From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 13
October 15 >

October 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2023.

Cytherography

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 00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Term not mentioned at target page. On all of Google, there is exactly one hit, which was a reddit post asking whether "Cytherography" was a valid term and the answer received was no.

"Cythero" is the prefix associated with the planet Venus, but just because it is a prefix, does not make this a meaningful conjunction as the word does not exist. Utopes ( talk / cont) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Cytherodynamics

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 00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Term not mentioned at target page. Google has zero hits for this term, and only shows thermodynamics and geodynamics.

This title came about as the conjunction of the "cythero" prefix, which is used to describe things that are related to Venus. However, I could not find anywhere that shows this prefix being used in this way, attached to the word "dynamics" like so. Utopes ( talk / cont) 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Climatized

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Climatize. (non-admin closure) Duckmather ( talk) 21:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Is a closer synonym to Acclimatization, and this terminology of "climatize" is not used at the target page. Utopes ( talk / cont) 22:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Disambig at Climatize and retarget this there (along with the -ise equivalents). Per wikt:Climatize the word has two meanings, Acclimatisation and to adapt [especially temperature] for comfort, which is what air conditioning does. I'm not seeing either as clearly primary. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Dabify per Thryduulf -- 65.92.244.127 ( talk) 09:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Dabify per Thryduulf. It can also mean "make resistant to wet or changing climates", as in this YouTube video, showing a climatized Steinway piano. Seckends ( talk) 16:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pan Shusi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 22#Pan Shusi

Mahalaya

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. Jay 💬 09:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect was blanked by Ku423winz1 with the edit summary Mahalaya and putri paksha are not same. Mahalaya is a day and putri paksha is a paksha which contains 15 days. Mahalaya is both end of Pitri paksha and start of Devi paksha.. Procedurally sending to WP:RFD. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Mahalaya is the last day of Pitru Paksha. The article covers the same. The rituals of Pitru Paksha are also associated with Mahalaya. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Redtigerxyz: mahalaya and pitru paksha are not same, mahalaya is also the start of Devi paksha and start of durga puja. It has mythological significance, Durga idols' eyes are painted that day, this ritual is called chokkhudaan and also the holy verses of Chandi goddess is played in every household to mark the beginning of Durga Puja. The day is also known as Agomoni, which means 'coming', which indicates the coming of goddess Durga. And even pitru paksha covers it, the topics are completely different, you cannot redirect it to another different topic, because pitru paksha and mahalaya are not synonyms i.e. pitru paksha ≠ mahalaya. Ku423winz1 ( talk) 17:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Ku423winz1: There's nothing stopping you from creating an article at Mahalaya if the subject is shown to pass the notability guidelines. Deleting this redirect would only serve to leave readers who search for the term at a dead end, which is probably not desirable. Also, the existence of a redirect does not imply that the two terms mean the same thing; there are lots of redirects out there that could seem completely unrelated to the average reader, but still exist for a variety of other reasons, such as navigational utility. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. Mahalaya is prominently mentioned in the lead of Pitru Paksha, which is more than enough reason to have this redirect according to me. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Good ol' boy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Good Old Boys. 4 different possible targets were listed, which, as Pppery mentioned, is an indication that disambiguation may be the best course of action. As such, Good Old Boys, a longstanding disambiguation page, appears to be the most appropriate target. If any of the suggested targets make sense then they should probably also be included there. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

