Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 4

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 4, 2024.

GABAAL

[edit]

No evidence that these initalisms are in use for these compounds; WP should not be creating these on our own. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think they should be mentioned at their targets- WP should not be fabricating abbreviations that are not in use in reliable sources. If not mentioned at target, then these redirects are inappropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why my Keep is conditional. Jay 💬 09:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FitMC

[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. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this famous YouTuber does have a connection with the subject (I enjoy watching him myself), there is virtually no mention of him in the article. Unfortunately, there are no RSs that connect him to the subject, either. EF5 22:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find a good source to add a sourced mention Ca talk to me! 23:32, 5 December 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).

Karstarma ardea

[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. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RETURNTORED. It's good, common practice to not redirect a taxon to its parent, for three main reasons: 1) There is usually almost zero unique information about each child taxa in the parent's article. 2) When a reader is on the parent article, they may click on a blue link (templates like 'linked taxa list' are typically used to efficiently mass-wikilink all child taxa) only to be redirected back to the article they just clicked away from. 3) It makes it unnecessarily difficult for a prospective editor to know that a taxon needs an article (all valid taxa are considered notable by default). Thus, editors trying to find these taxa are frustrated by a lack of information about them; readers on the parent page are frustrated by being directed in a loop; and editors trying to create or improve these articles are frustrated by a deceptive sea of blue. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The three points given by the nom are exactly why recent, validly described species are kept as redlinks. Do you think this kind of article exists just for the fun color scheme? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And - you want to remove the list of links in the genus article, where they are most useful (and the only place where they are likely to ever be listed), in order to prevent circular redirects? That is a nonsensical approach. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really @Elmidae nonsensical? I personally think we need far fewer individual species articles, despite what I recognize as inherent notability. Not sure why you mention anything about a "fun colour scheme". I'm entitled to my opinion, and I don't think it's ill-informed based on my NPP work, but you're entitled to disagree with my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I strongly believe that these redirects are very unhelpful. There is plenty of precedent for deleting them, but the basic reason is that they are misleading. (@Hey man im josh:) I think it is deceptive to the reader (WP:REDYES) to have a redirect that implies an article exists, when in fact it doesn't and we have no information on the species. The rcat even notes that the practice of creating redirects from species names that could be articles is strongly discouraged. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume I'm being pinged based on how often I nominate redirects as misleading. I don't believe these to be as they are sub topics and relevant to the target while also being mentioned there. I also believe possible search terms can be useful (helpful) and there's nothing stopping the redirects from being expanded.
    To be clear, I wouldn't have responded to the RfD again had I not been pinged, as I do respect that others have a right to disagree and not be badgered for it. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:02, 11 December 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).

2025 Global T20 Canada

[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. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the event typically takes place in July, but there's no relevant information at the target whatsoever, making this a misleading redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 4 December 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).

Something Something for the Advancement of White People

[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 or something something like it. Complex/Rational 20:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this is a plausible redirect, especially since the reference linked is...someone's livestream? Even if the term were somehow mentioned, that doesn't mean anything, as searching yielded precisely zero results (not sure if G1 would apply (let me know if otherwise), which is why I'm doing this instead). Procyon117 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something Something Delete this Redirect doesn't make even a modicum of sense or plausibility Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply stated. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 20:41, 5 December 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).

Unmentioned Doom II enemies

[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. ✗plicit 14:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you know what? return to red per nom. h*ck knight and arachnotron aside, i think the others have at least a bit of a chance of being articles someday... in around 5 years, give or take cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan: Just so you know, I added one more redirect which I forgot to list. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
same case applies cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:01, 4 December 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).

HammerHead (company)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#HammerHead (company)

Future season redirects not mentioned at targets

[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. ✗plicit 14:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the targets at all, making these misleading redirects for anybody who searches for these. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete this and all the 2025-26 redirects above. maybe clump those noms together too cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:40, 4 December 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).

