Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2021.

Dragonspine Mountains[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Dragonspine Mountains

Plains of the Paynims[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 keep. A reference mention has been added, making the nomination rationale moot. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. This likely happened because this was redirected to a target that has since been removed. This has since been retargeted to nothing. Unlikely search term and unlikely to be expanded due to a lack of sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have added a mention at the target. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It appears at the target now. Fictional location in a major setting, so I think it is not that unlikely as a search term.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Undermountain[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 keep. A referenced mention has been added, making the nomination rationale moot. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. This likely happened because this was redirected to a target that has since been removed. This has since been retargeted to nothing. Unlikely search term and unlikely to be expanded due to a lack of sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have added a mention at the target. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!: It is mentioned in the target now. This is a major fictional location in a major setting, with 10 (!) setting products about it, the last one, Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage listed among the bestsellers (in "Hardcover Nonfiction", mind you, not role-playgames only) of 2018. So this is not at all an unlikely search term! Even though it was decided in the past that there is not enough material to stand on its own, the redirect in its history already contains content based on secondary sources to preserve, so it is not "unlikely to be expanded due to a lack of sources". It was discussed in Feburary 2020 with the result to merge to Waterdeep, not delete it. Then it was decided to redirect, but not delete, Waterdeep here in November 2020 (indirectly overturning the previous decision), but explicitely stating "The page history will still be accessible so any useful content may be merged as appropriate". To delete the redirect now would overturn the outcome of two previous discussions and go against WP:PRESERVE. What would be sufficient reason for that? Daranios (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daranios, in fact if you can find sufficient additional sourcing the article could actually be rebuilt. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, without a longer search which I don't want to commit to at this point, I don't know of more source than were originally discussed. So I don't want to rebuild the article overturning the original discussion at this point. I do want to preserve what exists in the page history for improvement of the Faerûn article (and possible expansion later), and the redirect link for Wikipedia users looking for this prominent D&D location. Daranios (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2021 Washington D.C protests[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. There's a lack of consensus both on the typo and on the general appropriateness of such a general redirect, but the objections based on other protests are, at this time, theoretical. If more notable protests with articles are created over 2021 that make this genuinely confusing, rather than just possibly so, then it can be re-discussed, or the correctly punctuated redirect can be boldly turned into a disambiguation page or set index. ~ mazca talk 16:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad, there have already been other protests this year and there are likely to be more. While the Jan 6 incident is definitely the most prominent so far, it is not guaranteed to stay that way, and it's also more likely to be known by words other than "protests". I think that deletion to allow for search results is appropriate at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with the nom. Too broad. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad. Perhaps a different article (which discusses all of the protests which were and which are to be for this year) can be called by that name.Davidbena (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It's not even spelled correctly: there's no dot after 'C'. We don't have a page 2021 Washington D.C. protests either, so let's delete this one. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to 2021 Washington D.C. protests Then why do even broader redirects like Capitol Riots and Capitol protest is kept when that can mean different things as well? And that rationale is a certain example of WP:CRYSTALBALL. As of right now these riots are the most notable covered topic when referring to this term. This should be kept. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there are other protests in Washington DC this year with articles/significant sections, then disambiguate or setindexify. This is a highly plausible search term and will remain so. A setindex or dab will be much more helpful to readers than search results (which may be several clicks away and are not guaranteed to find what the reader is looking for). Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until something else becomes the "2021 Washington D.C. protests." Whatever the page redirects to on Dec. 31 should be the best known subject by that name. If it's not, this discussion should be had then. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until/unless another notable event describable as "2021 Washington D.C. protests" occurs. For now, its target is pretty unambiguous, and implying that there will be other events is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. However, I would prefer a redirect with the correct punctuation (Washington D.C. or Washington, D.C.), in which case I would argue strong keep the correctly punctuated one and weak delete this one. ComplexRational (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to delete as unhelpful typo because the properly punctuated one has been created. My argument for keeping the newly created redirect stands. ComplexRational (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to 2021 Washington D.C. protests. I would agree with the Keep arguments if the dot wasn't missing from (D.C.) The errant version of this search term should not be kept. JaredHWood💬 21:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delrte per Chrisahn. An implausible typo to make. WaltCip-(talk) 12:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but Move to 2021 Washington D.C. protests. Also, WP:CRYSTAL per ComplexRational and ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅. So far, the Janaury 6th protest is the most prominent one. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 17:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that 2021 Washington D.C. protests has been created. MB 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect for now. What happens, though, when there are other protests in Washington, D.C. during this year? It will require that the redirect be removed from this article.Davidbena (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The correctly punctuated version was created during this discussion, so the "move" part of "keep and move" is moot. Since only one vote acknowledges the other redirect (to be fair, most commented before it was created), I'm relisting in case that affects the opinions of any who have already commented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recommendation to keep stands, as this is a very plausible typo (e.g. note Washington, D.C exists and got over 16,000 hits last year). It should be marked as a {{avoided double redirect}} of the correctly punctuated version though so that when/if that gets retargetted or disambiguated this redirect can be updated accordingly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I marked it with {{R avoided double redirect}} after relisting. --BDD (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Countires of the world[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from misspelling JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good Idea, a google search for "Countires" shows the typo turning up in all sorts of places. The first pages of results in my search included webpages from the UN, EU, gov.uk, multiple universities etc. