Wikipedia:XfD today

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion
Calvary Assembly
Dawson Memorial Baptist Church
Daystar Church
Draft:Dominic Mule
MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-108
First Baptist Church (Prattville, Alabama)
First Baptist Church (Tuscaloosa, Alabama)
First Baptist Church Opelika
Template:Golden Globe TV Drama/doc
Harvest Church of God
Draft:Bwacha Matudi Saidi
Draft:Jesus Calls Ministry
Learning with Pibby (2020 short)
Lindsay Lane Baptist Church
List of Confraternities in Nigeria
Talk:List of Confraternities in Nigeria
Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk/GA3
Metro Church of God
Nutthasak17/sandbox
Draft:One Piece (fanfic)
Ore Altai
Ridgecrest Baptist Church
Shades Mountain Baptist Church
Talk:Sid Sadique
Draft:Stefaniia Shabatura
Draft:SweatyPedals
The Church at Brook Hills
Whitesburg Baptist Church
Willowbrook Baptist Church

Articles[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 13

Files[edit]

File:Wilfred Rhodes.jpg[edit]

File:Wilfred Rhodes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RachelBrown (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No source information given; replaceable by File:Rhodes bowling front 3.jpg. Wikiacc () 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Between You and Me MusicVideo.jpg[edit]

File:Between You and Me MusicVideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gen. Quon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Screenshot's easy to explain in brief words already. No need to display band members in the video just to identify them there. No proof that omitting the screenshot detriments understanding of the whole song (or music video). May fail "contextual significance" criterion. George Ho (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dctalk betweenyouandme3.jpg[edit]

File:Dctalk betweenyouandme3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Invisible hurricane (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No proof that this cover art is of one of commercial releases. Found one promo-only release using it (discogs). Other (retail) cover art already used. Fails "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stewart Farm - Memoir of Aura Stewart historic marker.jpg[edit]

File:Stewart Farm - Memoir of Aura Stewart historic marker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Notorious4life (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per c:COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama only extends to buildings. This historical marker is dated 2003 and there is no evidence to suggest that the text is freely licensed. As c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs states, "detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs [...] are almost always copyright-protected". ✗plicit 00:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—since the marker originates after 1989, the text on it is protected by copyright. The photo must be deleted to avoid infringing. (As a reminder, state government works like this are not automatically placed in the public domain like federal government works, unless state says otherwise, and Michigan's does not.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash of the titansposter.jpg[edit]

File:Clash of the titansposter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrzejbanas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Remove from Andromeda (mythology). Pretty sure this image fails WP:NFCC#8 with its use in Andromeda (mythology)#In film since the subject of the article is not the film. Readers can just go to Clash of the Titans (1981 film), which is linked at Andromeda (mythology)#In film, to see the poster since the poster meets all WP:NFCC in Clash of the Titans (1981 film). Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The Clash of the Titans is directly discussed and reliably cited in the article, where it l makes a visual point vital to the article. Thee point made by the scholar is that the film can be criticised for casting a white actress (pictured) as the (black Aethiopian) Andromeda, This is important to the article, as Andromeda has a long tradition of being shown as white, and the film is the major modern case proving the misrepresentation has continued. Saying folks can look elsewhere misses the point that the film's poster directly and visceral demonstrates the enduring and still-current image, which a footnote that most readers will skip simply fails to achieve. I have extended the non-free usage rationale to this effect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I agree the rational for that citation, the poster does not really illustrate that point, so I don't know if it is valid here. It does predominantly feature two actors who appear to be white, but it's a stylized image and doesn't represent the cast at large. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing that the rationale is correct. I'll note that the article is not concerned with the cast at large. The article is about Andromeda, who is played by Judi Bowker, the white woman in the poster. The image is ideally suited to the scholar's point made in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twelfth Man Statue TAMU.jpg[edit]

File:Twelfth Man Statue TAMU.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copied from [1]. Now unused. (Unclear if F9 applies because the uploader initially claimed fair use.) Wikiacc () 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ankit Tiwari Photos.jpg[edit]

File:Ankit Tiwari Photos.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nikhilarora0903 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Contains a watermark that doesn't seem to correspond to the uploader's username --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon searching on Google, it wasn't his own work. Delete. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlton logo 1995.jpg[edit]

File:Carlton logo 1995.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghursta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This should be considered to be a fair use file due to its background and since this file isn't used in mainspace, converting it is moot and should be deleted. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wuthering Waves logo.jpeg[edit]

File:Wuthering Waves logo.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ahri.boy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Now superseded by File:Wuthering Waves logo.svg. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harold Kelly Hill Top Dance Hall Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

File:Harold Kelly Hill Top Dance Hall Stark Galleries.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Harold Osman "Cowboy" Kelly (American, 1884–1950) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc () 02:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Day the Mountain Thanked the Sea Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

File:The Day the Mountain Thanked the Sea Stark Galleries.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Dorothy Hood (American, 1919–2000) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc () 02:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawson Watson Landscape Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

File:Dawson Watson Landscape Stark Galleries.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Dawson Dawson-Watson (UK/US, 1864–1939) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc () 02:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edward Schiwetz Academic Building TAMU Stark Galleries.jpg[edit]

File:Edward Schiwetz Academic Building TAMU Stark Galleries.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This painting may still be under copyright; the uploader asserts {{PD-US}} without giving a reason. Painter is Edward M. "Buck" Schiwetz (American, 1898–1984) and limited information on the painting is available online. Wikiacc () 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver Taps TAMU.jpg[edit]

File:Silver Taps TAMU.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo copied from [2], plus the sculpture is likely copyrighted. Claimed {{PD-US}} without justification. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc () 02:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menos TAMU.jpg[edit]

File:Menos TAMU.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The sculpture depicted is copyrighted (as a US sculpture from 1992) but erroneously claimed {{PD-US}}. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc () 02:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victory Eagle Statue TAMU.jpg[edit]