Dick Tantrum

[edit]

Name not used at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

legally rename him to "dan ticktrum" to at least make it an anagram... and then delete as vandalism anyway cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not seemingly intentional vandalism (the stated rationale was: "He is referred to as this by some social media users"). But while this does have some presence on social media, this derogatory nickname has no documentation I can find in reliable sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Technician. mwwv converse∫edits 12:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Definitely not vandalism, google does confirm that this nickname gets some use. Not a lot of use, but it does get use. Redirects do not require the same level of reliable sourcing to be useful... confirmed usage alone is enough, if the redirect would assist in navigation. That is to say, are people using this nickname without it being clear who is being spoken about? Well, no. Every instance I can see using this name also includes the real name for clarification, or is in a context where the target is very clear. As such, I'd normally just say delete and get on with it, but then I waffle because sometimes these kinds of nicknames can become more memorable than the real name, particularly when the real name is unusual in English, and I think "Ticktum" qualifies as unusual enough to be harder to remember. Consider my !vote to be mostly neutral, with an ever so slight lean towards keep. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User had multiple edits that were reverted for being unconstructive and created The Most Famous Barbadian for humor so this particular redirect does resemble a vain attempt in juvenile humor over an actually constructive redirect. MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still gonna WP:AGF and evaluate redirects on their own merits, regardless of who made them. Fieari (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 SA20

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#2026 SA20

2026 Bangladesh Premier League

[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. ✗plicit 14:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No relevant information at the target, making this is a misleading redirect. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: given the 2024 season was just inagurated its WP:TOOSOON for 2026. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:27, 4 December 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).

Damehar, Himachal Pradesh

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Damehar, Himachal Pradesh

National Kabaddi Association

[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. ✗plicit 11:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to delete these. Neither association is mentioned at the target page. These seem to be the former names of defunct or renamed/reorganised associations. There are already various confusingly named organisations involved in the sport of kabaddi. See the World Kabaddi and Kabaddi World Cup disambiguation pages, for example.

As best I can tell, the National Kabaddi Association did exist (founded in 1992) and is defunct. It is only linked in the articles about two teams (from Scotland and England) that formerly belonged to it. There also appears to be a "National Kabaddi Association of Ontario" (Facebook page here) and a "National Kabaddi Association of Canada" (Facebook page here). There is one mention of "National Kabaddi Association" in Kabaddi in Canada (about an unfortunate event in 2023), but I think the Canadian associations are different from the earlier association that had a national team from Scotland and a national team from England.

I would be tempted to think that "International Kabaddi Association" refers to the International Kabaddi Federation (IKF), but it doesn't seem to. It is only linked in two articles. One of those talks about a player in an event held by the association in 1993, which is more than a decade before the IKF was established. The other one provides no clear indication of why it is linked.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments yet, going again!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:23, 4 December 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).

O'Doyle Rules

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#O'Doyle Rules

The Scream (Greek TV miniseries)

[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. ✗plicit 11:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird cross project redirect to the Greek Wikipedia. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:4786:8BAE:11B2:46A7 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also okay with restoration and subsequent listing at Articles for Deletion; I doubt Lenticel or the IP nom would have any qualms with that. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issue on my end if there's a WP:BLAR problem. --Lenticel (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA: Why do you think the article should be restored? Have you found evidence that it may have notability? -- Tavix (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked, but RfD is for discussing redirects and shouldn't be used to backdoor-delete BLARed articles in the page history. C F A 02:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, RFD shouldn't be used to delete redirects with notable articles in its page history. If it's obvious that the article isn't notable, that's something that can and should be handled here in order to save a second discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history - take to AfD or delete directly?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. nothing worth keeping, we're not doing this again. afd is for articles, rfd is for redirects, and blars are redirects. surprisingly, restoring content that violates policies on quality and original research... violates policies on quality and original research cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT it up and start anew. Huffington Post is a good start and is even allowed per Wikipedia:RS/P for anything that isn't political. Indiegogo, on the other hand Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:06, 6 December 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).

Adimo

[edit]

This name isn't mentioned in the current revision of the target article. Page history shows that it used to mention Adimo when the Adimo article was moved to its current title on February 19, 2014. In order for this redirect to be helpful, Adimo must be mentioned somewhere in the target article again. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified on this discussion at the target and creator talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted "Adimo is the first human, and Heva the first woman, in a creation story." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⚭/equaric unicodes

[edit]

