February 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2024.

Baker center

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 Baker Center. Obvious, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, etc. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, as this redirect makes it harder to locate articles about places also named “Baker Center”. There is a disambiguation page for “Baker Center” that includes the target article as well as two others. I see little reason for this redirect to continue existing. Slamforeman (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2024 (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).

2005 London bombings

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 19#2005 London bombings

September 26, 1963

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 withdraw / retarget to September 1963#September 26, 1963 (Thursday). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No September 26th listed there. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete': per nom. Pointless to redirect a variant of a date to an article that does not mention that date. Meters (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Still not a great redirect, but at least September 1963#September 26, 1963 (Thursday) is in use. Meters (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters and Presidentman: Any chance I could convince you to change your stance so I can withdraw this thing? Seems a target was found. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the ping. Meters (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer deletion, but I will defer to you for the sake of consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:12, 16 February 2024 (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 Cops episodes

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 Cops (TV program)#Episodes. ✗plicit 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that many may want to search the original term in an attempt to find an episode/episodes from before season 21, therefore a disambiguation page seems like the best way. 83.168.137.1 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (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).

不

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 弐, delete others.

WP:FORRED redirect for a kanji not discussed at the target article, with the target article having no affinity towards this kanji. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've since bundled four other kanji redirects to articles that don't necessarily have an affinity for kanji, or the kanji translation I'd expect to see related are just not present at the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the actual Japanese numeral listed at Japanese numeral not be helpful or needed? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget 1 and 2 to Wiktionary where there might be more help for those actually searching for the definition of these Han characters. Keep 3, 4, 5 as those seem plausible foreign language titles for those willing to learn more about these topics. Awesome Aasim 07:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 is not Chinese. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 is not Chinese.[citation needed] In any case, I have no objections to Wiktionary-ifying this redirect either. Awesome Aasim 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, my suggestion is to retarget 5 to Japanese numerals per 65.92. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a longstanding consensus to delete foreign-language redirects, see WP:RLOTE. QueenofHearts 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus to (soft) retarget 不 (1), 銅 (2), and 弐 (5), but what do we do with 嫉 (3) and 漏 (4)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (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).

HSOWA

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) 18:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stands for "hot skitty on wailord action". self-explanatory cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:54, 12 February 2024 (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).

Minister for Education and Youth Affiars (New South Wales)

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 14:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely typo for a defunct position. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2024 (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).

Napoleon (upcoming film)

