Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2022.

Donegal, Ireland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Donegal, Ireland

The jews[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. No comprehensible deletion rationale was provided, and everyone voted keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason for this redirect to exist. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not an optimal place to link to in an article, but it does seem like a plausible search term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:59, 29 September 2022 (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 gays[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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason for this redirect to exist. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget The gays. This is a well-used redirect from a likely search term so there is no cause to delete. My gut feeling is that there is a better target but I'm not sure which one. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an implausible search term IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are there really significant number of people who put the word "the" pointlessly in front of the word they're searching for? Comment Since the Gay article has the word "the" in it, if someone really does type "the gays" into a search box, aren't they going to be lead to that article anyway? Question Don't search engines ignore words like "the" and "a"?Largoplazo (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless better option is provided. Plausible search term and is getting page views. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gays is added to the discussion, and I too think that it definitely goes to the correct target as a {{R from plural}}. The only other "Gays" at dab page is Gays, Illinois, which would be an WP:ASTONISHing target. Keep. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is changing the scope of the discussion; I have no objection to gays redirecting to gay. I just don't think there are that many people putting the definite article in front of search terms (as Largoplazo says) and this seems a bit silly. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects are cheap. The page gets an average of 10 visits per month, so in the absence of a specific problem, I suggest keep. ---Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to Gay (disambiguation) as {{R from search term}} -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: the term has about 10,000 hits on Google Scholar. Seems like a plausible search term. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: added Gays above for thoroughness. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said above, I will note that this is changing the scope of the discussion. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2022 (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.

Bela River (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Bela River (disambiguation)

He Who Craves[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 23:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no relevant results in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - mascot is “The Craver”, but I cannot see any references to him as "he who craves", and it's more likely than not just a meme/joke without any importance. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above – QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2022 (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.

Draft:Tropical Disturbance 40L (2022)[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 23:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was a short-lived area of disturbed weather that quickly dissipated; not noteworthy or useful as a redirect, no mention of it in target article. Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore: This draft was BLARred without an explanation. While the page at the state it was BLARred in didn't have much, it's also in draft space. TartarTorte 19:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I can see an argument for restoring it, this topic does not qualify for an article and there is no corresponding mention at the redirect target. There were no edits to the draft from when it was created in May until it was redirected, so it was headed for a G13 deletion anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TornadoLGS. Non-notable invest that does not warrant an article nor a redirect of its own, even if it's in draftspace. CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 6 October 2022 (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.

Rebecca Rotzler[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 23:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. N.b. an article at this title was previously deleted following this AfD signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and allow Search to find the 2 articles with a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2022 (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.

Soniku[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Soniku

Gcatholic.org[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. BD2412 T 21:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The original article for GCatholic.org was deleted (as per this discussion) and the redirect put in its place points to an article which is completely unrelated except for its very last line which states that the person who created GCatholic.org "is a contributor (primarily Chinese language) to the channel." Mesidast (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2022 (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.

All New York Airports[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#All New York Airports

New York Airport[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) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to the problem at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#New York railway station, this redirect is too narrow. To resolve that, I propose to retarget this to List of airports in New York which covers both the city and the state. There has been some edit wars in its history and A7V2 suggested that it is targeted corrected, so I bring it here for full discussion. One other thing that may be of note is that JFK used to be called "New York International Airport". -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per my comments (and others' similar comments) at the railway station discussion linked in the nomination, it is massively more likely that someone using this search term is looking for "the main airport for New York City" than anything else, including airports in other parts of the state (they would be searching for "Rochester airport" or "Buffalo airport", etc). There isn't a single main airport for the city and so we should take them to a page that lists at least the principal ones and the current target does that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed. There is no way to distinguish between NYS and NYC based on this search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved List of airports in New York back to List of airports in New York (state) during the course of this RFD and my reasoning may be found at the move log. If you disagree, feel free to start a WP:RM. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf above and my own comments at the other discussion. If you type this term into a search engine you get page after page of pages about airports in NYC. Google certainly doesn't interpret it as being from the state based on the "questions" it poses for the searcher. If this was New York airports then I could understand, but someone searching this is very much more likely to be looking for "the" airport in NYC. Hatnotes can be added for the other possible uses. A7V2 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep search term more specific the City of New York. (The International Air Transport Association airport code (IATA code) "NYC" is reserved to refer to these three major airports serving it) Djflem (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2022 (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.

