting but this one is the odd one out. For this one I consider changing the redirect name like the one I mention above because that one fits with the redirect more. This is supposed to redirect with a project-associated page and not a help guide.kleshkreikne. T 20:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This has a very large number of links, we should not retarget this unless we are certain that these links were intended for the WP space page not the Help space page. I've not (yet) looked. Thryduulf (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Reverting, which has a hatnote referencing Help:Reverting at the top. Readers who realize the page in the Wikipedia namespace is not the page they are looking for have clear direction to get to the related page in the "Help" namespace. In other words, updating the incoming links may not be necessary in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support retarget to WP:Reverting After looking through a few of the incoming links mentioned by Thryduulf, it seems that they're mostly people informing other people that their edits have been reverted, where WP:Reverting is more appropriate. They are generally not teaching others how to perform reverts, where the Help page would make sense. Examples: "I've just reverted to show my disagreement" [2] and "You've been reverted." [3] Toadspike (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support retarget to WP:Reverting based on User:Toadspike's finding that most existing uses are not intending to teach people how to revert and the fact that WP:Reverting immediately directs people would want to learn to Help:Reverting. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Reverting as per Steel and Toadspike. It feels weird that a redirect with the "Wikipedia:" namespace is redirecting to the "Help:" namespace, instead of to Wikipedia namespace. In addition, the old target is already a hatnote on the new target, which decreases the amount of ruffled feathers. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Reverting: Per the arguments other users have made above. I agree that this would be a better destination. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Kleshkreikne has globally locked as a obvious sockpuppet of another user. Should be immediately closed, as per WP:DENY and WP:SNOW. 182.2.74.29 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to be true, unless I’ve forgotten how to use a block log. Even if it were, I don’t think this rather sensible RfD nomination should be closed. Toadspike (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Poast

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 revert redirect and send to AfD. Anarchyte (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poast → List of social networking services (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect target has a WP:LISTCRIT that entries should have Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the topic of this redirect is neither mentioned at the target nor could it be added. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I got a notification for this RfD but I do not remember creating this page). jp×g 🗯️ 08:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged you as you converted the page into a redirect [4]. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for the heads up jp×g 🗯️ 08:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article survived its most recent deletion nominations (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poast and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 18), deleting the redirect for the above reason would amount to a backdoor deletion. This isn't a matter for RFD. Revert to article and and send to AFD again, if desired. - Eureka Lott 13:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per Eureka Lott as a contested BLAR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert: As a contested BLAR and send to AfD (which gets a lot more participation anyways) StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eureka Lott, Presidentman, and StreetcarEnjoyer: I do not really follow the logic here; if one action (the AfD close) says that there is no consensus to have the article or delete the article, a second action (me redirecting it) indicates that somebody wants to not have an article -- how does the a third action of opening a RfD (i.e. that another person wants there to not be an article, and also for there to not be a redirect) add everything up to produce consensus for having an article? This seems like a strange outcome based on all of the hitherto-existing steps (i.e. big maybe + small no + small no = yes?) jp×g 🗯️ 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The !votes here to restore are not saying "there is a consensus to have an article" they're saying "The blanking and redirection (BLAR) is contested and therefore should be reverted and, optionally, discussed at AfD." About the only times this is not the correct course of action is when the pre-blanking content meets a speedy deletion criterion or had consensus to delete the most recent time it was discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Thryduulf: Right -- but the "contest" in this case is between "have it exist as a redirect" and "have it not exist at all". Did anyone actually say that they did think there should be an article? If so, I have no disagreement, but if literally nobody thinks that an article should exist, why carry out some weird bureaucratic shuffle to make one exist? jp×g 🗯️ 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There was no consensus to delete the article content at AfD, therefore the article content should not be deleted without another AfD. Converting the article to a redirect and then deleting that would be deleting article content without an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  To directly answer Did anyone actually say that they did think there should be an article? Yes, here we can find Rlink2, Visviva, CT55555, and AlexandraAVX arguing in favor of the further existence of the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying here -- if you want the article to exist, then say so, and I will cease my objections. But is there anybody in the last ten months (disregarding a no-consensus AfD) who actually wants the article to exist, rather than just asserting that it is mandated to exist by policy? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- if nobody wants to do something, then we should not do it, regardless of whether there is some strange edge-case technicality which sounds like it requires us to do it. jp×g 🗯️ 00:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Since you're insisting, let's ask them: Hey Rlink2, Visviva, CT55555, and AlexandraAVX, can any of you confirm if you still want there to be an article on Poast? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There seemed to be enough there for an article at the time, I don't have time at the moment to dig into if there's enough continued coverage for there to still be an article, but that's a discussion for AfD and not here. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per EurekaLott. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per Eureka, optionally send back to AfD. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert. Previous AfD aside, this was also a bad redirection because the list explicitly says it's for services that have Wikipedia articles. There should never be WP:BLARs to this list, because then any information about that service should then be removed from the list by definition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per EurekaLoft, this matter has been litigated at AfD and if we want to form a new consensus on the articles be-or-not-to-be then that's the forum for it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak revert, I guess, per my "weak keep" at the AfD. To answer the question posed above, I haven't seen any reason to change my keep/delete position from the AfD. A merge to a different target might be nice but I'm not sure that a suitable one exists. I agree with the points raised above that this case isn't really appropriate for RfD, although NOTBURO might apply if the case were more straightforward. (Purely as an observation, I am a bit surprised to see the number of independent efforts to remove this content from the wiki within less than a year. But perhaps that merely speaks to some parts of the wiki being more rigorously maintained than others.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Check Steam