File:Victory Eagle Statue TAMU.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cjethaniuart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photo copied from [3], plus the sculpture is likely copyrighted. Claimed {{PD-US}} without justification. Delete or relicense as non-free. Wikiacc () 02:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:7sealpost.jpg[edit]

File:7sealpost.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrzejbanas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Seems to clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 in Culture of Sweden, given that this image is a poster about the subject at The Seventh Seal. It seems that the only page which this image would meet WP:NFCC#8 would be in The Seventh Seal, but this file is currently not in that article. So, delete unless the file gets put back into The Seventh Seal in a way that meets WP:NFCC. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the original uploader. Must have got this when there was not a lot posters for older art house films. All good for delete vote per the above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anup Gurung.jpg[edit]

File:Anup Gurung.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anupgrung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Anup photoshoot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anupgrung (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned user photos, no foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salehsadman.jpg[edit]

File:Salehsadman.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Saleh Bin Monsur Chowdhury (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Used for self promo on userpage. No other use. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Television logo (1990-1993).webp[edit]

File:Thames Television logo (1990-1993).webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghursta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doubt this is an own work. Permission needed, too complicated to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Television 1997.webp[edit]

File:Thames Television 1997.webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghursta (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doubt this is an own work. Permission needed, too complicated to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hot and Spicy Sweet Potatoes.jpg[edit]

File:Hot and Spicy Sweet Potatoes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BekahTheAngel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Weird border on the right. Possibly a crop. Permission needed. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kitkatextracream.jpg[edit]

File:Kitkatextracream.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WH33LS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused, contains copyrighted packaging. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freshmen shiur 2010.jpg[edit]

File:Freshmen shiur 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Danielfarzan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. Unused as well. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mby-students.jpg[edit]

File:Mby-students.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Danielfarzan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. Unused as well. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fruit Shoot 300mls.jpg[edit]

File:Fruit Shoot 300mls.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cerbera147 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Small, low-res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESC 2024 album cover.jpg[edit]

File:ESC 2024 album cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pdhadam (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image of an album cover is being used on an article about the contest itself and only has 2 sentences of text plus a table about the album. As such, fails WP:NFCC#8 as it doesn't significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the contest. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roger Fortson.jpg[edit]

File:Roger Fortson.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Black Revolutionary 2006 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is already on Commons and has been confirmed to be from the USAF, thus making it public domain. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss-vogeloed-german-movie-poster-md.jpg[edit]

File:Schloss-vogeloed-german-movie-poster-md.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Andrzejbanas (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Public domain, now available on Commons: c:File:The Haunted Castle (1921), poster, 2.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure about this one. Isn't Germany have some very strict copyright laws that could cause issues? Otherwise, fine with the Commons version, but I know things like this can be complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe Andrzejbanas is correct. The signature looks to me like Josef Fenneker (1895–1956), whose works will not be public domain in Germany until 2027. hinnk (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The version on Commons just got deleted. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