"Good ol' boy" usually does not refer to old boys networks. It refers to culturally conservative Southern whites - see Merriam Webster, Wiktionary, The Free Dictionary, etc. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Conservative southern whites are only an old boys network if you take a far more expansive definition of the latter term than its article does.-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 08:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and add hatnote per Ivanvector and WP:ONEOTHER. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 22:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguation page - Old Boys is another disambiguation target which should be included, which is specific to UK/Commonwealth culture. "Good ol' boy" is not explained on White Southerners, so just linking to that as if it were an alternative meaning doesn't make sense. But linking from a sentence that gives better context would be helpful. M-W gives the definition as "a usually white Southerner who conforms to the values, culture, or behavior of his peers". Good ol' boy used to be an article; a previous version cited the definiton of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "A man having qualities held to be characteristic of certain Southern white males, such as a relaxed or informal manner, strong loyalty to family and friends, and often an anti-intellectual bias and intolerant point of view". -- Beland ( talk) 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Good old boy, Good ol boys, Good 'ol boys, Good Old Boy, Good ole' boy, and Good ol' boys, all of which redirect to the same target, should probably be included in the discussion. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate and repoint the variant points to the new disambiguation page -- 67.70.25.80 ( talk) 09:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the late retarget suggestion. Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the target, the disambiguation entry suggestion of Old Boys, and the suggested target of Country (identity).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to wikt:good old boy via {{ Wiktionary redirect}}. There are too many not-so-great redirect targets on offer here, and I think if we're using Wiktionary's definition to guide us here, it would make the most sense to just send it there. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 21:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Disambiguate We now have four different target suggestions, and credible arguments readers could be looking for any of them. That's exactly what a disambiguation page is for. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. - jc37 00:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate per Pppery. Google Scholar results are about 60/40 for articles about white southern identity vs. articles about old-boy networks, but the existence of separate Country (identity), White Southerners, etc. make this more complicated than a WP:ONEOTHER. My OR theory is that "good ol' boy" and "old boy" developed separately in Southern US and British parlance, and the lines between the usage blurred as the phrases moved through other English-speaking regions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to include the variant redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 19:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Restore the previous article. The issue with all of the suggestions is that none of them explicitly define the general term. The hatnote should be to Good Old Boys (disambiguation), an extant disambiguation. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Oppose restoring the article - Jay D Easy is right IMO that it violated WP:NOTDIC, and was poorly-sourced. I am find with targeting to Good Old Boys (disambiguation) instead of disambiguating here. Also did this really need to be relisted yet again? It's already been open for months. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, it absolutely should have been relisted. The variant redirects have not been tagged and are intricately linked with this discussion at hand. While adding the variant redirects, I found the former article and thought it worth discussing, so relisting allows at least a full week to discuss the new findings. And finally, I do not understand the hurry? It is much more important that we get the consensus right over closing a discussion prematurely. Likewise, there should also be no hurry in improving article content. While the former article was definitely not perfect, it provides a good foundation for incorporating more information and references. The points that were made above would be excellent to add to the article once restored, and would be much easier than starting with a blank canvas. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to the dab at Good Old Boys, which already includes multiple entries for Good Ol' Boys. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Shante Advance: Risky Revolution

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. While I don't like keeping what is essentially near-vandalism, editors have made reasonable arguments for keeping here in spite of the history. (non-admin closure) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 14:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This page was created at the wrong title with only the words "please add some more" and no actual context to the upcoming Shantae game, and was moved almost instantly after creating. No incoming links. Because of the circumstances and instant fix, I implore WP:IAR be considered in order to not forever immortalize this error that was resolved in minutes. Utopes ( talk / cont) 08:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This appears to be a highly plausible spelling error, especially for someone who is looking for the title after hearing it rather than reading it. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per Thryduulf's point, Shantae is an established series; there is very little chance that anyone looking for the game would spell it this way, nor do we have similar redirects for any other entries in the series. In fact, the user who originally created the page was rather careless in their spelling, even changing the corrected version at one point [1] [2] [3]. I don't think they can be used as a metric of the likelihood of someone plausibly misspelling the name. -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 16:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. dropping a single character, especially in an ae construct, is a reasonable spelling and typing error. The redirect is the opposite of harmful. The fact there aren't other similar redirects is raw WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Would I go around creating these redirects? No. Is this the branch for WP:IAR? Also, no... and, why? Is there anything that actually justifies it being deleted? Still, no. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 02:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • By nom; Moving on; this page was created in wake of apathy and disregard, and had no business existing in the first place. After creating the blank page at the wrong title, the page creator then proceeded to cause disruption on other Shantae pages by removing the second "a" multiple times. This is not representative of commonness. Shantae is nowhere to be seen on Google when searching for "Shante", and Wikipedia has been this way as well since 2006 with the first Shantae article. This page was created without respect, with the creator making the page with simply an open request to "add some more"; in my opinion, the title's entire existence was a blemish and would make Wikipedia tidier without. This isn't a R from typo that anyone would go out of their way to make. Deletion would be an improvement to Wikipedia, I'd think, as Wikipedia would be down one-absurd-historied redirect among the countless that have the benefit of not being impacted by Streisand effect via an RfD (this) (which sadly has a possible chance as closing as Keep). I don't think that any redirect should gain WP:CHEAP immunity for being one character off of the correct title, especially when created in errors which will never be replicable, as they haven't been for 17 years. It has a time and a place for sure, to apply to typo-redirects that were deliberately created under normal circumstances. From my point of view it's an embarrassing slip-up, which I feel the best way to go about it is a delete, forget, and move on, instead of snapshotting it for decades to come. But, they're cheap. Utopes ( talk / cont) 10:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather ( talk) 19:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Horacio Astaburuaga

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Horacio Astaburuaga

Gyango

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 04:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Unnotable monster from this series that is not mentioned at target. A now-banned user had taken and moved several similar BLAR'd redirects to new titles, essentially doubling the amount of unlisted monster titles that point to this target. Out of the 47 redirects that point to this page, exactly 1/47 look keepable. I haven't yet investigated the histories of the other 46, but this is something to look into soon. For now, I'm just nominating the one as it has crossed my path. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • This was the original title of the article, which was moved to Gango (Ultraman) and merged to List of Ultraman monsters, which was then redirected to Ultra Monsters (deleted at AFD) then retargeted to the TV series article, where it was mentioned. There seems to have been no reference for the content that was removed. A search finds other articles in Lists of Ultraman characters; if these are relevant could the same sources be used to create a list that this could redirect to? Peter James ( talk) 11:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather ( talk) 18:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Untitled Sandra Oh and Awkwafina comedy film

