Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 3

January 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 3, 2022.

User talk:Archive 2

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Archive 2 → User talk:Samak/Archive 3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Left over from obviously erroneous page move. HotdogPi 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 3 January 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.

Dawn (The Weeknd album)

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) feminist (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn (The Weeknd album) → The Weeknd#2021: The After Hours Tour and The Dawn (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The album is actually called Dawn FM -- no need for this redirect. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination above. PopLizard (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it's too early to be sure, it seems highly plausible that someone will mistake or misremember the name of this album to be "Dawn" rather than "Dawn FM", so this seems like a useful {{R from incorrect name}} given that the target is unambiguous and the naming format exactly what would be used if it were the correct name. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep targeting Dawn FM per Thryduulf. Note that the redirect was retargeted there after this discussion began by the nominator. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Thryduulf, plausible search term. AshMusique (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep targeting Dawn FM per all "keep" !voters above. It's a perfectly plausible way to search it, as someone might refer to it as "Dawn" and forget the "FM." No reason to delete it. Regards, SONIC678 18:41, 8 January 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.

Miami Gators

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 withdrawn. (This nomination was stricken by the nominator before my close.) (non-admin closure) —GMX^{^{(on the go!)}} 16:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Gators → Back to the Future Part II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Miami Toros were known in 1971 as the Miami Gators. Page currently redirecting to Back to the Future Part II based on the appearance of a fictional baseball team logo in the movie. This should either redirect to the Miami Toros or disambiguate to both subjects. dashiellx (talk) 13:40, 3 January 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.

Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights

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. I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights → Women's Declaration International (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Declaration on women's sex-based rights → Women's Declaration International (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too verbose to be plausible. Qwerfjkl talk 12:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has an entire section dedicated to this exact declaration, and this is an extremely plausible search term for someone searching for that information. "Too verbose" is both entirely subjective opinion and completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as entirely plausible, as it's in the article as outlined above. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least one of them (as they only differ by capitalisation and search is not case sensitive). Plausible search term. Relevant target. No good reason to delete.--DanielRigal (talk) 16:09, 3 January 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.

Alice Springs Golf Club Northern Territory

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Springs Golf Club Northern Territory → Alice Springs Golf Course (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible search term. Qwerfjkl talk 11:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an {{R from move}}, but it was moved by the original author 11 minutes after creation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please Google things before calling them implausible search terms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:02, 9 January 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.

Estancia Grande

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Estancia Grande

Third Republic of Texas

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 all. -- Aervanath (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third Republic of Texas → Republic of Texas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fourth Republic of Texas → Texas in the American Civil War (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fifth Republic of Texas → Republic of Texas (group) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

For Third Republic, not mentioned at the target or History of Texas, no hits on Google Scholar, and an internet search primarily returned results about the "Third Republic of Texas Flag", that is to say about the third flag and not a third republic. There appears to be some usage of this phrase based on a Google Books search, but it's not clear from the snippets I was able to read precisely what era of Texan history the segments were referring to. Meanwhile, I was unable to find any usage of Fourth or Fifth Republics of Texas anywhere. Delete unless evidence of this phrase as an alternative name can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 09:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. SnowFire (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there might be a Paris, Texas, Texas is not France, and there are no Third, Fourth, and Fifth Republics of Texas. Delete as obscure synonym. snood1205 20:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Third Republic of Texas". I don't agree with the nominator that the gbook results are ambiguous. They unambiguously identify the 1836 declaration of independence as the third republic. This book has it in a chapter sub-heading after "Texas Declaration of Independence" and the date is clear in the text. This book says; "The Texas Revolution of 1836 was by no means the first to take place there, and the government established following the Revolution was the third Republic of Texas , not the first." Again, unambiguously 1836. SpinningSpark 22:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at delete for the fourth and fifth Republics, but still at keep for the third. Texas was very briefly an independent state in the time between leave the Union and joining the Confederacy. So in theory it could be designated a fourth republic (but more likely, a second), but in the absence of evidence of sources calling it that, or a mention in the target article, a redirect does not make sense. Likewise, there is nothing in the target that mentions fifth republic or that the group use the term. SpinningSpark 14:26, 6 January 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.