California articles missing geocoordinate data[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's no longer a need for these by-county maintenance categories. They were created 15 years ago when the backlog was much larger and separating by county was useful. The backlog has been greatly reduced; at the moment, every one of these categories is empty. (Special thanks to User:Oona Wikiwalker who has added a lot of coordinates recently.) The rate of new California-related articles is low enough that the statewide category is sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but where have the remaining articles been moved to? I can't seem to find them.
And thank you for the kind words!Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oona Wikiwalker: I removed the last remaining articles today by adding coordinates to some and removing the others that didn't need coordinates. There are currently no California-related articles that have been tagged as needing coordinates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trinitrotoluene[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category name should be consistent with the title of the article TNT. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as there are lots of meanings. Unlike articles, where it's easy to find and correct mislinking ("TNT" but not the chemical meaning), cats are less well patrolled, harder to notice, and and create more problems when mis-set. In fact, the original Category:TNT was about the Russian TV channel even though the the chemical article was already at TNT. WP:MOSCAT notes:
"Avoid abbreviations. Example: "Category:Military equipment of World War II", not "Category:Military equipment of WW2". However, acronyms that have become the official, or generally used, name (such as NATO) should be used where there are no other conflicts."
and in this case the name is not "official", just COMMONNAME and there is a conflict. I have no objection to {{Category disambiguation}} or similar solution (I see that Category:Disambiguation categories does have other entries where the eponymous page is a redirect to a better-named article). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals notified of this discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DMacks' rationale. --Leyo 20:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the Oppose arguments. HertzDonuts (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American communists of the Stalin era[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Communists in the United States are not necessarily defined by the leader of another country. User:Namiba 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Western Australia by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing renaming these categories for consistency with the following existing categories:
There are also four other regions (the Gascoyne, Great Southern, Kimberley and Perth metropolitan regions) without categories at present, but I plan to work on articles for as many of Australia's newspapers as I can so I expect these categories to be necessary at some point. The only reason for this nomination is for consistency amongst sub-category names, so I wouldn't be opposed to another naming scheme. This one just makes the most sense to me. Adam Black talk • contributions 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Western Australia notified of this discussion. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ernest Cline[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer of categorization. The "works by" category suffices as a top level parent category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electoral reform in Jersey[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need to differentiate the electoral reform referendums from the others. At the very least, have it nested under the referendums in jersey category rather its own separate category alongside it. Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoruba police officers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. There are MANY Yoruba occupation categories which could also be nominated. Moreover, many of the people in these categories are put their because of their name, not because sources say that they are Yoruba. User:Namiba 14:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Dimadick. Nom seems to ignore the fact that the English term Beringia is also used for a present-day region. That it doesn't usually appear on present-day maps is an argument from anecdotal evidence. If nom could demonstrate that the category arbitrarily mixes up past and present in a confusing manner, that would be interesting to consider for a renaming or split, or something. NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except a spurious touristic source, all sources referenced to are related to prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... wait, I may have judged too soon. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That one source, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/beringia/index.htm, claiming that Beringia still exists today, evidently represents a fringe view not supported by the first 10 other sources I checked. All other language versions also support the idea that it is a region which no longer exists, and equivalent to "Bering Land Bridge". So let's remove that spurious source, and delete the whole category that has nothing to do with the geological, geographical and human migratory aspect of Beringia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Bengal[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok that is a reasonable alternative, but then still the content should be added to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: it should only be a selective merge to that parent, because many of the articles are already in other subcats of that one, and I'm not sure whether the others belong there. I suggest you watch the category and merge any valid missing items yourself if the rename goes through. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input in general would be great, but in particular input on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, per article List of bishops of Macau, Catholic bishops are primarily bishop of a diocese. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16#Category:16th-century_Roman_Catholic_bishops_in_Portuguese_Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Although I'm on the fence about merging to Category:FOO-century Macau people, because not everyone is from Macau. Mason (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category tree is now a big mess.  · There were Catholic bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere but stationed in Macau, some of them as coadjutor/auxiliary bishops or administrators or governors of this diocese. These bishops were not bearers of the title Bishop of Macau although they were bishops who worked in Macau. Further the diocese covered a much much larger area in the Far East. It's only since the 1950s (or the 1980s if the two parishes in Malacca Malaysia and Singapore are taken into consideration) the Diocese of Macau is coterminous with the present-day territorial extent of Macau. From its founding in the 16th century hundreds of dioceses have been carved out from this diocese. The first proposal regarding Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau is therefore opposed.  · Likewise the second and the third proposals for the 19th and 20th century categories are opposed for the reasons as stated above, and that this is also a vote for the restoration of the 16th to 18th century categories. If the 19th and the 20th century categories (and the 16th to 18th century categories as well) were to be merged the target should be Portugal since the territory was over the period a Portuguese province (save for the last twelve days of the 20th century).  · For the fourth proposal on the 21st century category, bear in mind that the bishop does not participate in any conference of bishops or anything similar of the Chinese catholic church, and that the present bishop is not a native of Macau – There is no point to proceed as proposed.  · Overall this is a keep vote (and a vote to clear the mess under the preexisting structure prior to CfD 16 April). 58.152.55.172 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To the closer, this IP is WP:HKGW and has been the one making a mess of this and other similar categories. Mason (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user labelled me as such with no explanation and I simply don't understand why she gave me such a label. It appears she just labels when she's running out of supporting arguments. I took no part in making this mess. The categories nominated in this CfD or the 16 April one were created by other editors, and I'd done nothing to change them. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means purge bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere, but stationed in Macau. If the tree is a mess we simply should have a clean-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a larger categorisation scheme. Moving articles from categories of dependencies to those of the sovereign powers is not uncontested. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough commentary on the proposal to listify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick Do you support the proposal to listify before deleting? NLeeuw (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there are enough independent sources for such a list. Dimadick (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are plenty of libraries full of sources writing about this. But as Marco said, documenting and verifying all that takes a lot of time, so it would probably be best to list the content on a relevant WikiProject talk page. I think the most appropriate would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. NLeeuw (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at WT:JH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American buskers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This was previously discussed and agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Category:American buskers before it was suddenly moved back without any discussion. WP:ENGVAR allows us to use the American English term. Buskers is not a word generally used in the United States. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename in the spirit of WP:G4 but keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QuietHere: as you listed this at WP:CFDS you might want to react as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted when I nominated this for a speedy move in January (see here), the relevant parent category is Category:Buskers by nationality, in which all other entries use that same word. I don't think it makes sense for just one category out of the tree to use different terminology, so I am opposed to this proposal as is. However, I would not oppose renaming the whole tree (and every other relevant category in the greater Category:Buskers tree) based on this given "busking" and "busker" are both redirects to street performance, and I would think it best for all categories to match with that. Plus, I would imagine "street performer" to be a better known, more readily understood, term than "busker". If you wish to extend this proposal to the whole tree, then I will gladly change my vote, but as is I think matching category names is ideal regardless of what terminology is in use. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: option A: merge, three categories for only one article is not helpful for navigation. Option B:delete, the article is already in Category:Emigrants from British India and Category:Immigrants to the Ottoman Empire which seems to suffice. For a citizen of the Ottoman Empire it is irrelevant which specific Indian ethnicities all of his ancestors had. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military history of Lorraine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, Lorraine is a defunct administrative division, meanwhile part of Grand Est. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New South Wales rugby union team players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The two are covering the same team and should be merged. Especially as New South Wales rugby union team redirects to the Waratahs. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Grand Est[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kyrgyzstani politicians of Korean descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there'd no need to diffuse Kyrgyzstani people of Korean descent by occupation. Mason (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per given reasoning. Also only one page in the politician cat 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jules Dassin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for one subcategory of films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Alternative name sounds more consistent with other categories in Scholars and academics by subject Mason (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the page creator. I have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT, this is just one of many topics that the subjects in this category were involved. No objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political linguistics[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/delete. This category contains one page and a redirect, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is an institute Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños within Hunter college. This category is too small to be helpful with navigation right now. Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the upper-level category of City University of New York faculty is for a system of colleges and institutes, and the articles in it should be diffused into the appropriate subcats for each of the different colleges within the system in the same way as categories are done for other university systems. Ideally, all of the articles in the CUNY faculty cat would be diffused into subcats of the different colleges or institutes. Additionally, from what I understand, the centro is housed at Hunter College, but is a separate institute within the CUNY system. Semper Fi FieldMarine (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No objection to diffusion as such, as long as it colleges are big enough to contain lots of articles, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA 2K players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one subject in category Let'srun (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Canadian people (post-Confederation)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between century and confederation status. There isn't a Canadian people (post-Confederation) category. Mason (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the problem is rather in pre-Confederation Canada, when Canada did not yet exist and the term British North America is controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fran Saleški Finžgar[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This entire category tree only has two pages in it: the author and one novel they work, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Notably it has just as many categories as pages). Mason (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fran Levstik[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This category only has two pages in it, the author and the list of their works. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't object to deletion. Thanks for the notification. --TadejM my talk 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fujiwara no Shunzei[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has two pages in it. One of which is the author's work and the other is the author. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Universal Monsters Shared Universe[edit]