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bolger station[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 retaget to Montreal–Senneterre train. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Bolger or any station at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A better target would be Whitestone, Ontario, where Bolger is listed as one of the communities. No prejudice against deletion either. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete but I'm not sure what to do with it. Per P199 and this, Bolger is the name of a defunct CNR station located near Whitestone on the CN Bala Subdivision. It's also the name of a VIA Rail station on the Montreal–Senneterre train, but I can't tell if the stop is in service or not. There's enough available information that the station in Ontario could be included in a list somewhere (probably the Bala subdivision article) and I didn't look as thoroughly for the one in Quebec, but our coverage of Canadian heritage railways is pretty incomplete. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is mentioned at Montreal–Senneterre train, so if nothing else, it should redirect there, as it isn't anywhere else. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bedell station[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. If content is added to a section of one of the articles mentioned, this can be freely recreated, but the consensus here is that it is not a helpful redirect if there is no information to point at. ~ mazca talk 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Bedell, or any other rail station, at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedell was primarily a railway operations point and a full article is likely not merited for the station itself. It was heavily connected to Kemptville which was just to the north of it, and Bedell and Kemptville stations are often referred to together. E.g.: this short documentary and this description of the railway operations at Bedell. Unfortunately the article on Kemptville doesn't seem to cover any of the community's 150-year railway history aside from a single brief mention in the history timeline, and this is the main context Bedell would be mentioned in. I would like to improve this but don't have enough references yet to be comfortable making substantial additions to the article, and am also working to flesh out coverage of railway history in the area in general. Having a redirect pointing to the Kemptville article felt most appropriate as any content relating to Bedell station would be added there. In the future this would likely be a redirect to a section. Julius177 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a better target for the redirect would be North Grenville, which is the larger municipality that includes both Kemptville and Bedell, and it actually contains the name 'Bedell'. PKT(alk) 15:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm sure neither of us are against adding content about this station, but in the meantime, the redirect will just mislead and disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BDD. Misleading redirect, station is not mentioned at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 05:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The right to remain silent[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 the first to Right to silence, no consensus on the others. Though most editors wanted the other three retargeted somewhere, there was too much disagreement for me to invoke WP:NCRET. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to retarget all these to the dab page at You Have the Right to Remain Silent (to which I've added a link to Right to silence, the general concept article) as the phrases are not exclusive to the scripted warning used by US law enforcement. I'm not opposed to targetting the first listed redirect directly to Right to silence. Thryduulf (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For reference, here are the page views of related links at DAB "You Have the Right to Remain Silent".—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect "The right to remain silent" to Right to silence, and the others to DAB You Have the Right to Remain Silent. "The right to remain silent" is a generic topic, and "Right to silence" has links to Miranda for those specifically looking for its used in the United States. "You Have The Right To Remain Silent" is a possible proper name and is best disambiguated, as I don't consider there to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that longer phrase.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Right to silence because "The right to remain silent" is synonymous with that title, and the other phrases derive from a fundamental part of law enforcement phrases used widely, not just in the US. Right to silence is essentially the primary topic for all these phrases. (I have added a further information hatnote to Right to silence#United States targeting Miranda warning to assist readers to more readily navigate to that page). I think we also need to go further and move the disambiguation page to You Have the Right to Remain Silent (disambiguation) and redirect the base name to Right to silence as well. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the consensus here is to target the nominated redirects starting with "You" to the general article (something I'm not opposed to) then yes absolutely this dab page should be moved. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, a reader who goes out of their way to actually capitalize the phrase is looking for a proper noun, and should be sent directly to the capitalized dab. That dab should remain the primary topic for capitalized titles without ellipses.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget each according to Bagumba. The first redirect should target the general concept, whereas the others likely refer to the Miranda warning but should be disambiguated from the music entries at the dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all and move dab page per Shhhnotsoloud. Upon further thought I do think making the general Right to silence page the primary topic will benefit the most searchers (with a hatnote to the dab page there of course). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget The right to remain silent to Right to silence, and keep all the others. The Miranda warning is so well known that people outside the only country where it applies can recite it from memory and/or expect it to have legal force in their own countries; it is clearly the primary topic for common variations of its opening lines, not a handful of musical works that also clearly refer to it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all and move dab per Shhhnotsoloud's proposal, I concur with their reasoning. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the nom. Although the Miranda Warning is the primary topic, there are many other uses for that phrase that could fit in the dab page. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's broad agreement that change is needed, editors have not settled on a single solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ôzaru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Ôzaru