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Untitled Sandra Oh and Awkwafina comedy film

SNES Mini

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 Moot. Not a redirect. Filer blocked, no action needed. Star Mississippi 14:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
This had been a dab page that was converted to a redirect by User talk:Alpha200807 ( talk · contribs) then nominated for RfD for no obvious legitimate reason.
(The change was quickly reverted, hence your confusion).
I can't see any clear reason for this, but it's noticeable that I'd already reverted a previous edit by the same user just a few minutes prior.
Please note that I've opened a discussion on this user at the Administrator's noticeboard. Ubcule ( talk) 13:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Additional; I notice that their account has just been blocked. Ubcule ( talk) 13:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Cow belt

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 restore article and send to AfD. The proposed retarget to BIMARU states can be considered there. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a procedural nomination started by 103.251.217.210 ( talk · contribs). Their reason is "This is a slang name intentionally made into redirect and target redirect page doesn't make sense because some other states also come... I don't know how to create discussion but can you delete it or can you start discussion" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Restore Article and send to AFD if deletion is desired. This spent over a decade as an article before an editor turned it into a redirect last year, following a contested prod. Given the extensive history as an article I think this should be evaluated as an article. A few searches show examples of this name being used in reliable sources, e.g. [4] [5]. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have suspicions that 103.251.217.210 is LearnIndology editing logged out to avoid their IPA topic ban, given they tried to get this exact same redirect deleted via speedy deletion quoting the exact same "this is just slang" "even though its been redirected it should be deleted" rationale [6] [7] 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    what is the definition of cow belt? which states according to you can be considered cow belt? You know that it is a derogatory or slur term like bimaru state etc... & In Indo-Gangetic Plain, states like west bengal, delhi, punjab, parts of gujaat, Assam also come & why do you want insertion of offensive word to wikipedia? 103.251.217.210 ( talk) 11:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Hindi Belt. "Cow Belt" is a colloquial name for this region, according to sources such as [8], [9], [10] (reliability not assessed) and it refers to the political divisions, not the geographic features. Relevant content from the former article could be merged there. It could be derogatory in the way that Bible Belt is sometimes used as an epithet in North America, but then WP:RNEUTRAL applies (we don't delete redirects just because they're offensive if they are reasonably useful). Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Make that retarget to BIMARU states per the comment below. I didn't find that article when I looked yesterday but the sources I gave do suggest that the term applies to those states in particular, and not the wider Hindu Belt area. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to BIMARU states Cow belt is a degoratory used by leftists for UP & Bihar. State like Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand doesn't come in cow belt even though it is in hindi belt. It has no reliable or scholarly sources available. DSP2092 talk 21:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 11:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Restore article debating this as a redirect when there appears to be an ongoing content dispute including an entire article history seems backwards. - Darker Dreams ( talk) 16:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target BIMARU states.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Restore article and send to AFD. Narky Blert ( talk) 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore article and send to AfD as a contested BLAR and contested prod. This should be without prejudice to a "redirect" consensus at the AfD, but deleting article content at RfD is acceptable only when that content is speedily deletable, this is not. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to BIMARU states per Ivanvector and DSP2092, and add a mention there if possible. I don't think the article is worth restoring, and it would be a waste of time to nominate at AfD just to have it deleted or redirected once again. CycloneYoris talk! 06:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Social Security System (SSS)

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 Social Security System (SSS), no consensus on what to do with Social Security System. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The SSS disambiguator doesn't seem to do anything here, as it's the acronym for the title itself. And to this end, the Philippines aren't the only country to have a social security system, but maybe the existence of the disambiguator implies that Social Security System may have better targets on the DAB page. Or delete if the "SSS" specification does nothing (but maybe not this option due to the R from move). Addendum after adding second title; if the three capital letters have significance specifically relating to the Philippines version of social security and WP:DIFFCAPS applies, to me it seems that both of these titles should point there, at one place. Utopes ( talk / cont) 08:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: I have since added Social Security System to this discussion, in the event that the inclusion of "System" in the title has a significance for either target. Utopes ( talk / cont) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the second entry Social Security System.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Yoann beaudry

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

What? Is this G10? Because I'm getting nothing. Too old to be R3'd (it's been around since 2007!) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

American rainmaker

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:RFD#DELETE #5: The redirect makes no sense. I cannot find any connection between Al Gore and "American rainmaker" either on his page or through a Google search. The article history only includes the creation of the redirect, and no articles link here. Significa liberdade ( talk) 03:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kresblain

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Kresblain is an obscure character from Arthur. He is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 03:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Clark Caves