anon IP changed status quo of the Achillean/gay symbol. But the gay men and lesbian pages don't mention the unicodess specifically, only the image. Also that also means sapphism in general. --MikutoH talk! 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1st, Retarget 2nd to Lesbian I see that lesbianism is the primary subject to the second and the first redirects to the primary subject. Kolano123 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be consistent with ⚤. I also noticed that ⚣ never had the current target before, but the gay men page didn't exist when it was created. They were retargeted two times by Leif Runenritzer and Kwamikagami. Also @Gaismagorm: Any comment? --MikutoH talk! 03:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'd say Keep second and Retarget first to LGBTQ symbols since I feel like nobody is gonna be searching up the unicode symbol and looking for the article on gay men or lesbian, and instead will likely be looking for info on the symbol itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Gender symbol#Sexual orientation and gender politics. That's the article about the gender symbols, and that's the article with the most information on these two in particular. If anybody searches for these two symbols, they will get the most information from the Gender symbol article. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to LGBTQ symbols: My first thought was to retarget them to achillean and sapphic, respectively, because they're technically more correct. My second thought, though, was that those two terms are comparatively obscure and most people searching using the symbols would, in fact, probably be looking for gay man and lesbian. My third thought was... how likely are those to be actually used as search terms? Probably not very. Finally, my fourth thought, upon reading Gaismagorm's comment above, was that, yeah, in the unlikely event that someone copy and pastes those symbols into the search bar, they are probably better served by the article about the symbols themselves, rather than what they represent. Gender symbol would also work because it basically contains the same content, but I think LGBTQ symbols is slightly preferable because it's somewhat more narrowly focused and would probably leave readers less confused. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 AP Poll

[edit]

Seems ambigous but I'm not totally sure what would be a better target. Could refer to 2024–25 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings, 2023–24 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings, 2023–24 NCAA Division I women's basketball rankings, 2024–25 NCAA Division I women's basketball rankings. But college football is the only one that only uses 2024. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Field (Seattle)

[edit]

Ambiguous title which does not have any mention at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous athletic field at the site variously called Athletic Park (Seattle), Athletic Field (Seattle), YMCA Park, Y.M.C.A. Park, etc.
The original reliable, secondary sources surely exist for these names in the back issues of the original newspapers. I have not yet had a chance to expand the article.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma-Aminobutanol

[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. ✗plicit 11:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target is an aldehyde, a derivative of butanal, not a derivative of an alcohol, butanol. These names would refer to 4-amino-1-butanol, but the Greek letter prefixes aren't used for alcohols like that. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll go through and make all the appropriate alt name redirects, but these don't belong. These were created via AfC by an IP request. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 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).

Bandahara

[edit]

(Procedural nomination on behalf of Ariankntl Mdewman6 (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)). I propose that the redirect Bandahara be deleted or replaced, as the current redirect to Bendahara is inappropriate. "Bandahara" refers to a specific geographical feature, Mount Bandahara in Indonesia, while the title of Bendahara in the context of traditional Malay government is generally no longer used in modern government structures. The two are entirely unrelated, and this redirect may confuse readers seeking information about the mountain.[reply]

I suggest deleting the redirect and allowing Bandahara to become an independent article about the mountain. Thank you for your attention. Ariankntl (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably oppose, alternative suggestion - does this re-direct fall under the Reasons for not deleting 2,3 and 6? Would the better alternative not be a disambiguation page? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting "Bandahara" to "Bendahara" is inappropriate because the term "Bandahara" is more relevant when associated with Mount Bandahara. A better solution would be to direct "Bandahara" to an article about the mountain. This ensures that the information provided is more accurate and meets the user's search expectations. Ariankntl (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove that it is more relevant? I think in the grand scale of things very few people will go and look for either article. I generally would not care about this topic, but someone posted it on my talk page. I note that I created "Bandahara" in 2014, and the "Mount Bandahara" article was created this month - I think this probably points to how important these articles looking at the greater picture - I don't think the generic user is looking for either of these. I think my points under reasons for deleting still stand. However, a disambiguation page might be better for the user to point to the correct article. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Goodness

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11#Thank Goodness

X.

[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 💬 09:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless redirect. There are no topics on X (disambiguation) referred to as "X." GilaMonster536 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's not pointless, there's a point right there smh smh smh
delete per nom. don't think middle names starting with x would cut it either cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:55, 4 December 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).

Child suicide bomber

[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 Suicide attack. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child suicide bombers have been used in multiple conflicts by multiple groups. This redirect has pointed to this page since 2005-ish and is apparently the result of a page move, so I don't feel comfortable unilaterally retargeting. (The page it points to originally referred to the concept of child suicide bombers in general, as per earliest revisions - [1]) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose as the new target? Children in the military? Suicide attack? I couldn't find a lot of options to choose from. - Ïvana (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure. There's a valid argument to be made for both, and I still haven't made my mind up. I just know that the current target is...less than acceptable and I was hoping that wider community discussion would make things clearer. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to suicide attack per above. Not mainly a military thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to suicide attack per my original suggestion/question and the above comments. The other article does mention that it includes non-state armed groups, which presumably covers groups that are not strictly military or have at most some military components (like liberation movements), but the title doesn't reflect that, in my opinion, so this seems the best choice. - Ïvana (talk) 03:35, 5 December 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_4&oldid=1262827504"