Select Page

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 13

February 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2025.

Wikimedia Brasil

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 6#Wikimedia Brasil

List of 'years in home video'

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. asilvering (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. This used to point to List of years in home video which was then deleted (along with the other "year in home video" articles) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 in home video. So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2025 (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).

Johann Hertel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Johann Hertel

Wikipedia:Deletion log

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. Added hatnote addresses the concerns by the non-keep participants. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft retarget to Special:Log/delete, this is obviously what someone would be trying to find if they're looking into WPspace. Some incomings links will need to be corrected but that is part and parcel for archiving. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2025 (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).

Simpsongate

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. asilvering (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in the article, and no mention of any controversies involving the premier Springfield selection (the original contents of this redirect) appear. Xeroctic (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2025 (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).

West Baltimore

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Baltimore neighborhoods#West. asilvering (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search clearly shows that the region of Baltimore is the PTOPIC over the train station, so retarget to List of Baltimore neighborhoods#West to match West Baltimore (region), or at least disambiguate. charlotte 👸♥ 20:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. I agree, and if someone did want the station, I can't imagine them not typing "Station". It'd be like someone trying to find "Penn Station" by just typing "Penn". Who does that? Fieari (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2025 (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).

MAGAt

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 Make America Great Again#Anti-Trump derivatives, parodies, and other derivatives. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should redirect to either Political views of Donald Trump or Make America Great Again. Most people who search for MAGAt with capital letters are probably looking for something related to President Donald Trump's supporters. Mast303 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (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).

British genocide

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#British genocide

Klonoa (video game)

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 Klonoa. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

possible confusion with the vaguely game-shaped software fatberg the wii was cursed with, or the franchise in general? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 18:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on that note, i should mention that this was an article until mid 2011, when it was blar'd as pretty much a duplicate of the wii demake's article, though i think it's not worth restoring for that same reason consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 18:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Klonoa as an incomplete disambiguation. If the series page ever gets deleted, it should become a DAB page anyway. P.S. While the 2008 game may not have been to your liking (though critical reception was mostly positive), insulting specific games seems unnecessarily antagonizing. I'm sure it was a nostalgic childhood memory for somebody. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also accordingly requested a history merge given that the current article for the 2008 game was not the original page ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:50, 14 February 2025 (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).

5.1 Music Disc

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. Multiple targets, and an idea of a disambiguation page, were suggested. Retargeting to one of the targets for now as an improvement over the current target of Compact disc, and choosing 5.1 surround sound as a suggestion provided by multiple participants. Jay 💬 21:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mention of "5.1" anywhere within the prose of the Compact disc article. Was seemingly redirected here after an AfD with desire to add material, but with no such material added, this redirect misleads readers with the promise of content it cannot deliver. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told multiple times, by multiple editors, there's no actual requirement for an article to mention the name of every single redirect.
"5.1" means five speakers and one subwoofer. There are also 2.1 and 7.1 setups. A 5.1 disc has the music recorded to support that kind of set up. It's possible that 5.1 surround sound would be a more informative article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The accepted name for these things is apparently DTS Music Disc or Surround Music Disc. It doesn't look like there was enough interest in the product to meet WP:42. I'm not finding sources that would be required to improve Compact Disc or Surround sound. ~Kvng (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I think DTS, Inc.#DTS Digital Surround might be a suitable target if a source can be found to support the addition of at least minimal information (a couple of sentences or so) about the format. Currently, while the section does indicate that the DTS codec could be used on audio CDs, the only direct statement to this effect was removed in Special:Diff/413441186. An article from Billboard magazine mentions "5.1 music disc", though it gives no technical details regarding the format. de:DTS-CD cites an article from c't, though I have not looked at it and do not know if it contains the needed information. PleaseStand (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to DTS, Inc.#DTS Digital Surround. I added the mention there, even though it's just one sentence for now. PleaseStand (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 01:26, 6 February 2025 (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) 18:44, 13 February 2025 (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).

Rojo (Cuban baseball team)

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. asilvering (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as an unambiguous substitute for Rojo (baseball), which was deleted at its RfD. The new redirect too however is not mentioned at the target. Propose to delete. Jay 💬 18:37, 13 February 2025 (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).

