Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2023.

Chillmark

[edit]

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 Chilmark. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget Chilmark. There's no general information at the current target about Chillmark. Only one fact is mentioned which is meaningful only in a context in which someone already knows what Chillmark is. Further, it's ambiguous, it could just as well, perhaps even better, target Chilmark. Largoplazo (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dab This and Chilmark. I was unaware of Chilmark. Invasive Spices (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No dab either because, as I indicated, there's no actual info about Chillmark at Sam Zell article. This isn't a find-a-word game; people's interest when searching for something isn't "I wonder whether this word exists on Wikipedia." If we don't have core information then we shouldn't have a link at all, not even a link to a passing mention. Largoplazo (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at it like this: Imagine someone had created an article titled "Chillmark" and written in it exactly this: "Between 1992 and 1999, Sam Zell's Chillmark fund owned Jacor, a successful radio broadcast group that included a television station." Suppose for this scenario that the fund is notable enough to merit its own article, so it can't be deleted under A7 or as non-notable at AFD. But, still, what kind of article is that? Do we really want to advertise to people "We have an article about Chillmark here" and then tell them that and only that? Is that helpful to people? No. I think if I were to search for Chillmark, follow a link to a Wikipedia article with that title, and find only that, I'd say "WTF, Wikipedia?!" The case with a redirect is similar. Largoplazo (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nom states, the term appears at the target anchor, but there is absolutely no information about it and thus should not have a redirect. There are a handful of other uses of the work on enwiki, so we should defer to search results. We shouldn't assume everyone typing this means Chilmark, as retargeting as {{R from misspelling}} would make these correctly spelled uses harder to find. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chilmark. I am sympathetic to the argument that correct spellings should take precedence over incorrect spellings, but in this case there do not appear to be any encyclopedic topics correctly spelled Chillmark. Every single usage of "Chillmark" in Wikipedia (fixed just now: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) was a typo for Chilmark, and almost all the Google Books hits are typos for Chilmark, Massachusetts [1]. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm finding it especially entertaining that your last couple of fixes were to the name of this exact fund that we're talking about, including the one at the redirect target, and that you left that unstated. 😀 Largoplazo (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with 59.149.117.119 making the necessary corrections? Invasive Spices (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, nor did I say that anything was wrong with them. They were fine and proper. You've misinterpreted the source of my amusement. Is something being wrong the only thing you find entertaining? Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chilmark - Looks like the current target doesn't even mention Chillmark anymore, much less explain it. We have no correctly spelled target, so an R from misspelling is the most appropriate target. Fieari (talk) 00:35, 29 June 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).

Uber South Korea

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Uber South Korea

Australian native snail

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Australian native snail

Shooshing

[edit]

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 💬 08:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible misspelling of the target. Anyone typing this likely means the present participle of shoosh, for which enwiki doesn't seem to have a good target. Suggest deletion, or soft redirect to wikitionary Mdewman6 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 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).

Shootings

[edit]

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 Gun violence. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Users are unlikely to be seeking the concept shooting, but instead mean a countable noun. Better targets would either be Shooting (disambiguation)#Crime (or perhaps even just Shooting (disambiguation)) or Gun violence (where Shooting (crime) redirects). Mdewman6 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The incoming links all seem to mean gun violence, and retargeting there would avoid the need to un-disambiguate these. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I clicked on was Farman Karimzade, which seems to mean "shooting of films". (This is not a good target, but we'll have a little un-disambiguation to do.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 July 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).

Whats the frequency kenneth

[edit]

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 keep. Withdrawn. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't serve much purpose as typing this in the search bar just shows the article that it's pointing to anyway. Dawnbails (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)}[reply]

I'll withdraw here; I can see the merit in the redirect now and I filed this while very sleep deprived. Dawnbails (talk) 18:24, 28 June 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).

Axed

[edit]

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. The suggestion to point Axing to this disambiguation page appears uncontroversial, so I will go ahead and do that as well--if there are any further issues with that change, it can be challenged and further discussed separately from the rest of the close. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific a target. Could equally refer to dismissal (employment) and probably lots of other things. Not sure what the best course of action is though. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with disambiguating starting with these two, and others can be added later once identified. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dab drafted under redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the past participle is the more common term. If the disambiguation links are exactly the same, I say we combine them at Axed. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 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).