A "shared universe" is never discussed at the target article, and is only mentioned within one of the external links. In my opinion this is not currently a likely or helpful redirect in the article's current form, as there is no substantial coverage of a shared universe. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a plausible search term. And honestly the only reason shared universe isn't mentioned is because so much material that used to be in the article has been deleted a few years ago in a controversial rewrite.★Trekker (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The controversial edit by Trekker is referring to my own re-write. On trying to organize the films as a whole proved to be fruitless. Namely they don't cross-over until late into the end of the series and there is no rush to lump them all together as a series until they were marketed on home video. They don't narratively connect (and even when they attempt to, it is very loose). As there won't be any mention of how these films connect in that article currently, I'd suggest we remove the re-direct. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofthepirates.com[edit]

Dead website that was probably fanmade as well. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably not even worth a redirect when alive. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazewaxie: It was not a fansite. It was 4Kids Entertainment's official One Piece site (the privacy policy goes to 4Kids) https://web.archive.org/web/20051001030033/http://kingofthepirates.com/
@Allan Nonymous: would this change if it was revealed that this was 4Kids' One Piece site?
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's... really weird. I mean, maybe it would have changed my mind were it up any time in the past decade-and-a-half but now it's the kind of obscure trivia that's just irrelevant. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created the redirect in 2009, when the 4Kids dub was only a few years old. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention added to One Piece (1999 TV series). Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (feral child and etc.[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound... this nomination consists of every remaining redirect with unclosed parenthesis, of which there are now only twelve. All of these typos are not plausible to intentionally make on their own. Because there's been cumulatively 1000+ or so of these redirect types deleted over the last few months, this nomination seeks to determine whether there's a threshold that makes these redirects acceptable, or if one even exists. Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable. While it's good to have redirects from common misspellings lying around for ease of navigation on Wikipedia, the presence of implausible redirect errors sets unreasonable expectations and portrays the faulty notion to readers that "infinite typo variations are encouraged, regardless of likelihood", when this is not currently the case. For the most part, spelling variations are accepted in redirects; especially with words that are tricky to spell, having a set of titles with minor differences can be useful to capture likely, intentional errors. When it pertains to disambiguation, though, there will never be a time where errors in the act of disambiguation are expected, for any title. While someone might spell a title like Hampster with an intentional (but incorrect) "P", one can generally have 100% confidence that a title with a left parenthesis will contain a right parenthesis, and, as an extension, typing in a title that doesn't contain a right parenthesis will have a 0% likelihood of being redirected to the correct title, as it will never be correctly expected. The disambiguator is Wikipedia's "official insertion" onto the title based on other article names that co-exist here. The tagline's format can be safely assumed as error-free, or if there is an error in the disambiguation, that it will be corrected ASAP without hesitation. Being locked into keeping tabs on any and all errors within this "topic title guarantee" inherited from Wikipedia disambiguation precedent, just because of one (or twelve remaining) bad links on the internet, is just not worth for titles that are one punctuation mark away from the correctness that was already assumed beforehand. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. When typing in to the search bar, the search result will be autocompleted with the missing parentheses. As for websites that cannot handle parentheses, that is, as has been established quite clearly over the last few months, their problem, and not Wikipedia's-- they need to fix their formatting handling. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Note that I !voted delete on the last batch you nominated. This batch I'm !voting keep for the simple reason that they are demonstrably useful to someone... in that these redirects are all getting use (noting again that this is unlike the last batch). They're WP:CHEAP, they're useful, they're harmless. Note that I expressly do NOT support the creation of more of these things, for all the reasons cited by nom, but I don't think we should deliberately go out of our way to break someone's workflow just because it makes our database tidier. If, at some point in the future, these stop getting regular use for an extended period of time, I'd be happy to see them gone. But for now, they get use, they're unambiguous, they should stay. (No offense to nom, by the way, I appreciate getting community input on where the limits are / should be) Fieari (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari. Deletion would inconvenience readers without brining any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary. One parenthesis missing does not justify these redirects when the search function automatically fills in the desired results for anyone searching for them. These are just pointless redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari and Thryduulf, and the previous discussions. Genie (feral child has gone down in use since the prior discussions except that it got over 6,500 hits on March 29, more than some articles get in a year. It's clearly still useful; Wikipedia's mission is to provide information to its readers, not to break things and hope that an external website notices (they won't). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:UNNATURAL typos. The search box fills in the parentheses for you, I doubt anyone is going to type an opening parenthesis, forget to close it, and then hit enter without selecting the correct option from search. As for other websites, that's their problem. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These redirects are not typos for the benefit of people already on Wikipedia, but people navigating to Wikipedia from external sites. Many sites most prominently Reddit, have an issue where the trailing parenthesis is cut off in URLs without some HTML wizardry. The site "forces" users to make these "typos" when you just copy the link sometimes. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think my past self would have (and did) support deleting these. But we come down to yet another delete these convention failing to uphold a challenge on its merits, and so it goes. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and WP:RDAB due to the missing end parentheses. Also, delete per precedence set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14#Conjunction (grammar and etc.. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all — the assertion in the description "Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable." is vague and misleading: it hides the useful truth which is that "At least some of these links are NOT updateable.", for example in IRC chat logs (e.g. for "Address (geography"). Agreed with prior Keep all arguments that a small handful of such redirects are WP:CHEAP. The net-net here is that a small handful are providing more utility (fixing unchangeable slightly erroneous links to Wikipedia, for a smoother Wikipedia experience) than cost. That's also a reasonable standard to apply for future such exceptions (source of link is apparently unchangeable). The arguments for Delete all appear to mostly be forms of the "Perfect is the enemy of good" problem. Tantek (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All links are updateable, through either direct editing, or replacement if locked. The notice that appears on every page saying "did you mean to close your parentheses" would not discourage readers from reaching their destination being just a click away, and encourages the phasing-out of any erroneous links. "Perfect is the enemy of good" does not seem to be accurate when we aren't dealing with an out-of-reach concept of totality; there's no 80-20 about it. This the entire set of titles that are out of alignment with redirect fundamentals, and the problem can be solved with just this RfD. The lack of these redirects will not prevent anyone beyond finding it gone a single time, and immediately finding a new solution in seconds, whether it comes from adding a parentheses to their search term or url, or adding it to the link itself if handy, or generating one's own link. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all if you are going to rescue typos by redirection then why stop with close parenthese. Why not redirect E Mathematical Contant and Genie (ferral child) OrewaTel (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and RDAB, and also per precedence of previous discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 02:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per all above, also a) Aren't these only "getting used" because as people type in names, the auto-fill starts listing results and as they get to the end of the name, but before they type in the closing parathesis, the redirect without one populates to the bottom of the auto-fill box making it most obvious and easy to click on,(but at that point, the correct, full name is right there at the top of the results as well).