Versions of the Bible

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. Of the four keep all !votes other than StAnselm's, only one, DanielRigal's, explicitly addressed Editions of the Bible, where StAnselm created a SIA. Thus I note that the consensus with respect to that redirect is not as strong as with respect to the others, and remind StAnselm that no RfD consensus can ever preclude an editor from turning a redirect into a content page if they see fit, although RfD's lack of interest in a SIA may foreshadow AfD rejecting one. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the Bible → Bible translations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Editions of the Bible → Bible translations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Bible, Versions of the → Bible translations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Bible version → Bible translations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Bible versions → Bible translations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Version of the bible → Bible translations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The wording is too vague to redirect to such a precise concept. Moreover, there exists editions and versions of the Bible which are not translations:

for the New Testament (NT), there is for example the Novum Instrumentum omne, the Westcott and Hort, the Novum Testamentum Graece, and the Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (the latter contains the original Greek of the NT and the Nova Vulgata translation)
for the Old Testament there is for example the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Biblia Hebraica Quinta, the Mikraot Gedolot, or Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (the latter contains only the Samaritan Pentateuch).

I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Moreover, there exists editions and versions of the Bible which are not translations Signed, I Am Chaos (talk)

Keep all: in this context, "version" is a synonym of "translation" (in the sense of what is produced), and these are useful search terms. St Anselm (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: you said Keep all, but half of the nominations are not with "version", but with "edition". Veverve (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one. Yeah, AFAIK, "edition" is never used in reference to Bible translations. St Anselm (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only one, sorry. I guess you do do not want to keep Editions of the Bible then. Veverve (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it could be a disambiguation page linking to the articles you've mentioned.St Anselm (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done St Anselm (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per StAnselm. ― Qwerfjkl talk 12:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. These are very plausible search terms for the content that is at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as plausible search terms. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. It is quite plausible that somebody might search using the word "versions" or "editions" instead of "translations". We still want them to find what they are looking for. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:26, 3 January 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.

Wikipedia is the worst

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the worst → Criticism of Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target is relatively unexpected. It's not necessarily WP:SURPRISE, but people searching this would be unlikely to want an article on Criticism of Wikipedia. I do not really see an effective place to retarget it to, so I'm arguing in favor of deletion. (Note: there was an RfD for this in 2010 where the result was delete; the page I nominated is a different iteration of the page). snood1205 15:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a particularly notable expression; unexpected search terms. —Paleo Neonate – 19:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bridgeplayer in 2010. As it is where what is bad about Wikipedia is expounded -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we are going back to the 2010 deletion, per "Delete - This is an "X is an instance of Y"-type redirect, not unlike redirecting the name of a painter to the article Painter. If "Wikipedia is the worst" was a quote or something mentioned in the target article, then I would support the redirect; it appears, however, just to be a random criticism (and, therefore, an unlikely search term). -- Black Falcon (who then commented that it was really just a negative assertion). Doug Weller talk 17:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also per User:Tamzin. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A) No harm in keeping the redirect B) Some would say this process and repeated efforts to remove something are examples of the redirects text. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible search term, and one that would justify the creation of many, many, many other implausible search terms.. Would we be okay with every possibe combination of <sometimes-criticized entity> is <way to say "bad">? Facebook is really bad, America is no good, Marriage is so dumb? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tamzin ― Qwerfjkl talk 12:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tamzin. It would be different if we had any encyclopaedic coverage of this phrase but the only mentions are on talk pages and are a mix of unhelpful criticism, hyperbolic criticism that had the potential to be useful if specifics had been given and specific comparisons of various things in which Wikipedia happens to be the worst in some respect of the things compared. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tamzin's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible redirect. Had the phrase been discuss through reliable external sources then I would vote keep. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks fine as is. – SJ + 04:02, 6 January 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.

Isabella of Jerusalem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Isabella of Jerusalem

Wikipedia is not a forum

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 12:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Inappropriate redirect to project space, delete per similar such as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_10#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XNR non-encyclopedic content -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this is kept, it should target Criticism of Wikipedia -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CNR K3. It's unlikely this would be a term used by a user searching for an actual article on the topic, as it is a specifically wikipedian phrase, so while CNRs are not always desirable, in this scenario WP:CNR K3 seems to override D1. snood1205 14:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. The target page does not have similar redirects for other things Wikipedia is not, except for Wikipedia is not a crystal ball which I will nominate after this RfD is closed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the mainspace and the rest of WP should be separated; most people on Wikipedia are readers, not contributors. Veverve (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cross-namespace redirects from article space to project space are, with very few exceptions, only appropriate when the target is something that is of significant benefit to readers or to very new editors who cannot reasonably be expected to have learned about namespaces yet. I don't think the guideline about Wikipedia not being a forum is an example of something that falls into that category, nor can I think of a reason why it would be an exception to the general rule. Thryduulf (talk) 02:13, 10 January 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.