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Clark Caves is a very obscure location from Arthur. It is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. This redirect has history, but it is not worth keeping. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 03:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Sugar cube

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – robertsky ( talk) 04:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The name "Sugar cube" is more recognizable than Cube sugar, so it make sense to move the Cube sugar article to a new name "Sugar cube". This requires vacating the current "Sugar cube" redirect, hence the request. Викидим ( talk) 02:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Викидим: Wrong venue; should be done through WP:RM. The status of the redirect is handled there, usually via a round-robin move. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you! Please close this one. Викидим ( talk) 02:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Right to be free from slavery

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Right to be free from slavery

Fish ribs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Fish ribs

Poor country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

A poor country is not a developed country nor a developing country. A developing country is termed as middle income country by the World Bank. A poor country is instead classified as Least developed countries. So redirecting poor country to developing country would be factually wrong. So the redirect should be changed to Least developed countries, which World Bank classifies as Low Income Countries. - Crashed greek ( talk) 04:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to Least developed countries. I don't think the current target is inappropriate because although not all developing countries are poor countries, poor countries are developing countries. The term "Least developed countries" is a subcategory of developing countries. However since that subcategory relates more specifically to the search term it makes sense to retarget. Hut 8.5 18:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is, ( Developing country). It is incorrect that a poor country is not a developing country. The article Developing country makes it clear that there is no universally agreed definition of "developing country" but discusses the terms "developed" contra "developing" with no indication that there is a third group of countries that are so poor that they do not even count as developing. Given that there are no set definition of what countries count as "poor" or "developing" I think that the reader is best served by a redirect to the general article from which he or she can continue in the direction they want.
It would be misleading to redirect to Least developed countries since that is not of list of the poorest countries. Least developed countries is a very specific list of countries kept by the UN, where gross national income per capita is only on of three criteria that decide if a country is included. (The other two are an index for health/education and an index measuring the structural vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks.) For instance, Syria which is in the low-income group of List of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita is not on the list of Least developed countries, but Laos which is in the lower-middle-income group is on the list. Sjö ( talk) 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply
IMF clearly has separate classification as low income countries, [11], the drop down list has only poor countries. And IMF has separate classification for middle income countries [12] too. Same with UN which is Least developed countries and Middle income countries [13] with income range with both upper and lower thresholds of $1,036 and $4,085, below that are least developed countries. Same with World Bank, which further divides middle income countries as lower middle and upper middle. All three reputed organizations have the "poor country" classification clearly, without any ambiguity as you claimed. While wikipedia has poor country article of UN, it doesnt have world bank and IMF ones, though the latter 2 have clear classification for the poor country. So it would be appropriate to redirect to the UN poor country, than the developing country which mainly corresponds to middle income country. That would be good until or unless separate poor country article is created. Crashed greek ( talk) 03:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply
You misrepresent the sources, please don’t do that. None of the sources you mention call the least developed countries poor, and they do not have a clear classification for ”poor country”. Sjö ( talk) 05:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply
No, I did not misrepresent the sources. All the lists of UN, World Bank and IMF you can see the list of countries, they are all almost the same countries group with lowest GDP per capita. You are just doing mental gymnastics here in wrongly accusing me. Crashed greek ( talk) 05:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The article developing country (at least its intro) discusses "low and middle income countries" or "developing" contrasted with "developed" countries. "Least developed country", according to its article, is a subcategory of "developing countries". This redirect should point to the broader topic (developing country). — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Developing country article clearly says it is not a universally agreed definition in the lead section. Generally undeveloped countries are not included. Crashed greek ( talk) 09:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Please provide a source that supports that generally undeveloped countries are not called developing countries. It would benefit the discussion if you specified the page number or quote that supports your statement, if the source is longer than a couple of pages. Sjö ( talk) 12:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. This discussion involved several redirects made for intentional links to incomplete disambiguators that don't exist, but are themselves redirects to "complete" disambiguation pages. The nominator argued that intentional links only need to be made to existing disambiguation pages, and that these redirects were thus redundant. Due to the number of nominated redirects (361), there were inital concerns of a deletion trainwreck, which were allayed once the redirects were placed in smaller groups, and all of the incoming links were bypassed to point directly at the complete disambiguation pages. A few redirects were withdrawn where it was unclear whether the terms in the first parentheses were disambiguators or part of the base name, such as Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) (disambiguation). Editors who proposed deletion argued that any intentional links to nonexistant disambiguation pages would be erroneous, and that redirects should not exist to facilitate those links. Editors also noted that the existence of the redirects did not impact the search function in a meaningful way. Those who proposed keeping noted that the arguments for deletion had not been articulated with any policies or guidelines to support the position. They also contested the argument that links to incomplete disambiguators were categorically erroneous, and asserted that possible use cases could exist, which would therefore merit keeping all of them according to § Reasons for not deleting of the redirects guideline. Many of the arguments made for both positions boiled down simply to claims of usefulness or uselessness without further context. Ultimately, I could not assess any consensus on how to handle this nomination, and no alternatives to the two extreme positions were discussed. ( non-admin closure) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 18:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Discussion
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These redirects are useless INTDABLINK of the form Basename (incomplete disambiguator) (disambiguation), in which case Basename (incomplete disambiguator) is already a redirect from incomplete disambiguation to the page disambiguates it (i.e. no primary topic under the title "Basename (incomplete disambiguator)"). Thus, all their incoming links may be directly replaced by their target or INTDABLINKs of that, such as Targetbasename (disambiguation)#section. The related discussions are listed here for reference, including Special:PermanentLink/1179656508#Deletion_of_redirects_like_Eastern_(country_subdivision)_(disambiguation) with Bkonrad and Special:PermanentLink/1179356101#Washington_(CTA)_(disambiguation) with SilverLocust. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