    b) It doesn't seem anyone wants to see more of these types of redirects created, so wouldn't deleting help with that? (There are people who literally spend all their time looking for pages to create, and having redirects like this to obstensibly compensate for typos in page names will just encourage the creation of more.)

    Their usage is a false positive, they don't really assist with anything, removing them will not hamper anyone's ability to search, and if we don't want these types of redirects, then we shouldn't be making a special exception to this group just because they exist. (jmho) - wolf 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all based on the fact there are legitimate reasons why people might be visiting these redirects other than simply typos. For example, in Markdown, unescaped right parentheses are interpreted as the end of a URL, so often times when people link these Wikipedia pages in Reddit comments, people will be directed to these sorts of titles. In addition, of course redirects are cheap. --Habst (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all These redirects are explicitly discouraged and would fall under WP:R3 if created today. There is precedent for deleting them, and keeping them would have WP:PANDORA issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per all the other times those redirects with missing parentheses got deleted cogsan (nag me (stalk me 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and these are all likely from external links on sites such as Reddit and are absolutely pointed at the correct targets. These also all appear to be popular enough to get regular use about 5 users a day or so. Genie especially is frequently posted and can get very high daily page views (e.g. 6k a few weeks ago). It does Wikipedia no good to delete it or to force them to make an additional click. Arguments to delete because no one is going to forget typing the closing parentheses or because of auto-fill should be ignored, as the use case for this is almost exclusively linking from external sites. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the formatting issues with Reddit's Markdown language for its posts that is the primary reason for these redirects existing in the first place: [4]. Very few people are using these links deliberately. They are being forced to, and we should've deliberately inconvenience readers because of minor stylistic issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be responsible for creating redirects accounting for bugs in other platform's errors. A bug that has been fixed years ago, from the looks of it, being fixed well before the reddit post was made, as implied. People using old reddit are doing so knowing full well its limitations. So now there's zero surprise that a parenthesis could go missing at the end of a URL, as it's been long-since documented and understood, apparently. The solution is not "allow infinite redirects with botched-up disambiguation because old-reddit users might run into a broken link here and there, despite it being fixed for many years but refuse to upgrade to avoid it"; or, we can stop supporting "Foo (bar" titles due to the pollution it causes on our end, allowing implausible misnomers among redirects, splitting histories and causing messes and clutter that can be simply avoided. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Also in response to the reddit poster's query linked, I tried the second hyperlink on both old and new reddit and it seems to be working fine for me; I'm getting to Paris (surname) both ways.) Utopes (talk / cont) 20:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i hear the error (whatever it actually is) was fixed ages ago cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it does not work for me in Old Reddit either on PC or mobile, with or without RES. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reddit is an absolutely massive website with hundreds of millions of users, so even a small percentage of Old Reddit users represents a significant population. Old Reddit users aren't people who just forgot to upgrade or something, there are real downsides to New Reddit (mainly ads-related) that lead them to opt out. A bug being documented is not equal to the bug being understood and 100% of end users having the technical know-how to avoid it. While not a scientific survey of any sort, anecdotal open-source evidence [5] seems to show that approximately 5% of Reddit users seem to use the older version.
No one is saying that we should enthusiastically encourage or go out of our way to create a duplicate redirect for each page with a parenthetical disambiguator. But for ones that did get created, someone found them WP:USEFUL and where we have proof that they do get use as is the case here, which are two reasons explicitly listed as the #4 and 5reasons not to delete redirects at WP:R#KEEP, where's the harm in keep them? Far more editor time has been wasted trying to delete these than has ever been spent on creating them in the first place. These titles are not misnomers, with only a clear typographical difference and the page histories are usually extremely short. Many of these have also stood a decade or more without any serious issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are pointless, as people are unlikely to be typing in the full disambiguation anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – Many chat programs and similar, when making links clickable, automatically omit a trailing parenthesis, considering it part of the surrounding punctuation, so redirects repairing this are always useful. Gawaon (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Vote changed to delete all, since, as Shhhnotsoloud pointed out (below), our software already handles this automatically, so there is no need for creating or maintaining such links manually. Gawaon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP. Would I have created these redirects myself? Possibly not. Do they do any harm to the encylopedia and/or readers by existing? Also no - as far as I can see, they are practically harmless. I'm not seeing how these types of redirect are problematic enough to warrant deletion, and deletion may well do harm by breaking external links (WP:R#K4). To answer Utopes' point above, we're not responsible for creating these sorts of redirects for every title that exists, but I don't see how deleting the ones that do get created benefits the project. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are exemplar cases of WP:RDAB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity are any of the other examples at RDAB the result of programming error? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Patar knight: I don't know, but arguably Wikipedia isn't here to provide redirects to get around everyone else's bugs. (And anyway ... in old Reddit a redirect that misses the trailing parenthesis gets you to, for example, Harris (surname. The first thing at that page and many others is "Did you mean: Harris (surname)?". We simply don't need these redirects, and already have a useful essay which lists the kind of redirects we don't need. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steel1943 JoshuaAuble (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, noting the nomination has been open for over five weeks, as consensus has yet to precipitate. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TotalMedia Theatre[edit]