Non-toxic[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) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this redirect is opposite of what the title of the redirect means.

"Non-toxic" refers to safe substances.

Whereas "toxic" refers to toxicity and toxic substances.

I suppose it should be re-targeted to Generally recognized as safe (GRAS). —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 13:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think the concept of non-toxicity is best covered at toxicity, as non-toxic isn't inherently a safe substance, it's just not inherently possessing toxic attributes. I think GRAS gets closer to approaching the topic, but it's very US specific. We can tag with {{R from antonym}}. TartarTorte 13:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from antonym}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-toxic would have zero toxicity, so would be covered under toxicity -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from antonym}}. More relevant than GRAS. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:23, 30 September 2022 (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.

Snooze-A-Koopas[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 13:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor enemy in Super Mario Sunshine. No mention in the article and no reliable sources to warrant a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor variation of the character that isn’t mentioned and actually rarely was seen in the only game they came from.--65.93.192.146 (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2022 (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.

Koopa Kicktroopa[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 13:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a WP:MADEUP enemy as I couldn’t find anything on google or on the Wikipedia article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I also can't find anything about this supposed enemy-is it something a fan made up? Regards, SONIC678 01:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find anything either, so this is either made up or so obscure no one has documented it.--65.93.192.146 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2022 (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.

Gu Goomba[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 23:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor enemy from Super Mario RPG. Not mentioned in article and no sources to warrant a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor variant of the character is isn’t mentioned.--65.93.192.146 (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't think of anything else "Gu Goomba" would refer to besides the enemy variant. Let's say someone looks up "Gu Goomba". If the redirect exists, they simply are redirected to a very related article, and continue on. If it doesn't, they will end up on the Goomba article anyways, since it's clearly the closest to what they are looking for, which is one of the primary purposes of a redirect, so I'm going to say WP:CHEAP.
DecafPotato (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned, unnotable. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. Same as the other redirect below; no reason for keeping if not mentioned at target. CycloneYoris talk! 22:04, 6 October 2022 (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.

Gold Chomp[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 23:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor enemy from Super Mario Galaxy. Not mentioned in article and no reliable sources to warrant the enemy a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, both via WP:CHEAP, as well as the fact that someone looking for that enemy on Wikipedia would naturally want to go to the Chain Chomp article. Redirects are not subject to WP:N, otherwise they just, like, wouldn't be redirects, and would be articles.
DecafPotato (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned, not notable. Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. No reason for keeping if there's no mention at the target. CycloneYoris talk! 22:03, 6 October 2022 (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.

Indians[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 procedural close. Nominator has been blocked as a sock of Dolyn. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Indian people. "Indians" overwhelmingly refers to Indian people and nothing else. Privybst (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The first page of google results for "Indians" -Wikipedia features an approximately equal mix of results relating to people from India and Native Americans, along with a single result about the Indianapolis Indians and page 2 is similar. There is clearly no primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. Leave as redir to singular. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if Indian needs to be DABed, so does Indians. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There doesn't appear to be a primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:26, 29 September 2022 (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.

North Dublin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#North Dublin

TorSearch[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 restored article and sent to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page only links to pages with an article. And TorSearch has been blanked by an editor. Hence TorSearch readers are 'lost' when they visit this page. Greatder (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google news returns a few articles from October 2013. Not really enough to establish notability here. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is unfortunate this page might have to go. It has a lot of history. If someone wants to save it, there is still time:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TorSearch&action=history Greatder (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or send to AfD. There is nothing useful in the page history about TorSearch (vs searching on Tor) to the extent that at least the final non-redirect version (I've not looked at all the others) would have been an A7 candidate if submitted like that today. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The information at the target was removed as part of a purge of non-article entries. If the content can be added at a different article, we can retarget it there. I don't know if TorSearch has been discontinued, or if there is more than can be written. Restore and take to AfD per Thryduulf. Agree that the last revision before redirect is not very useful. Jay 💬 05:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the very late suggestion to restore the article so that AfD can deal with it instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go… Should we restore and send to AfD, or is deletion preferable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's unclear whether the subject is or is not notable enough for an article then it is always better to go to AfD rather than RfD, so I've struck my "delete" recommendation above in favour of that course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2022 (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.