What is wikipedia about

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 22#What is wikipedia about

Index of statistical mechanics articles

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#Index of statistical mechanics articles

Faith Cavendish

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. asilvering (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No character by this named mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2025 (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).

Faye Donnelly

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. asilvering (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No character by this name is mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2025 (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).

Self-partnered

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 Single person#English. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect title and the article content do not seem to be related at all. I was not able to find a better target page. Kwonunn (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that this seemingly nonsensical redirect was created by an established Wikipedia admin, I knew I wasn’t getting the full story.
The redirect title used to be mentioned at the target article; that mention was removed for dubious reasons. See Talk:Emma Watson#‘Self-partnered’. Brianjd (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Bagumba. Brianjd (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add back the mention. Jay 💬 11:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: If you mean to add back the mention at Emma Watson, see the linked discussion at that article’s talk page. (It’s not really a ‘discussion’ yet, as no one else has contributed. Maybe you can change that.) Brianjd (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that before, and saw it has a link to this RfD. This RfD will have stronger consensus. Of course, if someone wants to take part in that discussion but skip this RfD, it is a separate matter, but I didn't see any participation other than yours. Jay 💬 12:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think RfD is the wrong place to discuss issues specific to target articles, but you probably have a better idea how things work on this project. Brianjd (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added back mention. Jay 💬 14:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HKLionel and Tavix: Since we seem to be discussing here (despite my earlier comment), I would point out that Single person seems to focus on terms that have received significant attention throughout society, while ‘self-partnered’ seems to be just a term made up by one person (at least based on the information currently included in Wikipedia). Brianjd (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: based on a quick Google news search, the term has been mentioned in connection with Sam Smith as well. I therefore stand by my vote for retargeting to the section on an article about the general term rather than the section of a specific (though most well-known) example. it's lio! | talk | work 12:10, 13 March 2025 (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).

Confection (song)

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. asilvering (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or at List of songs recorded by Gwen Stefani. Appears to have been an unreleased song that's never been released? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2025 (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).

410 (song)

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. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target in any capacity, making it a misleading redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2025 (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).

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

Darren Sargent

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. asilvering (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2025 (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).

Floyd Charles

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 00:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the character at the target. Was redirected from an article in 2009, as the result of an AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. One of the suggestions at the 2009 AfD (which had just one vote) was to merge with the list target. If the character has not been missed at the target for so many years, then he is minor indeed. Jay 💬 17:38, 20 February 2025 (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).

Washington Nationals minor league players

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 00:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of these players at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2025 (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).

Navy ratings

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 Naval rating. asilvering (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page should redirect to Naval rating instead as the US Navy is not the only navy which uses the term 'rating'. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom, seems obvious, especially considering the differing meaning of the term "rating" between the US and Commonwealth navies (a "rating" is a job specialty in the US Navy, whereas Commonwealth navies use the term to refer to an enlisted sailor's rank). Carguychris (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment, there's also the issue of disambiguating the term for a sailor's rank or job specialty from the Rating system of the Royal Navy, a historically significant system of categorizing sailing warships. The ship rating system is hatnoted at naval rating but not at the current target article, and it would make little sense to hatnote it there if not for this misleading redirect. Carguychris (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy retarget, I don't see why this even needed to be an RfD, WP:BEBOLD. The U.S. Navy is not the only navy which has ever existed. --Slowking Man (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2025 (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).

Expansionary

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 Expansion. Jay 💬 17:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could refer to (according to wikt:expansionary) anything that "promotes expansion" in some way or other. This includes stuff like an expansionary fiscal policy, an expansionary monetary policy, the expansionary phase of cosmology, or even the Chiss Expansionary Defence Fleet in Star Wars. So I suggest retargeting this somewhere, maybe to Expansion (a dab page). Duckmather (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:WPMHA

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

Created in 2014. ~Two incoming links. With the existence of the "TM" alias, TM:WPMHA is a totally sufficient shortcut for navigating to this page, in an effort to keep a confusing PNR out of namespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. At the last RfD, I was a relister, and was surprised when the redirect was kept, as opposed to at least a No Consensus. This time, we have a community view per nom, on how to treat "T:" redirects. Jay 💬 17:37, 25 February 2025 (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).