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) 00:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request for deletion. the redirect is unlogical (the movie was released last year). LennBr (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. These redirects are typically kept for a while after the page move to allow all the people looking for it at this title to find it at the new one, e.g. bookmarks and links from outside Wikipedia are updated. While the views of this page are slowing down, it is still getting hits on more days than it isn't and multiple hits on about half the days indicating that it's utility hasn't ended yet. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Thryduulf (talk · contribs) - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 16:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM. Subject was released more than 30 days ago, and the page view noise is almost nonexistent. Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An average of more than one hit per day in the 30 days prior to the nomination is not remotely "almost non-existent". Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You sometimes agree with deletion per WP:UFILM with this few page views, and sometimes you don't. 1-2 views/day average, to me, is always minimal page view noise to where WP:UFILM applies to support deleting the redirect. It's not until at least 5-10 views/day average where I would change this stance. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1-2 views per month is usually noise, a sustained 1-2 views per day average pretty much never is, but the relative number of views pre and post move, and the pattern of those views also matters. I will repeat again though (because it often gets overlooked) that determining when a redirect of this nature has ceased to be useful almost always includes some subjectivity (there was one case a while back where there had been exactly zero views for about 4-5 months). There is no single figure for page views or time that applies in every case. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, we don't agree on the definition of a "low amount of page views over a period of time". That's okay. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the movie was released in 2023 and is not "upcoming" under any stretch of the imagination, several months later. Now that time has been given, this redirect is now misleading and causes confusion. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Time has been given, but not enough time for people to stop regularly using this redirect to find the target article (there being no other upcoming film by this name means this isn't confusing). Anyone who doesn't know the film has been released will learn that from the target rather than being left confused by search results which may be several clicks/taps away and may or may not include the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly against a future RfD. There is agreement that it should be deleted, only no agreement when it should be deleted. Delete now because the cost of going through a second RfD isn't worth it. The loss of utility incurred by not having this redirect is marginal and is outweighed by the benefit of not having a second RfD. Proceeding from this, whenever there is agreement that something should be deleted, but no agreement when, and the stakes aren't high, it should just be deleted, as a matter of principle; we can even form a consensus to delete it in a month from the date of closing of this RfD and {{Db-xfd}} it then. Wanting a second full discussion is too much process.—Alalch E. 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very, very strongly oppose that. Even if the time was equally valuable the cost of an RfD for editors is much less than the cost to readers of breaking links and making it unnecessarily hard to find the content they are looking for, but in reality reader time is very significantly more valuable than editor time. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the spirit of WP:UFILM. From 10,000 views per day, the views came to 6,000 per day as the release drew closer. After the move in Dec 2022, the views dropped from ~3000 to less than 500. For a year following that, the views were 5-10-15 per day justifying the redirect. Anytime from Dec 2023 was a good time to nominate this for deletion since it was a good waiting period in order to allow pageviews to taper off. If "taper off" at UFILM is to be interpreted as 0 views, then we need to amend UFILM to explicitly mention such an interpretation, otherwise we are done "tapering off". Jay 💬 15:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained repeatedly "taper off" does not mean 0 views, but it does mean fewer than 1 per day on average and the pattern of views also matters. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "it does mean", is it your personal opinion, or are you basing this on prior discussions or a meta page, because UFILM doesn't mention pageview counts? Jay 💬 17:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These need to be deleted eventually, but the value of deleting them now rather than later has never been explained at any of these discussions. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM, it was released more than 30 days ago. -- Tavix (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM, a straightforward piece of guidance intended to avoid protracted debate every time one of these is nominated. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2024 (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).

0 A.D. (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 delete. ✗plicit 05:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not have redirects with parenthetical disambiguation where the closing bracket is missing. If this is typed into search, the reader will certainly be led to the correct page without a redirect, requiring 0-1 extra clicks. —Alalch E. 03:10, 12 February 2024 (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).

January 6 hostage crisis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 20#January 6 hostage crisis

Unforms of the canadian forces

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 05:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not about all-lowercase. Notice the typo in the fist word, "Unforms". It lacks an "i". Not a plausible redirect. —Alalch E. 03:03, 12 February 2024 (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).

George Floyd race riots

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 💬 15:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RNEUTRAL. Nobody refers to them this way. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL #3. Based on my searches, there does appear to be usage of this phrase from mainly right-wing sources. See, e.g., [1], [2], and [3]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RNEUTRAL#3 still requires that we're considering reliable sources, not deprecated or otherwise unreliable sources like those above. If we're not considering reliability, we can create absolutely any redirect that's been mentioned on the internet (defeating the point of that guideline). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second source is The New York Post, and the third is a reprint of an article from The Wall Street Journal (here is a link to the paywalled version). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NY Post is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP). The third link was to "The Red Line", but I see now it's WSJ. It's an opinion piece in the WSJ, though, which isn't reliable for anything beyond the author's opinions. IMO we should not have such low standards for this sort of thing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're misinterpreting the rule you're citing. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with all of these a POV fork is designed to enable someone to call them a riot, despite RS not using the term. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the phrase is only from a handful of non-reliable, far-right sources and opinion pieces. It is also a deliberately misleading phrase. The events were not "race riots". Many of those were actually convicted of riot-related charges were White Americans. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly, note that this is a redirect, so the only time it will be seen is generally if someone searches for it. Given that someone searching for the article may not fully understand what took place (hence the reason they might like to read the article), so helping someone find what they are looking for is a positive. Secondly, there is clearly usage amongst sources, some questionable (but still used by some of our readers no doubt), and some are not, for example The Australian (I can't link directly due to paywall but see the headline here [4] "George Floyd race riots show American dreams in flames"). A7V2 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no requirement that non-neutral terms appear in reliable sources in order to justify a redirect, they are simply required to be established terms. Indeed a term appearing only or primarily in unreliable sources can often make a good redirect as it enables people to find NPOV coverage of the event (or person, etc) and coverage in reliable sources when they use a different term. It's also worth remembering that usage here is effectively ABOUTSELF - all we're looking for is evidence of use of the term in this context, and even a deprecated source can be used to verify that that source used a given term in a given context. In this case however, the term does appear in reliable sources (e.g. The Week, The Australian, City Journal, Manhattan Institute (the latter two are biased sources that require attribution, but that's irrelevant here). Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 12 February 2024 (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).