Hammer and chisel (tools)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Hammer and chisel (tools)

File:Winterlink Group.png[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created when file name changed. File names now being updated to correct image name. scope_creepTalk 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rosguill: Why was this one relisted? Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2 to 1 seemed like a close enough discussion to merit a single relist. If the balance of discussion is the same after one more week I would close it as keep. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comments above make no sense as it serves no purpose. The name on this redirect is wrong. All the articles and diagrams have updated to use the "winterink" name. The "Winterlink" name is not used anywhere on Wikipedia in relation to any of the Red Orchestra articles. Winterlink is a not even a Dutch name. It is a simple spelling mistake I made when I created the diagram. Winterlink is not used anywhere and is not mentioned in the People of the Red Orchestra. It serves no purpose as folk are not going to search on a non-dutch name. scope_creepTalk 23:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the picture had ever been in use, old revisions of certain pages will show up redlinks instead of the actual diagram wherever it had been in use. Further, if it is deleted and in future a "Winterlink Group.png" is uploaded in the now-vacant title, old revisions of said pages will show up a completely irrelevant picture. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. No clear benefit comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could perhaps have been deleted as G7 as the original uploaded has requested deletion after another moved it as long as the file links were made by the uploaded but as others have !voted keep that's moot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2022 (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.

Black K[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Black K

New York railway station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#New York railway station

Stanley (Cars)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Stanley (Cars)

Three Guys 1 Hammer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#Three Guys 1 Hammer

Ethereal plane[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 Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)#Ethereal Plane. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this should point to the Dungeons & Dragons usage (Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)#Ethereal Plane) rather than the current target, as it only uses the term "ethereal" in the hatnote and the see also section (plus a "in popular culture" section I removed because it was redundant to said see also section). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Ethereal' has been in common theoretical/metaphysical/religious/spiritual/mystic/esoteric/occult usage for decades as another spelling of 'etheric', which if you'd actually searched you'd find as many or more results such as from New Age authors decades ago. It's like 'Scotch' & 'Scottish, 'matrixes' & 'matrixes' & etc. are both correct... changes should be reverted (with any necessary fixes)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you able to provide any sources demonstrating this common usage? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reply on the sources so I went hunting. There are some references to an ethereal plane in texts such as this one [1] but reliability of the sources is an issue and it is clear that Etheric plane is by far the more common term. Ethereal plane commonly leads back to D&D per nom., and that seems to be the most common and thus best destination. However I also found a 2005 movie of little note: [2] but if it or a significant book had a Wikipedia page that would trump the D&D claim as it would be the actual tutle. Indeed, it would probably replace the redirect. Etheral plane also shows up in other gaming and fantasy contexts although that may be driven by the D&D reference. Redirect to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)#Ethereal Plane is the best redirect location if we have one at all, and I would be content with that, but given the very wide range of usages of this term in different fields, I think deletion is my first preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)#Ethereal Plane. The target fits. BD2412 T 05:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate, per Sirfurboy. Jontesta (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:55, 29 September 2022 (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.