T:POV

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. asilvering (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in 2011. Incoming links are from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:POV is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:42, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:POTD

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. asilvering (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in October 2019. The only three incoming links are from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:POTD is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:38, 13 February 2025 (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).

Template:R from style

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 Template:R from stylization. {{R from styles}} was not added to the nom, and the only editor questioned if it would be used to refer to stylizations, so no action is being taken on that redirect. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be retargeted to Template:R from stylization as natural target for this redirect. Gonnym (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the current documentation has the following hatnote: "Template:R from style (in the sense of honorific royal/noble styles) redirects here; you may be looking for Template:R from stylization.". Utopes (talk / cont) 14:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to TM:R from stylization since that is probably the primary topic. All three of {{R from style}}, {{R from styles}} and {{R from royal style}} are unused in mainspace so I'm guessing royal style redirects just use {{R non-neutral}} directly. Also, {{R from styles}} should probably be added to this RfD as well. Nickps (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is. It already has a hatnote, and a noble style is a specific thing, for which there isn't an alternative name (they are distinct from titles and other appellations). The use of such a style in place of a usually more encyclopedic name for a biographical subject is indeed something that should be catalogued for potential cleanup with redirect-categorization templates.; The more specifically named redirects of those in turn, like the one at issue here, can be used more specifically with "What links here" (constrained to transclusions) to track a specific issue (and they sometimes become their own template category and separate rcat template over time anyway). The fact that someone somewhere paying no attention of any kind might be confused and use this to refer to typographic stylization is not important, since it's not frequent and is easy to fix. By the kind of "prevent any misunderstanding or misuse at all costs" reasoning behind this RfD, we'd have to rename several thousand templates, redirects, and other pages (including even some policies, using terms with a special WP-specific meaning rather than the vernacular one a noob would have in mind). This is not HeadInTheCloudsAndPayingNoHeedToAnythingPedia or EngineerEverythingForLowestCommonDenominatorDunderheadsPedia or ReduceFunctionalityForExperiencedUsersToMakeItAllEasyForNewOnesPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template redirect isn't titled {{R from noble style}}, if that was the intended usage of it. {{R from stylization}} should be the primary usage of "style" alone. Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you list a few examples from the thousands of templates, redirects, policy pages, etc.? Just trying to understand what you have in mind. Jay 💬 21:49, 4 March 2025 (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).

T:OTD

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. asilvering (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in June 2022. The only incoming links are from "T:" title collections, or from when this page got deleted in 2011 via RfD pointing at a (presumably) different target. WP:OTD is a good alternative shortcut that exists outside of article-space. TM:OTD is a template redirect to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Date. All else being equal, it's currently confusing why T:OTD and TM:OTD have different targets. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:34, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:OAFD

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. asilvering (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in 2012. The only three incoming links are from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:OAFD is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space, created at the exact same time as this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:26, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:ITV

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. Complex/Rational 21:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in 2016 and comes with a can of unideal practice. "T:" is a pseudo-namespace, meaning that it is a reasonable assumption to believe that "T:" and "Template:" are interchangeable. However, this is one of the only redirects to do something different. The claim made in a prior RfD is that "T:ITV" is a shortcut redirect, not a pseudo-namespace redirect. (If it were a pseudo-namespace redirect, the pseudo-namespace would represent Template:ITV, but this does not point there). In any case, as a shortcut in mainspace, this is not ideal. WP:ITV is my best compromise if it is important for a shortcut to exist. But as a title starting with "T:" this is confusing if the "T:" is not serving its purpose as a pseudo-namespace. 9 incoming links at this time, primarily from RfD and T: title collections. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone who edits a lot in this area, I've not encountered this usage as a link (backed-up by the lack of no incoming links). I also don't find the rational for its existence that compelling. TM:infobox tv exists if anyone really wants a shortcut when searching. Gonnym (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (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).

2026 Belgian Cup final

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. Jay 💬 17:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information at the target about the 2026 final, or at List of Belgian Cup finals. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2025 (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).

2029 Uruguayan general election

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. Jay 💬 17:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information about a 2029 election at the target. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2025 (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).

2026 NBA draft

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. Jay 💬 17:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information about the 2026 NBA draft at the target. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2025 (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).