Wayne Carter

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Wayne Carter

Customs redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Customs redirects

Iron(III) carbonate

[edit]

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 Iron(II) carbonate#Iron(III) carbonate. Clear consensus for this retarget after the latest relist and creation of this section. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Should be deleted instead. Keres🌕Luna edits! 20:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my updated comments below. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect was created a couple weeks ago justified as the chemical doesn't exist and if it did it would spontaneously produce the iron(iii) oxide-hydroxide. Forcing the redirect to carry that implicitly is easily confusing or a surprise. It's also not in the article and adding it is probably just chemistry trivia. ― Synpath 17:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect creator or if people prefer we could make it into a short placeholder article. It was mentioned in the article but removed by Smokefoot, who I'm going to ping. For people who don't know about the topic, you might assume iron(III) carbonate is a real chemical, but in fact it isn't stable: it breaks down to iron(III) oxide-hydroxide if you try to make it. However, it appears on many poorly prepared lists of chemicals and I've seen chemistry textbooks which blandly ask you to work out its formula as if it exists (I can give many similar examples if people want them). So there's a need for a redirect at least . But if people think it would be better to have a short page at this site that would be fine with me and we can discuss what content would go into that article here or on another talk page. Blythwood (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source is extremely unRS. Anyhow, I agree that some kind of retarget would be best. Invasive Spices (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - endorse approach suggested by Mdewman6 andKeresluna. Blythwood (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perpetuating bad science or poor understanding (IMHO) often citing weak sources. Carbonate cannot convert to hydroxy anything because carbonate does not contain H and hydroxy does. So the proposed conversion is not decomposition but some sort of hydrolysis I guess. Blythwood cites "Cehmistry Textbook for College and University USA" (nice title!), which seems reasonable justification for some acknowedgement of Fe2(CO3)3, but then again asking students to write formulas is pretty distant from stating that the material is real. Perhaps in ferrous carbonate article we could mention that ferric carbonates are unknown or rare. But such a statement would be challenged for a source.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there's something funny going on with Google Books' author and title information. It's a legit book with legit authors, though. Blythwood (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe retarget to Solubility chart where it is mentioned at the intersection of Iron and Carbonate, cited by a source which provides information on the topic. The only concern however is that every entry in the chart is either a blue link or a red link, and retargeting will make this neither. Jay 💬 07:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to try to keep this, I would favor a stub or a section at Iron(II) carbonate (where Iron carbonate redirects) that includes the ref in the table. Content creation usually isn't a reasonable RfD outcome, but maybe it makes sense here, and would be relatively straightforward. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, that reference is arguably not a reliable source. I get the desire to point users searching this somewhere where we say it's unstable, but as Smokefoot says, we need a WP:RS. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a statement in iron(III) oxide-hydroxide with a reliable source, could you check it please? Keres🌕Luna edits! 04:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna:, the reference you added indicates that the compound formed would be Iron(III) oxide, not an oxide-hydroxide. Granted, depending on pH and other conditions, in reality you will likely get oxyhydroxides precipitating instead of hematite or something, but that's not what the reference says. The questionable reference in Solubility chart says the same. So, a sourced mention should be added at Iron(III) oxide, or my preference, at Iron(II) carbonate. If so, I would support retargeting. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the statement to iron(II) carbonate#Iron(III) carbonate, and tweaked the statement a bit. I would support retarget to iron(II) carbonate. Keres🌕Luna edits! 00:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a retarget. Instead, I propose that as you've moved the statement, iron(II) carbonate should be moved to iron carbonate, so that both compounds are under a common name, and that iron(III) carbonate should be retargeted to iron carbonate. 141Pr {contribs} 17:29, 28 June 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).

Sum 41's sixth studio album

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Sum 41's sixth studio album

Soul metal

[edit]

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted twice at AFD for appearing not to be a commonly used term, so not sure why redirecting the page is any better - subject is also not mentioned at target article. Listing here after removing a CSD G4 tag placed by FMSky. Tollens (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While it may not be commonly used, it is still a searchable term that brings up some results like these: [1][2] so it is very plausible that somebody could be searching for soul metal. Best to send them somewhere rather than nowhere, and while it may not be mentioned on the heavy metal article, I'm torn on whether a small section should be devoted to it, as there are bands that mix metal and soul (Living Colour, 24/7 Spyz, the third and final album by Audioslave, Revelations, with Tom Morello describing it as Earth, Wind, and Fire meets Led Zeppelin[3]) as well as metal bands that make use of soulful vocals, like Sevendust, however, the problem is, none of them are explicitly defined as soul metal, meaning the section would be nothing more than bands that use soul and metal elements, but aren't necessarily classified as soul metal. If anybody has any reliable sourcing that uses this term to describe an artist (as in, one we have a page for here), please do drop it below. All of it will help in determining how widely used this term really is. Moline1 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that none of the refs you provide mention "soul metal". 1 and 2 do include "soul-metal", but that implies a mix of the two genres rather than a distinct genre, and ref 3 does not mention anything remotely related to the term. If, as you say, the most likely bands to have this term applied aren't necessarily classified as soul metal, it seems that the term does not exist. As mentioned in both AFDs, neologisms with little to no usage in reliable sources are not suitable for inclusion per WP:NOTNEO. Tollens (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - You make a good point there. With it in mind, this can be deleted, however, I am open for anybody else to chime in, but I don't think they will find anything else. I used Google's Advanced Search for the term on Ultimate Classic Rock and Loudwire, but neither mentioned the term outright. I either got articles that mentioned both heavy metal and soul separately, or ones structured like this "soul. metal".
    Moline1 (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is neither a synonym of Heavy metal music, nor is it mentioned there, so it is an unsuitable redirect. That said, if Moline1 or anyone else wanted to add a brief discussion of this somewhere, Heavy metal genres would seem a good place, and then this redirect could be recreated (or retargeted if done before this is closed) to the relevant section. But that's assuming sourcing exists for such a section. A7V2 (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/2013/04/28/179030765/first-listen-natalie-maines-mother
  2. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/04/29/natalie-maines-solo-album-streaming/2121801/
  3. ^ Harris, Chris (March 31, 2006). "MTV News - New Audioslave LP: 'Led Zeppelin Meets Earth, Wind & Fire'". MTV. Archived from the original on September 14, 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-15.
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).

