Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 27

July 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2023.

Better by Design
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 move Better by design to Better by Design  .  Jay  💬 04:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Better by Design → AMD mobile platform (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Disambiguate with better by design? And how many other articles? Does this affect the title of better by design; is that term ambiguous like this one seems to be?  J947  † edits 08:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 21:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate by putting a hatnote on both pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Better by design – title case is definitely a reasonable search term here (it's used several times in the article... which should be fixed either by changing them to sentence case or moving the article itself, but the point is that it's in use), and I'm not seeing evidence that the term is commonly used to refer to AMD nowadays. A hatnote can be added, but I don't know that it's necessary (I don't think people searching "better by design" will be looking for AMD's initiative). Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  03:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Move Better by design to Better by Design and add a hatnote to the current target. The sources at Better by design support use of title case i.e. that it's a proper noun, and would seem to be primary over the mentions at the AMD article. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

🫸
  Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 3%23🫸

List of wrongful convictions
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 miscarriage of justice cases. signed,Rosguill talk 20:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * List of wrongful convictions → List of wrongful convictions in the United States (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The United States =/= the world. This could probably be its own article, but the redirect should be deleted. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of miscarriage of justice cases, consistent with wrongful convictions redirecting to miscarriage of justice. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoop, I didn't realise this when I wrote the initial rationale. I agree that redirect makes the most sense. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of miscarriage of justice cases, doesn't seem controversial.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

2525, 3535, 4545, 6565, 7510, 8510, 9595
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 2525 and no consensus on the others.  .  Jay  💬 08:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think these should redirect to timeline of the far future, not in the year 2525. The song is becoming less and less well known as time goes on. People searching for those years are most likely looking for the years themselves, not the song. Marsbar8 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 22:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2525 → In the Year 2525 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 3535 → In the Year 2525 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 4545 → In the Year 2525 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 6565 → In the Year 2525 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 7510 → In the Year 2525 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 8510 → In the Year 2525 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 9595 → In the Year 2525 (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Comment: timeline of the far future doesn't mention any of these years specifically or indirectly. 2525 is a particular problem as it is earlier than the first entry in the article, while it is actually mentioned quite prominently at In the year 2525.  The other years are technically within the range of the first couple of table entries, but the table doesn't mention specific years and is a rather poor target for any particular number.  There is 3rd millennium which might be better for 2525 itself, but obviously not so much for the others.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Retarget 2525 to 3rd millennium which is a plausible target, and retarget all others to Timeline of the far future per nom. Honestly, these all seem like implausible search terms, but, since they already exist, I prefer retargeting to deletion. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep 2525; seems to be used as a short-hand term for the song (it sees multiple uses in Zager and Evans, for example, and it takes up a decent batch of the first google results). No comment on the rest. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  05:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: These numbers don't have to refer to just years. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 16:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Timeline of the far future has nothing to say about any of these specific years. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all. The song is the clear primary topic 2525 and no other article I can find mentions any of the others. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. QUICKWITTEDHARE  CONVERSE  17:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep 2525, delete others. For the record, here are the pageviews for the redirects in question. There was a simultaneous peak in all of the graphs on July 12, which — according to the lead at In the Year 2525 — is the date the song first charted. However, since the pageviews are in the single digits, I don't know if that fact alone is significant enough to keep them all. As mentioned, 2525 seems to be used as a reference to the song, and should stay a redirect to it. Oppose retargets to Timeline of the far future per previous comments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Not seeing a better target, and all of these are at least noted in the article. BD2412  T 19:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep 2525 and delete others. Same reasoning as and  for keeping "2525" as it is a shorthand for the song. Oppose retargets for the same reason as prior comments and based on TechnoSquirrel69's graph.  QUICKWITTEDHARE   CONVERSE  02:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep 2525 - Fix links on the rest to target 2525 (or de-link as contextually appropriate), and then Delete those redirects. - jc37 03:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the closer's benefit, there don't appear to be mainspace links to any of the redirects in question, and they can simply be deleted if there's consensus. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep 2525, delete the others. Oppose a redirect to Timeline of the far future. Similar redirects in the past have been deleted unless there were viable relevant targets to target to or disambiguate. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: It seems the majority seem to want to keep 2525 while the rest of them remain up for debate. QUICKWITTEDHARE   CONVERSE  19:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

CPRR
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 3%23CPRR

Nintendo game watch
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 3%23Nintendo game watch

Judeo-Kashani
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 3%23Judeo-Kashani

Volyn Crime
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 3%23Volyn Crime

Bloody Sunday (1943)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  ✗  plicit  12:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * <span id="Bloody Sunday (1943)">Bloody Sunday (1943) → Volhynian Bloody Sunday (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This redirect should be deleted. It's an inflammatory/POV added by a now-blocked WP:SPA and nothing links to the redirect. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - How is this inflammatory or POV? It is simply an alternate disambiguation (unless there's another "bloody sunday" in 1943, but none is listed on Bloody Sunday). It is listed on the DAB page under Bloody Sunday so this seems a completely plausible way to search for this. If there's POV/etc issues with the article itself then that's not relevant to this discussion. A7V2 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The user that added it is pushing a specific POV (anti-Ukrainian and Polish nationalism) in most of their non-sports edits and created two unnecessary redirects as part of that series of contributions.
 * In addition, nothing links to that location and the Polish Wikipedia which has more information on this topic doesn't refer to this incident without "Wołyniu" in the name. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a requirement that redirects be linked to. I'm still not sure I understand how this redirect in particular could be pushing any kind of POV. A7V2 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: It seems like a plausible way to search for this article, as most of the other Bloody Sundays are listed with their respective year on Bloody Sunday. The drop-down list when searching "Bloody Sunday" also shows many with dates, possibly leading one to believe that they can obtain the article by appending "(1943)" to the search. It seems like WP:CHEAP can apply here. QUICKWITTEDHARE   CONVERSE  17:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. It's a plausible search term and doesn't appear to be an incorrect name; the Bloody Sunday article includes mention of it and adding (1943) to disambiguate is consistent with the other Bloody Sunday articles. 〜 Askarion   ✉  20:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I don't see how this is inflammatory/POV when the target also contains the phrase "Bloody Sunday." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a bad faith editor happens to create a good redirect while POV-pushing, that's their loss.  J947  † edits 00:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Toad Town
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . WP:SNOW keep; it's mentioned in the infobox. Will remove the anchor, though. (non-admin closure)  Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  04:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Toad Town → Mushroom Kingdom (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Please delete this redirect. It appears "Toad Town" is no longer mentioned in the current target article. 45.72.202.106 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Listed in target article's "In-universe information" section. QUICKWITTEDHARE   CONVERSE  17:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per QuickWittedHare. Mentioned in article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, but the anchor can probably be removed because the section no longer exists. 〜 Askarion   ✉  15:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above: mentioned at target. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 18:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).