Provincial law

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 Province#Legal aspects. asilvering (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect does not go to the right article. The article on State government mentions provinces of Argentina and Canada, and then states: "Their governments, which are also provincial governments, are not the subject of this article." Since the article expressly states it is not about provincial governments, "Provincial law" should not redirect there. A better article for the redirect would be Law of Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this doesn't go to the right article (although TBH the notation re Canadian and Argentinian provinces in state government is somewhat bizarre as federated nations may have different names for comparable sub-national entities, but at present this distinction is treated in a bewildering variety of articles). Perhaps Federated state might be a better target. older ≠ wiser 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not an article about laws. Too general an article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but state law is a pretty useless set index at present. I think the main point is the distinction between the administrative levels that exist in a federated system of laws. older ≠ wiser 14:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the Province article indicates, there can be provinces in non-federal states, so equating "province" to a sub-division in a federal state is too limited. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Federalism#Constitutional structure could be a good target maybe? At the least, it discusses the legal structure of federated states. I'm not 100% convinced it would be the most useful target though. Law of Canada seems too specific to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better option would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province#Legal_aspects, because that article acknowledges that provinces have different functions in different countries, and there can be provinces in non-federal countries. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks like a good place to retarget. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this retargeting. Tenpop421 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2025 (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).

2028 NFL season

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. Jay 💬 17:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information for the 2028 season at the target, making the redirect misleading. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:DOC

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. Complex/Rational 21:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in 2013 as a compromise from deleting a different T: title. The only incoming links are from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:DOC is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The TM: alternative doesn't require any real additional effort. Deleting this removes an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unhelpfull cross-namespace redirect. Tenpop421 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2025 (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).

T:DAB

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 G7 deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in April 2022. Has not existed long enough to become a mainstay. The only incoming link is from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:DAB is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The TM: alternative doesn't require any real additional effort. Deleting this removes an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:ADMINDASH

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. Complex/Rational 21:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in July 2017. The only five incoming links are from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:ADMINDASH is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space, created at the exact same time as this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The TM: alternative doesn't require any real additional effort. Deleting this removes an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:ACI

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. Complex/Rational 21:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in 2012. The only four incoming links are from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:ACI is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space, created at the exact same time as this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The TM: alternative doesn't require any real additional effort. Deleting this removes an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2025 (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).

T:ACDS/T

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. Complex/Rational 21:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

This redirect was created in May 2021. The only three incoming links are from "T:" title collections in userspace. TM:ACDS/T is a good alternative shortcut that exists in template space, created at the exact same time as this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The TM: alternative doesn't require any real additional effort. Deleting this removes an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2025 (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).

Eastern (basketball)

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other basketball organizations named "Eastern". Ones we have pages for include Eastern Basketball Alliance and Eastern Basketball Association, while google gives a number of other hits. The Hong Kong team doesn't seem to be the primary topic. The redirect is tagged as from a move I don't see it under this name anywhere in the history, but I may be missing something, since the redirect has gotten hundreds of views this month. If the page has substantially history under this name then happy to withdraw this. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Eastern is a guest team in the 2024–25 PBA Commissioner's Cup and is the cause of the page (redirect?) views. Retarget and itemize as per the anon above. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2024–25 PBA Commissioner's Cup, Hong Kong Eastern is simply referred to as "Eastern"; I've named it as such but was reverted because in WP:OFFICIAL PBA lingo, the team from Hong Kong is simply referred to as "Eastern". Compare to the parallel 2024–25 East Asia Super League where they are referred to as "Hong Kong Eastern" and are referred to by that name on that article. I figured "Fine, let's do what they say". The links were originally targetted to Eastern Sports Club (basketball)", then was retargetted to "Eastern (basketball)" by Gayviewmahat on this edit. He also created this redirect, and has not commented here; that guy just edits and never engages in discussions. That's where the pageviews came from. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 12:34, 13 February 2025 (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).