vacated closure

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. NmWTfs85lXusaybq, the problem with mass-nominations like these is that someone has to close them. Given that this broke XfDCloser, I will be reverting the nomination edits from your contribs (as opposed to manually removing the templates), which will still take ages. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Update: I count about 350 nominations, based on contribs. I've reverted maybe 60. I don't want to do that. thryduulf, you seem knowledgable. Is there some kind of rollback/bot option here?
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

information Note: The original early close is controversial and contested by Tavix here. I reopened this discussion again and split the nomination into several groups to see if this could avoid breaking XfDCloser. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 23:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Bkonrad and Thryduulf: I have to leave the closing template above to disable XfDCloser for this case, otherwise it will break this tool for all sections below. Hope the small trunks could make the discussion easier. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 00:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Any and all incoming links will need to be corrected before deletion, which is far too much work to expect of any closer. No prejudice against renomination in manageable quantities. Narky Blert ( talk) 11:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Do you see any article or template space links to these? Since when to "any and all incoming links need to be corrected before deletion"? older ≠ wiser 12:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, there are not so much incoming links as you thought. I listed all of them here. The cleaning work is going on. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 12:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    •  Done Narky Blert, all incoming links have been corrected. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. These are essentially erroneously created redirects. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep all without prejudice per WP:TRAINWRECK. There are far too many redirects here to reasonably evaluate. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • On the one hand, I agree smaller chunks might make this easier to process. But on the other hand, what is there to evaluate? older ≠ wiser 18:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      • All of them need evaluating to see if they are getting used, whether there are multiple entries of the given type on the dab page, etc. This is still a trainwreck, subheadings do not and cannot change that and I strongly object to the reopening which is just a waste of everybody's time. These need to be renominated (if at all) with one smaller group per day. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
        • At least most of these redirects seem to be cheap, harmless and plausible methods of finding Wikipedia content, e.g. Unbreakable (song) (disambiguation) is a very plausible search term when looking for a list of articles about songs called "Unbreakable" when someone does not know how many disambiguation pages we have for articles with that base name, what the title of the relevant page is, nor if they are in a section of a larger page, whether that section will be entitled "Music", "Songs", "Singles", "Entertainment" or anything else. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Edward-Woodrow: The best bet is problably to ask someone with AWB access to go through and close, if that isn't an option some admins have a mass rollback script/tool (I'm not sure which it is). I don't use either so cannot help directly (I'm also generally a poor person to ask about automation, as I use very little!) Thryduulf ( talk) 19:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. WP:INCOMPDABs are redirects to the base disambiguation page, not a disambiguation page in their own right, so having a WP:INTDABLINK of this fashion is erroneous. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination and the discussions to which it links, whereat consensus against such redirects has already been gained. If this huge deletion nomination goes through, might it be reasonable that a new speedy deletion criterion be created just for redirects like this, such that they need not go through RfD next time any more of them are found? – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 00:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Given that some of the !votes are true-keep, that's unlikely. Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It will meet G6 criteria if there's a consensus obtained from this discussion to delete such kind of INTDABLINKs. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 15:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      No it won't. Speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial cases where everything that could be deleted, should be deleted. This discussion demonstrates that these are not uncontroversial. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      One potential outcome of this discussion would have been that such cases fell under G6, but there are clearly too many keep !votes for that to happen now. Certes ( talk) 12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep. I have created several of these, but I am somewhat on the fence about them. My thinking, however, is that we use an intentional disambiguation link to signify that something a reader or editor may believe to be a primary topic is actually an ambiguous topic. For example, picked rather randomly from this list, someone may see Oceanus (spacecraft) and assume that it leads to an article on one specific topic, and having the Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation) link available, however awkward, instructs that "Oceanus (spacecraft)" is itself an ambiguous title. BD2412 T 01:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • That's actually why I asked for these redirects to be deleted. As I stated above, all their associated pages of the form Basename (incomplete disambiguator) are not the primary redirects but redirects to the pages disambiguate them, which have already indicated the title's ambiguity. The INTDABLINK of that form which should be kept is exactly when Basename (incomplete disambiguator) is a already page or a primary redirect, while the nominated redirects have only bad effect on the instruction as you mentioned. Additionally, in the case that Basename (incomplete disambiguator) (disambiguation) redirects to Targetbasename#section and Targetbasename is different from Basename, it may hide the real target which its incoming links point to. Thus, I have retargeted all such incoming links to Targetbasename (disambiguation)#section. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 03:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      • NmWTfs85lXusaybq, what did you mean when you said "the nominated redirects have only bad effect on the instruction"? What is "the instruction"? – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 13:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