Palace of Pranks[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 19:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable location only included in one episode, not mentioned at current target. Already sent to AfD, where the consensus was to delete and redirect. If this is kept a better target would be SpongeBob SquarePants (season 3)#ep60b, the episode where the location was featured, but it's not mentioned by name there either. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Christmas reel[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 The Chieftains 10: Cotton-Eyed Joe. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I can't find any evidence of this being an alternative name online. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to The Chieftains 10: Cotton-Eyed Joe, as the first track on the album is called "The Christmas Reel", otherwise Delete. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Weak retarget to The Chieftains 10: Cotton-Eyed Joe. A recent video by Tom Scott [1] gave the origin of blooper TV shows like It'll Be Alright on the Night as compilations of mistakes made for cast/crew Christmas parties, so it's highly plausible that these would be known as "Christmas reel", however this isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia and I can't immediately find anything suitable to use as a reference to add it somewhere either. There is a song by The Chieftans, track one on their album The Chieftains 10: Cotton-Eyed Joe called "The Christmas Reel", which is the only use on Wikipedia of the phrase and the first hit for me on Google, so we could retarget it there but I'm certainly open to other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:OneClickArchiver[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 Wikipedia:One click archiving. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver. However, there is also a disambiguation page at Wikipedia:One click archiving which is a possible target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the disambig, which will be kept up-to-date (I presume) so we don't have to keep revisiting this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver as it is the current version that most editors will probably be looking for. There's a hatnote to the dab page there anyway. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page per Thryduulf --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SPAMMING[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 Spamming. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to spamming, as this is a XNR without pseudo-namespace. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. This will be a common "my capslock key is on" typo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and add a {{selfref}} hatnote to the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an appropriate XNR, and nothing unique or significant about writing spamming in all caps, so no need to keep an arbitrary, unhelpful redirect in all caps. ComplexRational (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and hatnote per Thryduulf. That would get both readers and editors who forgot the WP: namespace to the page they're looking for. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per SMcCandlish. ComplexRational's "no need" would be a consideration if redirects weren't so WP:CHEAP. Paradoctor (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to spamming per SMcCandlish. I don't see a need for a hatnote here, but I don't mind if it is added. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Don't hatnote because it would be unnecessary clutter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom, no need for a cross namespace redirect. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Standard Offer[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 17:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might be any kind of standard offer, and should not be an XNR. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, absent some kind of article on offer standardization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe retarget to Feed-in tariff, which is apparently known as a Standard Offer Contract in the US? otherwise Delete. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Feed-in tariff as a {{R avoided double redirect}} for Standard offer contract. It's not the only use of "Standard offer" but it is referred to as that, is the single most prominent result when I search, and the only one we have mention of on Wikipedia so it's probably best. Add a {{selfref}} hatnote to the current target though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Any retarget is likely to be ambiguous and to cause confusion. In any case don't hatnote as it would be inappropriate clutter: not every WP policy needs a selfref hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Buenaventura language[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. This is a minor synonym of an extinct language, that's broadly documentable but very marginally "notable" by our usual meaning of the term, leading to a related lack of a decision as to whether it should be mentioned as such in the article. If the synonym had a sourced mention in the article, I think there'd be a comfortable consensus to keep it - similarly, if there was another language that could be demonstrated to be causing ambiguity or confusion with these redirects, I think we'd have developed a comfortable consensus to delete it. As it is, nobody seems to have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, so the redirect will be kept by default as it's broadly reasonable and nobody's really articulated how it's hurting anything. It can be re-discussed if that changes. ~ mazca talk 14:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the article nor the first cited reference indicate this language is known as "Buenaventura". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same for San Buenaventura language. Both are (were?) used on MultiTree, local ISO code [qmc]. That's not worth mentioning in the article, but I created a rd for it for x-ref with MultiTree. Whether it's worth keeping an rd for that I don't know. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added San Buenaventura language to this nomination. Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the redirects is that all language names in various references, including Ethnologue, ISO, Glottolog, Voegelin & Voegelin and LinguistList/MultiTree should take the reader to the appropriate article in WP. The name might not appear in the article if it isn't notable enough, or if the article is just a stub and per WEIGHT you wouldn't want 20 alt names of the language, but at least it will get people where they need to be. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kwamikagami: But it's confusing to land on a page without knowing why you're there (is that an alternative name? Or is it a mistake? Who says it's an alternative name?...). If these are legitimate alternative names there's no harm in listing them, in the infobox, for example. I'd go as far as saying it's important to list them if there's a redirect (if there's a WP:WEIGHT issue then why is there a redirect?). That is the case in other classes of articles, such as for species. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that we'd end up with articles that would be stubs apart from a long list of alt names. And we'd need a long list of sources for those alt names. Not RS's for the language, its grammar, ethnography or literature, but just alt or often mistaken names or spellings in old sources. But that's not what people would come to the article for.