Theroy of Evolution

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. Jay 💬 16:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from typo. While it's obviously possible that anybody could accidentally type "theroy" instead of "theory" by mistake, we don't need to create preemptive redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody making -- a person could also accidentally type "tehroy", "thoery", "theryo", "theoyr", "hteryo", "rgwiet", or any number of other things, and any number of possible typos in "evolution" too, so there's no need for us to preemptively create thousands of redirects from every possible typo. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Plausible typo" is not grounds for keeping a redirect from a misspelling — there are literally thousands of ways that the title "theory of evolution" could possibly be mistyped, so we can't feasibly create a redirect from every possible misspelling that anybody might ever type by mistake. The bar that would have to be cleared to justify a redirect-from-misspelling is evidence that a significant number of people in the real world actually think that theroy is the actual spelling of the word, not just whether it's possible to imagine that somebody might mistype it that way by accident — because again, there are thousands of different possible ways to mistype any word or title, and there's no value in trying to predict all of them in advance. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since any two letters in any word can be accidentally transposed by any typist at any time, keeping this on those grounds would inherently require the creation of millions of redirects from every possible transposition of all the letters in every title of every article we have at all. So the relevant question here isn't "is it possible to mistype ro instead of or?", because it's always possible to mistype any combination of letters — the question is whether "theroy-->theory" is such a uniquely special case of such uniquely special importance that it requires special treatment over and above all other possible typos that we don't handle this way, which it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is proposing mass-creation of redirects. But this one is already here, so we may as well keep it. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's too much garbage on Wikipedia and we need to clean it up.18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Genome42 (talk)
  • Keep per Presidentman and Synpath, this is demonstrably helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as R typo. Normally someone will make a typo redirect once they made the mistake themself. Respublik (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally wouldn't have nominated this redirect, as a number of even worse typos I've seen survive these discussions. A past me would've sent something like New zealad to RfD, which I saw go by in the queue last week or so (very new). In an ideal world, that redirect would never exist, but ah well. I agree there's almost no chance "theroy" is a common typo (zero views in the month before nom), and there's hundreds of ways to butcher the spelling of any random word for any random page. At the end of the day, the spelling of "theroy" is nothing special and is not a plausible typo in comparison to the hundreds of other typos, which no one has justified. Unfortunately, my delete !vote is mainly spiritual, because it's been around for a while and on the scale of pressing typo problems, this one is low I fear. Ideally we could delete it while we're here with the RfD open, but keeping or deleting doesn't really do anything as it's a bit of a nothingburger in the grand scheme of typos. There's other problem redirects worth the time. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is actually a double mistake: one of many possible typos with nothing to suggest that it is especially common, as well as improper capitalization, as evolution is a common noun and most occurrences in the literature treat it as such in theory of evolution. (The properly capitalized title with the same typo does not exist.) Complex/Rational 14:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 12 February 2024 (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).

Minecrat

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 💬 16:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from typo. I can find no evidence on the web that any significant number of people actually refer to this game as "Minecrat" on purpose -- I can find a few stray examples of people who mistyped it as Minecrat, but not nearly enough to suggest that there's any significant phenomenon of people spelling it that way to take into account. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:49, 12 February 2024 (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).

Complete esults of the Canadian federal election, 2004

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 05:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo; this was the page title for less than half a day. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is an unlikely typo. - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (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).
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_12
No tags for this post.