        • The awkward form of INTDABLINK Basename (incomplete disambiguator) (disambiguation) may be used to instruct that Basename (incomplete disambiguator) is a disambiguation page or takes up the primary topic. However, if Basename (incomplete disambiguator) is a general redirect from incomplete disambiguation, it will be harmful to this instruction because any redirect from incomplete disambiguation may have a INTDABLINK of this awkward form. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
          • Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that this discussion boils down to the 'delete' argument 【It is most practical to indicate that a page is a disambiguation page rather than a redirect from incomplete disambiguation to a disambiguation page.】 versus the 'keep' argument 【It is most practical to indicate that a page is a redirect from incomplete disambiguation rather than a non-disambiguation article.】 What I do not understand is why the difference between a disambiguation page and a redirect from incomplete disambiguation to a disambiguation page matters. What reason is there to treat them differently? Disambiguation pages like Psi are redirected to from redirects like Psi (disambiguation); why should not the same be done for redirects from incomplete disambiguation like Oceanus (spacecraft)? – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC), edited 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
            • I'm not sure I recognize whatever it is that you are suggesting is the delete argument. My basic point is that these have no purpose whatsoever. NO ONE has presented a remotely plausible use case for these. Some have suggested they are useful for searching, but I reject that as detailed in other replies here. The purpose of intentional disambiguation links through redirects with "(disambiguation)" in the title is to mark them as being intentionally placed links and not accidental links which might have been intended to go to some other article. As such, editors who check links to disambiguation pages can readily discount such links. But in what cases would any of the redirects listed here have a valid use in intentional disambiguation? I cannot see any valid case for an intentional link using a redirect like Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 18:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I think there are some problems with this line of reasoning. Note: What I describe below applies to functional redirects. Because Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation) is nominated for deletion and the redirect function disabled, the behavior at present is somewhat different.
    1. In the standard search box (at least in the new Vector skin), redirects do not appear and so cannot be selected directly.
    2. Even when one types out the full redirect Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation) that precise link does not appear -- rather the target of the redirect is presented as the top link and then option to Search for pages containing Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation) . If one selects the second option, then one gets to a search result listing where there is a note (not an actual result) stating There is a page named "Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation)" on Wikipedia.
    I think the arcane hoops to ever get to see "Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation)" are so obscure that only a handful of experienced editors might even think to use such a method. Also, only a very small subset of incomplete disambiguations have such redundant redirects and that inconsistency would further reduce the supposed 'helpfulness' of such redirects. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I picked Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation) at random from the list, but the fact is that a substantial majority of incompdab-to-dab mergers were done as part of a project that I undertook years ago to eliminate partial disambiguation. We used to have tons of freestanding disambiguation pages at titles like "Foo (bar)" because the page creators didn't understand partial disambiguation. That still happens. I think the core issue is the fact that "Foo (bar)" is still in itself an ambiguous title. Compare Glass house (a disambiguation page) and Glass House (a redirect to that disambiguation page). Both Glass house (disambiguation) and Glass House (disambiguation) redirect there, even though the page title, strictly speaking, is not "Glass House". There are many comparable links where a "Bob Foo" and a "Bob Foo (disambiguation)" or a "Tom Foo" and a "Tom Foo (disambiguation)" redirect to a "Robert Foo" or "Thomas Foo" disambiguation page which also has its own "Robert Foo (disambiguation)" or "Thomas Foo (disambiguation)" incoming redirects. BD2412 T 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Well said. Anyone who can provide a good refutation to this has my delete !vote. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • But the purpose of intentional dab links is not as an aid for searching, it is to mark links made using such redirects as intentionally placed and not just an inadvertent link to a disambiguation page. Differences in capitalization (or punctuation, etc) are very easy to type for any reader. And it is normal to use such redirects with small differences on the existing articles with titles based on those small differences. But to intentionally type one of the strangely constructed redirects in the set above is highly unusual for most readers. And I can't think of a case where any of these would validly need the use of such redirects for an intentional disambiguation link. older ≠ wiser 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