I often get redirected to a biography from an alt spelling with no explanation in the article as to why. I've never found that confusing, and it would be weird to have a section on attested misspellings of the name. Would any reader care that Chosun Ilbo misspelled a tennis-player's name back in 1990? Would we want to clutter up the ref section with stuff like that? — kwami (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But these aren't hypotheticals or misspellings. If Ventureño language is/was known as Buenaventura language then let's say so. Otherwise, delete the redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One-to-one synonyms are perhaps the most valid use for a {{R without mention}}, but I don't know if that's the case here. I can't find anything relevant at "Buenaventura language" -wikipedia to link the term to Ventureño or any other language, nor can I find anything on Ethnologue. The MultiTree page for Ventureño says it was spoken at San Buenaventura mission, but doesn't mention Buenaventura as an alternate name or give a language code qmc. (In fact, Google shows no relevant use of "qmc" from linguistlist.org.) I could certainly see that being enough to call the language Buenaventura, but wouldn't the same go for other languages spoken in places called Buenaventura (ex. Mexicanero)?
My question for kwami would be "Are you certain this is a valid synonym for this language (and not others)"? I trust that you're more knowledgeable on languages than I am. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MultiTree, one of the standard references used by ISO (ISO provides each code with links to Ethnologue, Glottolog, Multitree and now Wikipedia [!] to clarify its denotation/scope), assigned the private-use ISO code [qmc] to the "San Buenaventura"/ "Buenaventura" language back before Ethnologue broke up its former code for Chumash. MultiTree defines [qmc] as the Chumashan language, so its identity as [veo] Ventureño is clear. The fact that you couldn't verify the name supports my opinion that it isn't notable enough to mention in the article. Also, the correspondence in names is obvious enough that it shouldn't cause any confusion.

As for whether I'm certain that no other language has ever been called by one of these names, of course not. But if we come across such a source we can handle in with a dab page or a hat note, just as we would any other rd that we come to find is ambiguous. That's not an argument for deleting the rd. — kwami (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kwami. Remember that a redir does not have to be from a name of something (though MultiTree apparently did use at least one of these that way); it can be for any sensible attempt to find the subject. If you know [San] Buenaventura exists, and know they have their own language or wonder whether they do, your first guessing attempt to find info about this is probably going to be something like these redirects. Mainspace redirs primarily serve the readers' interest, not editors' sense of logic or informational organization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of places called San Buenaventura, though. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are any others associated with a language?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly San Juan Buenaventura, with Mexicanero. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I would argue that it does not actually help the reader to land on a page with no mention of the search term and, apparently, no notability sufficient to warrant a mention. It's just confusing to end up there. If it's not notable enough for a mention, it's not notable enough for a redirect to exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be simply a defect in the text; the fact that Ventura is presently called by that short name doesn't mean it's the only place-name form that has historical connection to this language. MultiTree's use of these as names for this language means some readers will encounter them, so the article should account for them, to ensure that readers actually do know they've arrived at the right page. That is, our goal of reader clarity is the same, but we are somehow not getting to the same answer. Also, "no notability sufficient to warrant a mention" is, as both you and Kwami should know, not actually a valid argument. WP:Notability applies only to determining what may have its own stand-alone article; it has nothing at all to do with what may be mentioned in an article, which is governed by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This name and the old code for it are clearly not indiscriminate, but things that should be mentioned in the article, even if shunted to a footnote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

F. W. James[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 list where list entries exist, else delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Delete to encourage article creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the 4 redirects listed in the nomination
If someone manages to find a list entry for the first two players then consider my delete vote to be a retarget. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @1234qwer1234qwer4: I think these two cricketers for which I suggested retargets are in a different position from the majority of these cricketer redirects because they've specifically judged to not be notable enough for a standalone article and unlinked in the list. Both of these cricketers played in only 1 game and both have sourced assertions that no biographical information is known about them, so there isn't really enough to write a standalone article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aston Martin DB11 (redirect)[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 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from a page move; implausible. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Same goes for the rest like this listed below. These are obviously just editor errors, and not something a reader would ever be looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Giving You the Best That I Got (album) (redirect)[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 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Less Unless (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Like a Virgin (film) (redirect)[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 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Less Unless (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Smoke and mirrors (redirect)[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 speedily deleted by Fastily. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to Smoke and mirrors (dab) → Smoke and mirrors (disambiguation). Looks like context is this and this, an old move discussion closed 5 years ago. Seems like they didn't get many pageviews either. --Pokechu22 (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G7. No longer needed. feminist (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Parachute (redirect)[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 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. @Seventyfiveyears, Tavix, and Drbogdan: Pinging the participants of the previous discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Donald Trump's mental health[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 to change the current target, which seems to be the least-objected-to option in a very divided discussion. It's apparent that either location is reasonable in principle - the section at Goldwater rule has more discussion on the actual topic of Trump's mental health, but in a very specific context. The section at Donald Trump seems to be a rational place to mention this in that context, but there's clearly a different local consensus preventing that at this time, as it's a very full and controversial article already.
The third option - to create an article on this topic specifically - probably receives the most express support in this discussion, but as has been mentioned is rather hard to use as a closure. As the closing admin, I'm neither intending on doing so nor do I have any power to force anyone else to. Suffice it to say, this discussion certainly encourages that as an option, and the success of that option very much depends on the sourcing and quality of the article if someone does choose to take it on. ~ mazca talk 12:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be retarget to Goldwater rule#Regarding Donald Trump per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#Mental health of Donald Trump. Sun8908──Talk 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Jack Upland just deleted the health section entirely. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored most of that. starship.paint (exalt) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly disagree, this should be restored as a separate article, or at least redirected to the appropriate coverage in the Trump article. Redirecting to the "Goldwater rule" would reflect an inappropriately narrow US bias that ignores that the topic itself (i.e. Trump's mental health) is considered highly notable by the whole world. The so-called "Goldwater rule" is a non-binding opinion of just one private association on the individual conduct of American psychiatrists who are members of that association, it has nothing at all to do with the coverage of the material in Wikipedia or the media in general. As long as a stream of experts are in fact both willing to offer their professional expertise on this matter and RS widely cover it, the material belongs in Wikipedia. Many experts have explicitly argued why it's both appropriate, ethical and important to comment on Trump's personality and mental health, and why it's unethical and inappropriate to attempt to obstruct such discussion with bogus, dogmatic postulates about a "Goldwater rule" that fundamentally misunderstand both the purpose of that supposed rule (individual conduct within a particular profession) and its professionally and geographically highly limited scope. We have extensive material on the health and personality of other politicians, e.g. Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, an entire article that rightly completely ignores the "Goldwater rule". As the world's most powerful person during his presidency, whose behaviour and decisions greatly impacted the world, Trump must accept a greater degree of scrutiny than some B celebrity. --Tataral (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article Like it or not (I have some skepticism that it's a productive area of inquiry), mental health of Donald Trump is clearly a notable topic, having received significant RS coverage. (t · c) buidhe 08:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget to Goldwater rule. Donald Trump's mental health is clearly a sub-topic of Donald Trump, not anything else. Either keep, delete or create an article. (Almost no one ever uses the redirect anyway.) Station1 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or delete — Although Trump's mental health is highly relevant to his presidency and thus world history, all the information we have about it is speculative. Unfortunately, that's not enough for a Wikipedia article (not even enough for a section in Donald Trump). At the moment, I don't see a better solution than that section in Goldwater rule. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article - This is my preferred solution since there are several whole books devoted to this subject, including Twilight of American Sanity and The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Until the article is created though, the current redirect to Donald Trump is better than to Goldwater rule. The scope of the Goldwater rule article doesn't even come close to covering all the material from the books that have been written on Donald Trump's mental health. IvoryTower123 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like there would be BLP issues if an article is created for the topic. The allegation or prediction for his mental health has never been proved. Sun8908──Talk 08:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been discussed in reliable sources, Wikipedia is able to report these discussions and any conclusions (yes, no, not proven either way) in a neutral manner so the lack of proof is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article. Not as a matter of personal preference for how to handle the immense amount of material here on Trmp, bit on the simple basis just mentioned that there is sufficient published material to justify an article. I would not necessarily have said this before recently, when the press and public began talking so intensively on alternatives to impeachment) . DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Prefer create article, but short of that, it should redir to appropriate section of Trump's own article. This has nothing in particular to do with the Goldwater rule.