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. Anarchyte (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check Steam → Geometry Dash#Update 2.2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Okmrman (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Okmrman: What action are you proposing? A7V2 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda leaning towards Delete because it isn't really that notable to make a redirect about what the developer said when he updated the game and it's also an inside joke used in other game communities that hasn't seen updates in a long time such as Titanfall and Hollow Knight. Okmrman (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: rather vague tbh 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A possible retarget if kept may be to Steam (service), but I don't think that that's a good idea. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, checking Steam is by no means only associated with Geometry Dash. Will confuse readers who type this for any other game release. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Latin@

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 Latinx. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin@ → Gender neutrality in Spanish (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This has been retargeted several times. The current one is inaccurate since it's also used in Portuguese, not just Spanish. It can be retargeted to Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender, or back to Latinx (or, now, Latine). --MikutoH ^talk! 01:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Latinx where this term is discussed. Current target is additionally unsuitable as this term is not mentioned there. A7V2 (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Latinx, which already seems to be written expecting the term to be redirected there (it mentions "Latin@" in the leading paragraph, in bold, as if it were the target) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Latinx per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Latinx per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

~( 8^(I)

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. Keep !votes were conjectured on the presence of the redirect term at the target, but no one has contested its removal there, leaving no purpose for the redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~( 8^(I) → List of emoticons (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Furthermore, it does not seem like strings of characters such as this would be useful or helpful for readers on Wikipedia. This is not a likely search term, and the only information we have at the target list, for this topic, is "yes" (it exists) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like this specific emoticon wants to be retargeted to Homer Simpson. It also does not feel like it deserves to be retargeted there. Delete as per nom. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the actual List of emoticons article, it ~~does~~did list ~(_8^(|) (which is this but with an underscore instead of a space-- keep in mind that Wikipedia can't afaik tell the difference between a space and an underscore in an article title)... with, as its meaning, a link to the Homer Simpson article. I have never been so simultaneously vindicated and trumped in my life. ~~Keep as per Thryduulf.~~
In other news, now I have to figure out why the 【=◈︿◈=】 doesn't show up there, and if any fish would get thrown at me if I added it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, unambiguous and mentioned at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'll mention that this has now been removed from the target, along with other overly-specific and not particularly applicable examples of pop culture figures. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Eh, fair enough. Changing my vote back to Delete, then, for the same reason as my first comment on this discussion. Also fair enough, on the deletion of【=◈︿◈=】. At least no fish were involved. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The emoticon has been removed from the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this stays not mentioned at the target, Delete, otherwise Keep. No opinion on whether it should be mentioned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it used to mention it, per commented by Lunamann. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be kept after the emoticon in question has been removed from the list, unless the emoticon were to be restored. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MikutoH: Just letting you know that the emoticon in question was removed a while ago and has not been added back. Are you interested in amending your !vote with that in mind? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No longer mentioned at target, nor anywhere else in the encyclopedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Clorinda (Once Upon a Time)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Clorinda (Once Upon a Time)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3

April 3

Curse bowl

Harrow View

Controversy over study buddies for international students in China

Chat Control 2.0

Insurance goal

Hockey bag

Name, image, and likeness

Several redirects to Guaporé River

Zaporozhye Oblast

FIFA 2003

EFinancialCareers

Pro-

Western era

2022 Second Division Football Tournament

Trang Chính

Wikipedia:REVERT

Poast

Check Steam

Latin@

~( 8^(I)

Clorinda (Once Upon a Time)