No mention of TotalMedia or TotalMedia Theatre at the target article. This is not a helpful redirect as there is no content about this subtopic, and the stub for ArcSoft does not help enlighten readers here. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per PPP Okmrman (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mentions added to target. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⇢[edit]

This refers to birational maps. Right now the target article has a hatnote for three of the arrows redirecting there, but I'm not sure expanding that indefinitely would be the best option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Birational geometry#Birational maps or the more general Rational mapping (which also uses either this or the similar notation ⤏), someone copy-pasting this specific symbol is much more likely to look for what it means than for a generic "arrow symbol" page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient United States[edit]

It's a bad redirect, folks. Remsense诉 08:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the United States weren't a thing in the pre-Columbian era for obvious reasons. A retarget to History of the United States (which does mention the pre-Columbian history, but makes it clear the US didn't exist back then, calling it the lands that became the United States) would also be an option. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Immediately I wish I could be more civil but there is no better way to put in back in 2006-2009 I was a toxic cunt, how I didn't get banned back then is a mystery to me. There are far too many pointless redirects I made back then some people aren't even aware of. That's the main reason I want ALL my editing history gone and start entirely from scratch. And even after recovering I doubt my stance will change. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of the United States - while it may not be an ideal title, the fact of the matter is that if someone is looking for information from the ancient period on the landmass known as the United States, this article is where it is. If they're looking for information on the country from the ancient period, well then they might just learn something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point indeed! I'm honestly split between retarget and delete on this one, both are fine with me. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of the United States per Ivanvector. Deletion doesn't seem helpful, since we have relevant content and it's a plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. The new target is more geographically specific than the current, and is more similar to the target of Ancient Germany. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Ancient United States implies that there was a giant united empire in North America at the time, which clearly didn't happen. Okmrman (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't mind retargeting, but in this case I lean toward deletion because this redirect has received 0 page views from before this nomination. Had it actually been used more often than never at all, I would change my mind about it appearing to be an unlikely search term. If it were to be retargeted though, I would prefer History of the United States. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sucking peepee[edit]

I think the title makes it obvious why. Yes, it's technically pointing to the correct page, but seriously. I doubt "Sucking peepee" is really an encyclopedic redirect to have. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Redirects are allowed to be "unencyclopedic". This is an unambiguous redirect, so it's valid. Fieari (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Being a comprehensible synonym isn't sufficient grounds to include an expression. Yes, redirects are cheap—very cheap—but that doesn't mean we need to go Full Neelix and include every possible comprehensible synonym that no one would ever use. If there are actually instances of people searching for this, I'd be fine with it; but are there? Google Trends says no. (That one spike today is me just checking.) Please delete this, before someone decides that if this works, then so does hoovering hoohaa, lapping labia, tonguing twat, and savoring snatch, none of which are on Google Trends.[citation needed] (Actually, I didn't bother to check; but wouldn't it be something if one of them *is* on Trends, whereas sucking peepee is not? Then what are we gonna do?) Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mathglot. Can successfully get to this target from a plethora of different searches, including but not limited to, Google. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlikely/unhelpful search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • torn between voting to delete based on "peepee" being a general term for the thing that expels the bladder juice (i'm sure there's a better term for that), and to keep based on it being funny
    ultimately though, i'd say retarget them to sexual intercourse or a more general target. can't check for a specific target at the moment, my isp would have me killed within the next 3 hours cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. Jay 💬 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mathglot; we don't need redirects for every euphemism people might invent. And when it comes to sex acts, there are a lot. Crossroads -talk- 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and as plausible search terms, and tag with {{R from colloquial name}}. To respond to concerns in the nomination, redirects are allowed to be unencyclopedic - I’m not aware of a policy/guideline that disallows such redirects, and WP:RNEUTRAL states that perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Arguments have been made above regarding the likelihood of these as search terms — however, google:"sucking+peepee" tells me that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet, and these therefore strike me as plausible search terms (engaging WP:R#K3). The question I’m asking myself is ‘could these redirects potentially refer to articles besides the current target?’ - and, from what I can see, they seem fairly unambiguous.
    Would I have created these redirects myself? Probably not. However, are they problematic such that they require deletion? My answer to that question is no — and therefore, my !vote is to keep: just because Wikipedia doesn’t need these redirects doesn’t mean that the project and/or readers are harmed by their existence. To respond to Mathglot’s and Crossroads' concerns regarding potential other redirects being created, pandora’s-box-style arguments are a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF: if such redirects are created, they can be judged on their own merits (including deletion per WP:R#D8 if a novel or very obscure term without a mention in the article) - and the currently nominated redirects should be judged on their own merits likewise. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If your argument is based on a google search telling you that "that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet" I would have to respond, "Do you have any idea how small a number 49 results is on the entire internet?" That is functionally equivalent to zero. Some statistician among us might estimate the number of unique English bigrams on the internet with over 49 hits, and that number would be enormous, but they don't all rate redirects, only the ones searched for possibly do. There is no evidence that anybody searched for this bigram (at least, before this thread was started). Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it would help, I could link individual pages which use this term. In my mind, the question is whether or not this is a novel or very obscure phrase, and - based on the usage I found from the search - my opinion is that it doesn’t meet that bar. (As a side note, I’m unsure where 49 results originates from - for me, the search returns ~1,700.) Given the size of the internet, lots of terms could be said to have a usage functionally equivalent to zero; however, if a redirect from such a term would potentially be helpful, and its existence wouldn’t be problematic, I don’t see why it couldn’t exist - just because a phrase is insignificant compared to the internet as a whole, doesn’t necessarily mean that that phrase is novel or very obscure. While evidence of usage can be a factor in favour of keeping, a lack of usage is not a reason to delete a redirect. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per {{R from colloquial name}}.See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_25#Kissing_pussy GobsPint (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you voted 'Keep' there, per... this discussion. Hmm. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if a reader wants information on these topics, the current target is where they will find it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – an Unlikely and unhelpful search terms. Drdpw (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless. Wikipedia is not a profanity de-censorer. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete? (I count 9 deletes and 4 keeps.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per Mathglot. What next? Tongue poking the one eyed snake? Does every possibility need to exist regardless of whether it is likely or helpful? TarnishedPathtalk 07:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per arguments already put forward above, and also anyone who actually searches for this term is likely to be a child. Plenty of other redirects lead to fellatio (65 in total) and as far as I can see none of them are as juvenile (with the possible exception of cockgobbling) and unlikely to be searched. Obviously, juvenile content is allowed on Wikipedia but together with the rest of the arguments put forward is it really necessary in this case? Adam Black talk • contributions 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't English learners also search for this term? Air on White (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a language learner. When learning Dutch, I learnt the word "penis" (admittedly I could have taken a guess at that one) long before the colloquial "lul". In Swedish I know the word "manslem", and in Spanish "pene" but don't know any other ways of saying penis in either language. Maybe I'm an oddity, but in my experience language learners learn the actual word first and then the colloquialisms. I'm sure language learners are more likely to use the word "penis" as it's the same in Dutch, German, French (with an accent), Swedish, Portuguese (with an accent), Danish, Bosnian, Norwegian, Turkish and Latin, I'm sure amongst others. The point is, I don't think the argument that maybe English learners will use a relatively obscure euphamism for male genitalia holds up under scrutiny. Adam Black talk • contributions 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it is particularly bad, but to avoid a repeat of the WP:X1 Neelix issues, even if those were more prominently about breasts. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: Forgive me for asking this, but isn't this just WP:OTHERSTUFF? If this redirect isn't particularly bad, I don't see why it should be deleted based on the idea that other redirects might be created - if they are, RfD can deal with them as/when they occur. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a policy, it is Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a slang dictionary. We even have WP:NOTURBANDICT as a shortcut to that page. Ignoring this just leads to [6]. —Kusma (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of WP:NOTDICT is that it applies to the content of articles rather than redirects, and so would be applicable if e.g. someone wrote a dictionary-definition article on a slang term (which is where Wikipedia is not a...slang...guide would apply). However, per WP:R#K3, redirects from plausible search terms for article subjects are allowed - redirects existing from colloquial terms doesn't violate NOTDICT by my understanding. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite how silly these redirects seem, they are still plausible search terms. Google shows 1,700 results for the exact phrase "sucking peepee." Meanwhile, the alternate spelling "sucking pp," which does not yet have a page, records 11,100 results. The arguments that "sucking peepee" is an unlikely search terms are speculative, as these two were nominated for deletion within an hour of being created, leaving no time to collect pageview data. The likelihood of a redirect being useful should correspond with how often it is viewed, after all. Why not just keep these new redirects? There's no harm. If they truly are useless, we can always RfD again. Air on White (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try… Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuggie[edit]