Vitamin C2

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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 23:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No presence of the term in the article. Nothing seems to show up (in the article or from searches online) that classifies Choline as anything close to a "Vitamin C2". it does say that "..Choline is not formally classified as a vitamin despite being an essential nutrient with an amino acid–like structure and metabolism..", but otherwise there is virtually nothing going for this redirect, unless I'm mistaken. DM5Pedia (ctr) 22:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Vitamin C2 appears to be a registered trademark of the "Life Priority" company for the combination of calcium ascorbate and ascorbyl palmitate, which it calls "water soluble" and "fat soluble" vitamin C, respectively... which may or may not be BS as I don't see anyone else talking about it and they do mention they aren't FDA evaluated (to be fair, both are approved as food additives as safe at least). There is also a paper published in Nature that says Vitamin P is also known as Vitamin C2. These are the only hits I find for "Vitamin C2" on google. Searching for choline +"C2" specifically shows some papers that say choline has something to do with something called "the C2 domain" which doesn't appear to have anything to do with vitamins, but I genuinely don't really know what what it does mean. Fieari (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: The "C2" in choline research is to do with "complement" protein. It has nothing to do with any vitamin, so "Vitamin C2" seems as you say to be the purest of BS; or at best, a simple error of identification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Aesculin (aka Esculin). Several databases record Vitamin C2 as a synonym for esculin (e.g. NCBI search results, DrugBank). Note that Vitamin P refers to multiple molecules which are glycosylated versions of quercetin. Databases can always be wrong when it comes to these things, but I see no problem in WP reflecting these likely inconsequential minutia. Also, don't be fooled by the number of databases that make the synonym claim, most are just copying one source, just look at the description field. ⇌ Synpath 21:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. No authoritative regulatory source (FDA, EFSA, Health Canada) uses vitamin C2 for choline (or anything else), and neither is vitamin P an accepted scientific term for polyphenols which are not "vitamins" and have unknown properties in vivo. As for "WP reflecting these likely inconsequential minutia", our job as editors should be to provide simple, verifiable content for readers of the encyclopedia - the KISS principle applies. Zefr (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12212 Table 2 lists C2 as being mentioned in 1948 (doi:10.1038/161557a0) as a synonym for Vitamin P. Perhaps Vitamin C2 should be a dab page; maybe chemistry needs a category tree like Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names jnestorius(talk) 02:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with a DAB. Fieari (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per jnestorius, including Esculine and Flavenoids (aka Vitamin P). A quick search of the literature on google scholar using the term "Vitamin C2" yields several papers listing it as a synonym for vitamin P (albeit mostly in the 1950s by 1 principle author) [[1]] [[2]] [[3]].
Additionally, I did find a tentative link to choline. This book lists vitamin C2 as a synonym for vitamin J on page 510, and vitamin J is an established synonym for choline (see Redirect). Definitely seems incorrect, I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 12:32, 13 February 2025 (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).

Demolition lovers II

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Demolition lovers II

Glamorgan women's cricket team

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 01:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading target. Glamorgan women's team are going to compete in multiple different competitions, and so makes no sense to redirect to one of the competitions in which they will compete. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2025 (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).

LGBTQ+ production of family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4#LGBTQ+ production of family

Draft:Invest 92L (2024)

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. Jay's analysis seems correct in that the editor who created this was the one to add this content to (and the only one to contribute content to) the other draft, so history merging isn't needed. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one invest called 92L in 2024 A1Cafel (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at a certain point, it just becomes routine.✶Quxyz✶ 13:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the designation Invest 92L was used multiple times in 2024, not just for the system that became Hurricane Milton. Drdpw (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2025 (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).

UKCF

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. Added a hatnote to the commando brigade. Jay 💬 17:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UKCF is now also the abbreviation for United Kingdom Commando Force, the former 3 Commando Brigade; as such, I propose that UKCF be made a disambiguation page, as I do not believe one or other could be said to be the primary topic. The other solution would be for the redirect hatnote to be placed on the UK Community Foundations page. Cheers in advance, RadiculousJ (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add hatnote. Google suggests that the charity is the WP:PTOPIC by a wide margin, so it should remain the target, but a hatnote would work well here. If it was more balanced by usage, or if more things used these four letters, I'd agree with a DAB, but this case is what hatnotes are for. Fieari (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fieari: I'll be honest, I really didn't do my due diligence before making this nomination, so apologies for that. (Probably doesn't help that military stuff is much more my speed than charities, so probably had a biased/blinkered view on it.) But in short, given that the current redirect is clearly pointed at the correct article, I am happy for this to be closed early/speedily closed. Cheers, RadiculousJ (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2025 (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).

Jesus donkey

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#Jesus donkey