Most massive[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 Most massive known objects and Most massive objects to Orders of magnitude (mass)#The most massive things: 1042 kg and greater. No consensus and retarget on Most massive. Legoktm (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could equally refer to objects outside the Solar System, including List of most massive stars, List of most massive black holes, and List of most massive exoplanets, and just "Most massive" could refer to any article describing the largest of a type of thing, e.g. Largest organisms. Too ambiguous to be good redirects and should be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But "object" need not refer to celestial objects. The most massive of most types objects are much less than 10^42 kg. Simply targeting the Orders of magnitude (mass) article (rather than a specific section) seems like it would be unhelpfully imposing a target on an inherently ambiguous redirect.
Moreover, even celestial objects are less massive than 10^42 kg, e.g. according to the article, the most massive star is 10^32 kg. So targeting a specific section doesn't make sense, because the class of object is not defined in these search terms. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The search term is not limited to celestial objects, but simply "objects" my suggested target lists the most massive objects known - i.e. exactly what is being searched for. Those who are looking for that will be helped, those looking for something else will be no better or worse off than at present so some people win and nobody loses. In contrast with deletion nobody wins, and in some cases (depending on multiple factors) may actually be hindered, there is no question which is the better outcome for the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the question would be what an object is- few people would consider groups of stars, galaxies, etc. a single object, so targeting the 10^42 section still doesn't make any sense to me. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Readers who read that section and decide that none of the entries there meet their definition of "object" are capable of scrolling up until they reach something they consider an object. (and, to be clear, I support retargeting the redirects with "object" there). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we are going out of our way to bend over backwards to try to make these acceptable redirects. These partial title match redirects were recently created, and the creator supports deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? Creators do not own pages, and these are plausible search terms with a clear target that matches exactly what is being searched. Doing our best to help people find the content they are looking for is our job, yet you propose we go out of our way to make finding content harder. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these do not have a "clear target that matches exactly what is being searched" for the reasons I have stated above. I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one (I believe you and I are more often than not in agreement, however), but I believe that few if any users who regularly work with redirects would have created these redirects, but now that they exist, we are trying to shoehorn them in somewhere rather than return to the recent status quo of their non-existence. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that someone searching for "most massive known objects" being taken to the heaviest section of a list of objects ordered by mass will not find what they are looking for then there really is nothing we can do but agree to disagree because I can't think of anything (whether it exists on Wikipedia or not) that could be a closer match. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Users would need to navigate to a subcategory to reach the list articles I mention above, and neither the category nor any subcategory includes the current target. Undoubtedly there are other pages plausibly sought by users not in that category. Again, seems like we should just defer to the search function here- redirecting to a category from a partial search term seems like we are searching too broadly to try to turn a bad redirect into a good one. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that search results are less helpful for finding articles about the most massive things than the category of articles listing the most massive things, especially as search results can be several clicks away (depending on the combination of method used to navigate, device, user access levels, etc). Neither the current targets nor any of the other suggested targets are more or less related to this search term than any other so those arbitrarily highlighted articles not being directly in that category is not at all relevant. If someone doesn't want to navigate the category looking for what they want they can try searching again using a more specific search term - i.e. exactly as they could do if we deleted it so its again a choice between an outcome with some winners and no losers versus one with no winners and some significant losers. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we should be bringing users to a page that at least includes lists that actually use "most massive" in their titles; the links available to users reaching the target is certainly relevant to choosing a redirect target or whether we should have a redirect at all. I just don't see how bringing users to a poorly populated category is more helpful than search results to a majority of users. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We must credit readers with some intelligence - if they are searching for "most massive" then arriving at a page of links to things which includes in its contents various things that are the "most massive" will not be a WP:SURPRISE even if the page title doesn't match their query. If it were otherwise then nearly all redirects from alternative titles would need deleting. On the other hand, as explained, if they aren't looking for that then they are either exactly as able to or more easily able to (depending on their devicem how they arrived at the target, and their access level) find what they are looking for or search again. This is especially the case as search results for "most massive" are less helpful than the category. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be no consensus thus far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 23:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with thanks to Mdewman6 for the detailed explanation why the suggested retargets are poor at best and harmful at worst. -- Tavix (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given nobody else has managed it, perhaps you can explain how taking someone looking for a list of the most massive objects to a list of the most massive objects is harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not a list of the most massive objects, it is a list of examples of things with various masses. First we would need to assume users mean astronomical objects, but there is not complete agreement as to how far the definition of astronomical object extends. Perhaps a user would agree that Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall in an "object", which at 10^49 kg appears in the section suggested for retargeting. But these redirects are plural, so users brought to a list would expect to see more than just the most massive example of whatever they would agree is the