No mention of "Shuggie" as a nickname at the target article. Could also be confused with Shruggie. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as noted, Shug and Shuggie are Scottish nicknames for Hugh. I don't see the need for a disambiguation page though, perhaps add Shuggie Otis to the Hugh article instead. I've already added Shuggie to the infobox as a nickname. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not the Scots Wikipedia, and "shuggie" could be confused with a diminutive form of "sugar". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector Just to note, Scots is a distinct language. Scottish English is a recognised variant of English. We use American English, British English, Indian English, Canadian English, Australian English, South African English, etc. as appropriate on the English language Wikipedia. I don't think that Scottish English should be ignored and relegated to the edition of Wikipedia in another language. See MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." This isn't to say this particular redirect should be emphatically retained (I've indicated my preference above), just that the use of a nickname (or word in general) predominantly or exclusively in Scotland doesn't automatically mean it's a Scots word. I don't speak Scots, aside from some vocabulary which has made its way into Scottish English, but I do use "Shug" and, to a lesser extent, "Shuggie" as a nickname for people called Hugh. Adam Black talk • contributions 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to see how someone imagining "shuggie" to be a diminutive form of "sugar" (!) will be helped by deleting Wikipedia's redirect to the actual Scottish English usage. NebY (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shuggie Otis describes the nickname: "short for 'sugar', according to his mother", and also see wikt:shug#Etymology 2. Fair point about Scottish English vs the Scots language, I'm just not sure that this is the best usage for this redirect. Besides Shuggie Otis there's also Shuggie Bain; only one of those is about a person named Hugh. I feel like search results would be better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - When I see arguments in an RfD about what the best target should be, it often (not always) means that the disambiguation option should be seriously considered. This is one of those cases, it looks like to me. Fieari (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drove[edit]

Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect, since "drove" is also the past tense of "drive". I suggest either disambiguating between driving and drovers' road or retargeting to wiktionary. Duckmather (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first suggestion sounds good. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the past tense of a verb isn't necessarily a good target when the word is also a noun. A hatnote to driving should do the job, no need for a standalone disambiguation page to maintain. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in my area of Scotland there are a few rights of way named Drove Road, rather than Drovers' road, so a redirect from Drove road might be appropriate, but as noted drove has multiple meanings and I'm not sure this is the most appropriate target. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - neat, I'd never heard that term before, but the target is unquestionably correct. A hatnote would solve the ambiguity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify with the above entries plus the following: Drove chisel and Drove, a group of hares. --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lenticel: For the record, I'm fine with dabbing - and thanks for the findings! Duckmather (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per lent Okmrman (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonima italiana petroli[edit]