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and if necessary provide a link/section hatnote to the nom's alternative target. "Create an article" is a particularly unhelpful !vote since no closer is likely to actually do that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect to Donald Trump#Health until someone can create article. I think redirecting to the Goldwater Rule violates WP:ASTONISH. The content there is primarily about the various psychologists' and psychiatrists' opinions and the surrounding controversy, but the descriptions of those opinions communicate a predominantly negative view of Trump's health. I feel this is implicitly an issue both for NPOV and BLP. Adding a link in DT#Health to the Goldwater Rule topic would be adequate for now IMO, until someone practiced at BLP authorship can write a well-sourced and neutral article on the subject. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 00:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. There's no content about his mental health at the current section, unless you read between the lines and supply some editorializing (i.e., making assumptions about his mental health based on his "finite body energy" belief). Editors have made good points that this is more logically a subtopic of Trump himself rather than the Goldwater rule, but we must consider readers first and make our best attempt to deliver what they ask for. WP:REDLINK deletion would be my second choice. I wish this had been bundled with Mental health of Donald Trump. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Momala[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can mistake a "K" sound for an "M" sound. Furthermore, the second letter is supposed to be an "a", not an "o".  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nickname. I don't think it's going to be a frequent search term, but it's not a simple misspelling. Her stepkids call her "Momala". —valereee (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! The familiar nickname is famous. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Widely known nickname: [2][3][4][5][6]. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 03:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources cited imply "Momala" is used to refer to Harris outside of her family. This may be a well known fact, but I dont think anyone is going to go looking for Harris via Momala. Rklahn (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ahecht and the others. WP:CHEAP. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is her nick name. Many sources have used this, in reference to her children. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: dumb nickname, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete a redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this depends on whether the press uses the nickname as much as Octomom AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Family of Kamala Harris#Cole Emhoff, which actually explains this nickname. We should not be pointing this nickname to a target which does not explain it. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of children of the Vice Presidents of the United States#Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff, which explains the nickname the most of any Wikipedia article and contains a link to Kamala Harris for easy access if that is the article readers are after when searching up Momala. Second choice keep as is, third choice retarget to Family of Kamala Harris#Cole Emhoff. All of these options are much preferable to deletion. I believe that in searching up Momala readers could either be looking for Harris' article or information about the nickname. My preferred retarget contains easy (if not compherensive) access to both. Note that there is a Congo athlete named Chelly Ngoualetou Momala (mentioned twice in WP) but he doesn't seem to be very important – definitely not to an extent where searches for his last name are highly prevalent. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MOS:BADNICK. Private-life pet names and endearments are not encyclopedic material (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE), even if some source somewhere (interview, paparazzi junk, long biographical book, etc.) makes it sourceable. So, it should not be in the article, and we should not have a redirect that inspires people to keep injecting it into the article. (Indeed, they will argue that is is "required" per MOS:BOLDSYN, and thus be trying to pit one guideline against the other, which is not something we would entertain. If the rule to not have pet-name cruft is being followed, then the redirect will not exist and thus the BOLDSYN for it in the article will not exist.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What kind of redirect is this? Does not make any sense. Aasim (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the discussion above? If you did, then you should be able to make sense of this redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Widely documented nickname with no other meanings. This isn't something just mentioned in passing once in an interview. It comes up in pretty much any coverage of the Harris-Emhoff family, which has already drawn much more attention than most past Second Families. It's entirely plausible that someone could see the term "Momala" out of context, not know what that refers to, and search Wikipedia. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A Voyage to the Moon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#A Voyage to the Moon

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_28&oldid=1006009986"