most massive type of object. The problem is that this higher-order organization of the structure of the Universe is more often thought about in terms of size (light-years) rather than mass. We have List of largest cosmic structures but not List of most massive cosmic structures. If we are hell-bent on having these as redirects, retargeting to galaxy filament would IMHO be superior, as at least there is some support that these are the most massive objects in the Universe, but again there is debate about that. If there was page history here we were trying to preserve, I would better understand the desire to find a suitable target for these, but given that these were recently created, the ambiguity surrounding these search terms and the lack of an obviously correct target implies to me the best course of action here is deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the search terms that restricts the searches to astronomical objects, it's just that astronomical objects happen to be the most massive objects (by pretty much any definition of object). The suggested targets take people search for the most massive (objects) to a list of things that are the most massive (objects) - I don't understand what on earth could be more relevant. If astronomical objects is not what you have in mind then you can scroll the list to find the most massive of whatever you are thinking of or you can scroll again - the results I see when searching are much less useful. See below for why Galaxy filament is definitely a bad target. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listed terms are very natural and plausible search words, so I would oppose deletion if there is agreement on better targets. Retarget the objects to Orders of magnitude (mass). While refining to the last section is a logical thing to do per Thryduulf, I don't think readers are looking for "The Most Massive Object", but a page that has comparative content on massive objects, and an ascending or descending order is a bonus. Going to the last section and scrolling upwards is not intuitive. Retarget most massive to the superlatives Category per Thryduulf. "Massive" without reference to an object is a figure of speech. It could be big, large, huge in appearence, spread in area, gigantic in experience, etc. Readers who may or may not be familiar with categories, have a starting point there. Jay 💬 17:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing users searching for "most massive objects" to the top of the orders of magnitude article where the first table they encounter lists subatomic particles and the like would be far too WP:R#ASTONISHing. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The astonishment will wear off once they realize what the page is about! Jay 💬 02:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the wrong category for most massive. I had seen Category:Superlatives, and wanted to suggest that, and thought it was the same Thryduulf had suggested, but apparently not. Jay 💬 11:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Orders of magnitude (mass), which is a good target for these search terms. Admittedly, it's not a list of the most massive objects, but it is at least close enough to get a reader on the right track if this is what they're searching for. Second choice: delete. I think Category:Lists of superlatives is too tangential and too full of irrelevant things to be an appropriate target. Strongly oppose keeping the current target, as it is very misleading – a reader who searches "Most massive known objects" and is taken to List of Solar System objects by size#Most massive known objects may easily be led to believe, incorrectly, that the Sun is the most massive known object. It isn't, regardless of how you define "object". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any comment regarding my suggested compromise of retargeting to galaxy filament? Mdewman6 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Galaxy filament would be both a very surprising and misleading target for someone using any of these search terms, so I don't support retargetting there. They are described as the "largest known structures" and as "massive" but according to Orders of magnitude (mass)#The most massive things: 1042 kg and greater they are not the most massive known objects - if you define these as objects then the more massive Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall at least is too. If you're just looking for "most massive" then the great wall and the observable universe are both more massive. If it's not galactic objects you have in mind then you are going to be surprised and possibly confused at ending up there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall is a galaxy filament, hence my suggestion, and other galaxy filaments are more massive than anything else in that section of the orders of magnitude list. And the universe is not an object. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing in the article about the Great Wall that says it is a filament is its presence in Category:Galaxy filaments, if you don't know it is one (as I didn't) and the article doesn't state they are the most massive objects so if you don't know both those key pieces of information beforehand then you will be surprised and confused - and if you do know them you are extremely unlikely to be using these search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the search terms are too vague and the definition of "object" too debatable for it to be appropriate to redirect to an article about one specific class of things. The target should be some sort of list or topic related to relative masses of different objects. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More formally !voting, although I already suggested something similar above: Retarget most massive to Category:Heaviest or most massive things; Retarget the other two to Orders of magnitude (mass)#The most massive things: 1042 kg and greater. I concur that galaxy filament is not a good target since it inappropriately prejudges the answer to the question* Pppery * it has begun... 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally happy with Category:Superlatives and Category:Heaviest or most massive things as a target for Most massive. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to become so outspoken about this, but in any case, if these are to be redirects, we must assume these partial search terms mean the most massive objects in the Universe because they lack any qualification to the contrary. Perhaps the lead of the galaxy filament article could be edited to explicitly state these are the most massive objects in the Universe. If we're not going the redirect a user seeking to learn about the "most massive objects" to the article about the most massive objects in the Universe, with reasoning that the search terms are too vague and the definition of "object" too debatable and it inappropriately prejudges the answer to the question then deletion is the only appropriate action in my view. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Attempting to kick the can one more/last time to see if any more comments come from this ... and to close the day which this nomination was listed (almost a month ago).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete the 1st as too generic/ambiguous, "Most massive" could mean anything even if the largest known thing to us it may not be what readers want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2022 (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.