Linkin Park's fifth studio album

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Linkin Park's fifth studio album

Linkin park 3

[edit]

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red. doesn't exist for any other of the band's albums (or any other band's albums for that matter), meaning a similar red. would have to exist for EVERY album article; WP:PANDORA. In addition, it's very unlikely someone would look for Minutes to Midnight (Linkin Park album) with "Linkin park 3". Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:22, 27 June 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).

Capital of the United States

[edit]

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. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

This seems like it should target Washington, DC but it was changed from that target in 2020, and with it having its current target for as long as it has, it seemed logical to bring it to RfD to gain consensus. TartarTorte 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C. already has a hatnote for United States capital linking to a disambiguation page which links to the list; seems like an adequate solution for any readers who might be looking for something else. It also makes sense for United States capital and Capital of the United States to point to the same place, that is, Washington, D.C.. – Scyrme (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:10, 27 June 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).

Adult use

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 7#Adult use

Capital of Switzerland

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4#Capital of Switzerland

Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics

[edit]

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 💬 13:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is a highly unlikely search parameter, and there is nothing about the 2024 Olympics except a single mention at the target. A similar redirect was was deleted not long ago. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST doesn't entirely seem to apply here: If you reference such a past [AfD] debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates. The redirects are very similar, and the arguments made in the Algeria's RfD for apply here. Randi🦋TalkContribs 10:08, 28 June 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).

Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 9#Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor

Range of Delairea odorata

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 6#Range of Delairea odorata

Warehouse Point Trolley Museum

[edit]

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. I've added a mention. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 03:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this redirect, the Connecticut Trolley Museum, is located near but not in the Warehouse Point neighborhood of East Windsor, Connecticut. I have not seen it ever referred to by this name, and considering this redirect has seen 15 hits in the past three years, it's clearly not being used or at all a common search term. We should not be inventing names for things that are not used in sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Connecticut Trolley Museum has been informally called Warehouse Point for decades in the railfan community. Whether that merits a redirect in Wikipedia I don't know. I'm not directly involved with the Connecticut Trolley Museum, but perhaps someone who is can comment as to whether there's a need for any mention of Warehouse Point. n2xjk (talk) 19:23, 27 June 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).

Pediawiki

[edit]

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem like a plausible mispelling of Wikipedia. 8ID (talk) 00:38, 27 June 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).

Democratic planning

[edit]

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 Democratic socialism#Democratic planning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate target · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Rosguill. Also note that we have Planned Democracy (I don't know what that refers to) from 2015, redirecting to Democracy. Jay 💬 08:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Democratic socialism#Democratic planning and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. Yes, I recognize that the term is wider than Democratic socialism, but it seems to be where the term is the most prominent. It also helps that the proposed target has the most information on Democratic planning currently on Wikipedia, which I find preferable to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. I don't think readers would be surprised by being redirected there and it links to other relevant material elsewhere, so it fulfils the purpose of redirects, namely to aid navigation to existing material. As a note, "democratic socialism" isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with Trotskyism or libertarian socialism (both mentioned by Bryce Springfield), and the article Democratic socialism discusses this (mentioning both). Of-course interpretations vary, but since the article takes an inclusive view of it I think it's an adequate target, at least until someone cares to write a better one (whether that's a new article or a section at Economic planning). – Scyrme (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apart from deletion, three targets have been proposed, and participants have yet to decide which one is best...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 27 June 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).

Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)

Chümoukedima–Dimapur

[edit]

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. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:XY now that there are two separate districts. The metro area doesn't cover the previously combined district. Could redirect to Dimapur district or Naga Hills District, British India provided it is explained well. Could also redirect to a line connecting the two regions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist for further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:04, 27 June 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_27&oldid=1169765193"