delete: the correct name of the company is Anonima Petroli Italiana (API), what can be found on the Internet about Anonima Italiana Petroli (AIP?) concerns other companies (for example in one book he talks about Anonima Italiana Petroli of Piacenza, another says that it subsequently became Società Petrolifera Italiana...). InterComMan (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, from the first sentence in the article "Italiana Petroli S.p.A. (until 2019 Anonima Petroli Italiana S.p.A.), also known by the acronym API or Gruppo API" - it would appear their name has changed but their acronym has not, and has dropped the "Anonima" from its name. This seems like a plausible redirect to me. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The company was never called Anonima Italiana Petroli, but Anonima Petroli Italiana. In 2019 it changed its name to Italiana Petroli. InterComMan (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was, which I may not have made as well as I could have, with the name having changed it is plausible for a reader to mistake either "Anonima Petroli Italiana" or "Italiana Petroli" for "Anonima Italiana Petroli" given the change in name. As such the redirect is worth keeping. Redirects are not exclusively used for former official names. This Google search shows that there are several examples of this precise mistaken word order on the internet. Adam Black talk • contributions 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Internet, as I showed you, they are mostly references to other companies. However, if it is a common mistake it does not mean that it should be "legitimised". InterComMan (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might have missed one of the points of redirects. They don't legitimise mistakes, they correct them. For example, Scotchland and Scot Land are both redirects to Scotland. I don't think anyone is going to mistakenly type in Scotchland, be taken to a page titled Scotland, and think that Scotchland is the correct spelling. Similarly, AmericA redirects to United States, Neatherlands redirects to Netherlands, Itali redirects to Italy and Russiya redirects to Russia. (I realise these are all countries, not companies, but it's much easier to think of examples for countries). Redirects exist in part to correct mistakes, not to reinforce them. See WP:POFR for more information on when to use redirects. From the search results linked above, any other companies with this name are likely to be non-notable entities and are unlikely to be searched for or have articles created at this page so I feel this is a valid redirect for a possible mistake. Adam Black talk • contributions 19:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.2[edit]

Windows 8.2 does not exist, and does not refer to Windows 10. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous RfD. I know it was 9 years ago and Wikipedia:Consensus can change, but the arguments made back then are still convincing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka-trapping[edit]

List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping no longer exists because "Kafkatrapping" isn't a recognised fallacy described in the literature about logic. The list violated WP:LISTGLOSSARY because "Kakfatrapping" does not have a Wikipedia article (and does not qualify for one), just a Wiktionary entry. There has been a prior deletion discussion for Kafka-trap which ended with User:Guarapiranga undoing my removal of List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping and starting a Talk page discussion, which involved getting a third perspective. Since that third perspective was emphatically in favour of removing the entry, I've removed it again. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per removal as discussed at talk page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not too late, I'm bundling in Kafka trapping and Kafkatrap as avoided double redirects, to avoid a second RfD for those two after this one (although I realise that this might necessitate another relist...sorry!). Courtesy ping MartinPoulter, Chaotic Enby. Note that I am neutral with regards to this nomination, this is a procedural bundling only (if such a term exists). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural. The last two redirects have only been tagged for a day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knightfall (comics)[edit]

Delete. No mention of "Knightfall" in the target article. Mika1h (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "(comics)" to Batman: Knightfall, a DC Comics comic book storyline; when Bruce Wayne Batman broke his back and was replaced by Azrael and then Nightwing as Batman -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on Knightfall (character). Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the Knightfall (character)'s AfD, 5 out of 6 participants voted merge, and two list targets were proposed. However, Explicit closed the AfD closed as redirect, not merge. Merge to the current target, or restore and tag with a {{merge to}}. Retarget "(comics)" to Batman: Knightfall per all. Jay 💬 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Road (upcoming film)[edit]

No longer unreleased. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kokkarakko[edit]

This should've been a quick WP:G7, but with Srivin also having edited, it no longer is, right? But I still hope both of us can agree, that it be deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT -- per this RfC, [t]here is a clear consensus against deletion of draft namespace redirects. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:RDRAFT and A smart kitten. (Although for other cases, I don't think that the fact another editor has edited the article has any bearing how/if a redirect left from a move can be deleted.) Skynxnex (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGD redirects[edit]

These 282 "foo LGD" redirects were created in the last two days, on 11 and 12 May 2024.[7] Chocolateediter briefly described their intent as to aid editing "When you have long-ish lists";[8] they are intended to redirect to UK local government districts, hence the novel initialism "LGD". They have now been used to shorten the targets of piped links, eg changing [[London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham|Hammersmith and Fulham]] to [[Hammersmith and Fulham LGD|Hammersmith and Fulham]] (with 30 other such changes) at London boroughs[9] and similarly with 7 other new redirects at Greater Manchester[10]. This obscures the targets for other editors and does nothing to help readers. "LGD" is not an initialism in common use in the UK and can't be expected to make searching easier for readers. NebY (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural request: how best can we consider all 285 new "foo LGD" redirects? Must each be tagged and how, and do we want a full list here? Totally outside my experience and toolkit. NebY (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NebY: I can go through and tag them semi-automatically using WP:JWB if you'd like. I'm unsure of whether there's a standard for how to list large nominations; but two ideas I had are (a) placing the list on the log's talk page and linking to it from here, or (b) including them above but wrapping the list in {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A smart kitten Thank you! Tagging them all seems good and proper, as long as it doesn't make far too much work for the closer if they're kept. I guess having them listed on this page would be better - but yes, definitely wrapped. NebY (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Doing... ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (courtesy ping NebY, as I modified your nomination slightly to reflect the fact that all the 282 redirects are now bundled.) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great - thanks again. NebY (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    intitle:/ LGD/ insource:/REDIRECT/ limited to article space seems to find basically all of them (not sure why it appears to be finding only 282 as of this writing), in case it helps. Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, 282 is correct; turns out my crudely pasting a list of contributions into a spreadsheet's no good. NebY (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOT:DICTIONARY[edit]

The "NOT:" namespace doesn't exist, nor it is short for a real namespace. This is the only page of its kind that uses the NOT pseudo namespace and has seen zero usage. (Special:PrefixIndex/NOT:) A (standard) redirect to this page that it points to is WP:DICTIONARY, which is already shorter. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

#section-h:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 13

Miscellany[edit]

#section-h:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Deletion review[edit]

#section-h:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 13

Template:Wikipedia community

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=1222059439"