Jessie Irene Noblett[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 06:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until today, the target article claimed that Ryan's birth name was Jessie Irene Noblitt; it in the past very briefly said Noblett, while DAB Noblett linked to redlink Jessie Irene Noblitt till today. Also today, I removed the "Jessie" claim after determining it fails verification, and (kinda) sorted out the ambiguity of Ryan's maiden name having been spelled three different ways by reliable sources.

"Jessie Irene Noblett" appears in a number of non-RSes, and sometimes that's reason to keep an incorrect redirect, but in this case it has pretty low pageviews, so I would say on balance the better thing is to delete this and avoid misleading readers who might see it in the search bar. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect and restore "Jessie" as the subjects first name at birth. This book is a reliable source and others exist as well. Readers are not mislead by the presence of this redirect and regardless of page views, it serves the purpose for which it was created.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Cline: Do we have any reliable sources giving that name before Rms125a added it, unsourced, on 2 June 2011? My concern here is citogenesis (cf. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 5 § Harry Randall Truman). In some cases we're forced to keep citogenetic redirects because they're in widespread use, but I don't think this is one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've researched this question rather extensively and: no, I could not find one reliable source published before 2011 showing Jessie as Irene's given name at birth. In fact I could neither find an unreliable source giving the name that was published before 2011. Giving the birth name as Jessie seems to have almost certainly originated in Wikipedia and the matter is made worse as it directly contradicts existing reliable sources (in publication at the time) where the given name at birth was explicitly stated to be Irene. I've stricken my original !vote and will either abstain !voting or append one anew after giving this matter more research and thought.--John Cline (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have found nothing to suggest the name Jessie is anything other than citogenesis. I think that we have to weigh out the harm of deleting versus keeping a redirect based on citogenesis that has made its way into otherwise reliable sources, but it seems in this scenario keeping does more harm in legitimizing a fake name for a person that originated on wikipedia. There is definitely a time and a place for {{R from incorrect name}}, but this does not seem like the place. TartarTorte 13:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the editor who created this redirect, I've come to completely agree with the nominator's rationale and also agree that we should delete it.--John Cline (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2022 (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 Delinquent Road Hazzards[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 un-refine. As the targeted section was deleted, target to the main article which continues to have a mention. Jay 💬 07:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect due to misspelling of "Hazards". Users typing the word will see the correct option anyway, so why double up with redundancy? Delete. TNstingray (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: The Delinquent Road Hazzards are not a reference to the Dukes of Hazzard, at least from what I can see, so it seems a bit odd people would spell it that way; having said that, the movie is about Cars, so the idea of a Hazard/Hazzard pun (or at least someone thinking there was one when there wasn't) is I guess plausible, but not enough to convince me to keep this. TartarTorte 20:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, I hadn't thought of that. In-universe though, they are referred to as the Hazards, so there is no pun intended. TNstingray (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it is a misspelling, the section has been removed from the article. If the characters are determined to be notable enough to stay then I do say a Keep is appropriate. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Delinquent Road Hazards at least deserve a bullet point in the same vein as List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Other characters, seeing as they're responsible for starting the plot of the series, pretty much. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, delete the section. The term is mentioned elsewhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shhhnotsoloud, Blaze Wolf, are you suggesting Keep despite the "Delinquent Road Hazards" section being deleted? Or by Keep are you suggesting to target the List of Cars characters article, and not a section? Shhhnotsoloud, I did not understand Sorry, delete the section. The section was already deleted. Jay 💬 04:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I'm suggesting delete unless they are determined to be notable enough to be included in the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I'm sorry: I meant keep the redirect to the article but without the section. "Delinquent Road Hazards" is mentioned in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:03, 29 September 2022 (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.

2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows)

Bengalinews24.com[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 06:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not mentioned in target article. The said website doesn't even open, probably a non-notable entity has since shut down. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:36, 30 September 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_29&oldid=1116902287"