That's why I nominated only INTDABLINK of incompdab redirects with parenthetical qualifier here. "Tom Foo" and "Bob Foo" could be seen as special cases of natural qualifier or SMALLDETAILS, which is in the general use. The INTDABLINK of parenthetical incompdab won't be used unless the parenthetical incompdab is actually a page or a primary redirect. As for a general parenthetical incompdab redirect, being a ambiguous term won't warrant the usage of their INTDABLINK. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 23:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Even without WP:INCOMPDAB entering into the picture, I think there's an argument for a "Foo (incomplete disambiguator) (disambiguation)" redirect to exist where "Foo (incomplete disambiguator)" is in fact an ambiguous phrase. Unbreakable (song), for example, is ambiguous. " Waterfall Creek (South Australia)" is ambiguous. I am not campaigning to create these, but the ones I am seeing here are at least harmless to keep. BD2412 T 23:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
When the INCOMPDAB is actually an ambiguous phrase, it generally has a better format of natural or comma-separated disambiguation rather than parenthetical disambiguation, such as Waterfall Creek, South Australia, in which case Waterfall Creek, South Australia (disambiguation) is an alternative option of Waterfall Creek (South Australia) (disambiguation). As for Communist Party of Bangladesh (Marxist–Leninist), the actual name of three parties as opposed to INCOMPDAB, it should be converted to a dab page separated from Communist Party of Bangladesh (disambiguation), which could warrant the use of Bangladesher Samyabadi Dal (Marksbadi-Leninbadi) and Bangladesher Samyabadi Dal (Marksbadi-Leninbadi) (disambiguation). Furthermore, I suggest that "Foo (incomplete disambiguator) (disambiguation)" may be kept when "Foo (incomplete disambiguator)" has a special usage other than INCOMPDAB, including the en-dash substitution in Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) (disambiguation) (associated with Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist–Leninist) (disambiguation)) and Northern Oblast (1918-1920) (disambiguation) (associated with Northern Oblast (1918–1920) (disambiguation)). NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 00:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Please refer to the old RfD list I add above my nomination rationale, which collated outcomes of all related RfD I could found, especially thanks for Certes. This discussion should be relisted to obtain more opinions, as most of old RfDs result in a deletion of nomination. To get more editors involved in this all-in-one thread, I would ping all the participants in the previous discussion who haven't commented here (feel free to ignore this if you have no interest):
NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412: After I dug in the related RfDs, I found you voted delete in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Matrix (name) (disambiguation) with the rationale These sorts of constructions are now disfavored, and no longer useful, four months after you voted keep in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 6#(footballer) (disambiguation) with the rationale These redirects are probably leftovers from WP:INTDABLINK merges, so they have some conceivable historical value. What makes you vote leaning keep in this all-in-one case? NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps because it is an all-in-one case. I don't recall either of the previous !votes, but the "(footballer) (disambiguation)" case brings up an interesting point. Are we violating the GFDL by deleting edit histories that demonstrate the correctly attributed authorship of merged-in sections? BD2412 T 19:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Generally yes, see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per 3rd law of Wikipedia:Law of hats. But seriously, once I get past the first impression that these redirects are nonsense, I've nommed one of the immediate above for deletion. I agree with Bkonrad. Those previous RfDs were most commonly delete, and a couple of the above nom have gone already. Widefox; talk 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. The purpose of Foo (disambiguation) redirects is to be a target for articles which refer collectively to all things called Foo. The only time when we might want to refer to the collection of New York City Subway stations called 138th Street, or all albums called 1988, is in the exceptional case of an "other uses" hatnote on a partially disambiguated page name or, rarer still, a partially disambiguated primary redirect. The only such case listed here, Brown dragon (Dungeons and Dragons) (disambiguation), has been deleted already, as its target didn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certes ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. What I can glean from all the above is that (1) these redirects are completely harmless and (2) they could perhaps potentially be somewhat useful to some arcane reader or to an editor in the future, maybe. Thus these should be kept. J947 † edits 20:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per BD2412, Pppery, Thryduulf, Patar Knight, J947 et al. These pages may have "disambiguation" as a second disambiguator, but they're helpful to readers because they lead to pages disambiguating between possible entities they might refer to. Regards, SONIC 678 13:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per BD2412, Pppery, Thryduulf, Patar Knight, J947 et al. Someone above said "NO ONE has presented a remotely plausible use case for these." but now that isn't true. I, for one, came here because Tamar (Bible) (disambiguation) was on the list. Originally I didn't know that there was more than one Tamar mentioned in the Bible, so Tamar (Bible) seemed like a reasonable search. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    But how does the existence of [[Tamar (Bible) (disambiguation)] help in any meaningful way? Tamar (Bible) redirects to the disambiguation page at Tamar. Did you actually type "Tamar (Bible) (disambiguation)" into the search box? I continue to maintain that NO ONE has presented a remotely plausible use case for these malformed erroneously created redirects. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's a great justification for Tamar (Bible) existing as a redirect to dab Tamar. However, Tamar (Bible) (disambiguation) is of no help in that process. Certes ( talk) 18:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Certes: When I typed in "Tamar (Bible)" the second choice provided was "Tamar (Bible) (disambiguation)", "Tamar (Bible)" not being an option. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Where did you type that? The search box suggests "Tamar (Bible)" for me. If you used Visual Editor, it has a known problem, currently being solved, which stops it suggesting the best match. If the existence of this useless page is impairing the results of some sort of search, that's another argument for deleting it. Certes ( talk) 20:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep; although I sympathize with the arguments that these redirects have extremely little value to most readers, I also fail to see how keeping them does any harm. My view is that we should delete redirects that are misleading or confusing, but if they have neither benefit nor detriment then the default would be to keep. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have removed the group headers because they were breaking this nomination on the main RFD page, and making it seem as though it was not part of any daily nomination. In addition, and practice, we usually do not edit nominations on RFD to accommodate tools; if the amount nominations causes XFDcloser to break, it is what it is. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
 – — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 20:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ LaundryPizza03, Steel1943, and TechnoSquirrel69: Are you leaving this for endless debates here? I saw LaundryPizza03 was about to relisting it while TechnoSquirrel69 would just close it. I'm fine with either of these ways, while there's no reason to leave it here with no action as Steel1943 is fine with XFDcloser's break. I would like to help if you are bothered with the cleanup work of the nominated redirects. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 00:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I will relist this manually (with tag updates handled through WP:AWBREQ) if and only if TechnoSquirrel69 ( talk · contribs) does not close this. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. These serve no purpose and do not disambiguate anything. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The purpose of these redirects, as explained above, is to take people to broader disambiguation pages. I don't understand your comment about not disambiguating anything, given that redirects to disambiguation pages and other pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set indexes and some lists) are common and desirable even if the target page name is not an exact match, and this includes those in Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguation. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply
As I explained in the section title and discussion over and over again, these redirects are not the redirects from incomplete disambiguation but intentional disambiguation links of them, which is completely useless. If there's any benefit with them, I would have created tens of thousands of that for all redirects in Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
And multiple other people have explained in the discussion over and over again that they are actually useful, and per WP:R#KEEP point 5 that is a reason they should not be deleted. Just because you don't find them useful doesn't mean nobody does. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
If that's so useful to you, are you also fine with the mass creation of INTDABLINKs for all redirects from incomplete disambiguation? After that, you will have tens of thousands of redirects to be discussed then. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't encourage the mass creation of such redirects, but neither do I actively oppose if someone feels it would be useful. I do actively support the individual creation of any that people specifically find useful and oppose the deletion of those that have already been created. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Apparently this discussion is about delete all or keep all of such redirects as opposed to that of individual creation. If there's any individual redirects whose deletion is controversial, such as Bangladesher Samyabadi Dal (Marksbadi-Leninbadi) (disambiguation), Northern Oblast (1918-1920) (disambiguation) and Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) (disambiguation), I have already struck them from here. However, as for a rationale for keep them all, it could be seen as an endorsement of their usage and an encouragement of mass creation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Like Thryduulf, I don't encourage the mass creation of such redirects, nor oppose keeping redirects that someone finds useful. However, I think we should delete as useless clutter the redirects that no one finds useful, which is probably everything that has not been struck from the list above. Certes ( talk) 09:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's my point. One must specify the redirects when they are talking about usefulness, otherwise they simply prefer all INTDABLINKs of redirects from incomplete disambiguation, which also include mass creation of such redirects. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 10:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Supporting keeping those that have been created already does not imply support for mass creation of those that have not yet been created. Continuing to misrepresent the views of other participants is not acceptable behaviour, especially when you have explicitly been told that your comments are incorrect. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
There is a logical inconsistency to say these redirects are useful -- but if the existence of such redirects is unreliable or unpredictable -- the usefulness negated. Essentially, arguing that these have any utility is an argument for creating these for every such incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Although I'd disagree with it, there is an argument that these redirects are of such marginal use and little consequence that we should ignore them, keeping any which exist without encouraging further creations. This seems to be the practice for Foo (disambiguation) redirects where Foo is an article with a dab-like function, e.g. SIAs and name lists. Certes ( talk) 11:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That's a good argument I would have pointed out. When we're talking about usefulness, the scope of utility and the scope of objects are important and should be directly related to the rationale. Because INTDABLINKs are useful only when the associated dab pages are actually linked, we're discouraged from creating them when they're not used. However, in this case, I haven't seen any argument that could clarify such kind of difference, while INTDABLINKs of redirect from incomplete disambiguation are unlikely to be linked in any cases. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
As I wrote in my initial !vote, the only purpose of 138th Street (New York City Subway station) (disambiguation) is as a target for a hypothetical link which intentionally refers to all New York City Subway stations called "138th Street" collectively. We have no such links, and it seems very unlikely that we will. If we ever do then I have no objections to recreating the redirect. Certes ( talk) 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_14&oldid=1185746922"