Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 23

May 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2024.

Pomosexuality
 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 Sexual identity.  ✗  plicit  02:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Pomosexuality → wiktionary:pomosexual (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Retarget to Sexual identity as it's mentioned there and links to Wiktionary. Though I wouldn't oppose retargeting somewhereelse if defined. -- MikutoH talk! 02:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget - per nom. Fieari (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plausible soft redirect. The term "pomosexuality" isn't mentioned anywhere on EnWiki, so converting this into a "hard" redirect makes no sense, since there isn't any plausible target in my opinion. Better to leave as is. CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget. Pomosexual is now mentioned in the proposed target: voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Sexual identity per nom. Enix150 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).

Hamich
 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 delete  .  ✗  plicit  02:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hamich → Said Hamich Benlarbi (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Disputed speedy deletion that I'm consquently taking here even though it clearly passes the WP:SNOW test. This is a "surname to individual person with it" redirect, except that (a) it isn't even his actual surname, but instead the article was created at Said Hamich despite the subject being more usually credited as Said Hamich Benlarbi, such that every single article connected to the film he just dropped at Cannes a few days ago completely missed that an article existed until I found and moved it, and (b) he isn't even the sole or primary topic for "Hamich" anyway, because every single inbound link that's actually coming here is expecting a German village just outside Aachen that was bombed in World War II. So using this as a single-topic surname redirect isn't appropriate if he isn't the sole topic and the incoming links are all expecting the other one across the board. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:REDLINK. An article on the German town could be created. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep it is his surname as found in the sources used in the article, pyramidefilms and unifrance -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And the German town that is being expected by every single article that's actually linking here at all is supposed to just suck it up and live with linking to the wrong thing, I suppose? Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In fairness that could be easily addressed by simply piping the links to point at Hamich (village), or similar. Won't be an entirely satisfactory solution for those who believe the village is the primary topic though. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E45A:47:824C:C807 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And why would the filmmaker get to claim primary topic? The existence of this redirect might be the reason why the village doesn't have an article yet, because it's a blue link in the articles that are looking for the German village so people haven't noticed that it's missing — so the moment we've identified that another topic with this name exists, "he's the only topic that currently has an article right now" is automatically an invalid criterion, and the only acceptable grounds for keeping this would be full-on evidence that even if the village did have an article the filmmaker would still get primary topic rights over the village anyway. So what are the grounds on which he would be primary topic for "Hamich"? Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the recency, I am inclined to doubt the existence of the redirect is why the village has no article but we can only speculate, an exercise that tends to be dissipative; piping the links resolves the concern in any case. The guideline is explicit that "Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic", so opinions may differ. And I was quite explicit that it would not "be an entirely satisfactory solution for those who believe the village is the primary topic" an assertion that your reply validates. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E45A:47:824C:C807 (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Piping the links doesn't resolve anything, because piping the links is an automatic banishment of the village to secondary topic status, and the fact that it's not a satisfactory solution is precisely the problem. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said it resolves the concern that the existing redirect inhibits article creation, but not the seperate concern over the primary topic, which you have also raised. I have not examined that issue in detail, and have no intention of doing so, which is why thus far I have only left a comment here, though I suppose I could eventually get around to it if a clear consensus fails to develop. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6573:F24B:E2A6:BBEE (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I challenged the speedy because this is an unambiguous WP:NOTCSD explicitly covered by point 15 in fact. Template:R from surnames are common and accepted, the issue appears to be whether or not this is functionally the primary target. If an article on the village existed a bold dabification would likely have gone unchallenged, but it doesn't, thus this discussion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a CSD in the page history of Hamich. @Bearcat, where's the CSD? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See the deletion log. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6573:F24B:E2A6:BBEE (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDLINK (and Voorts). I agree that the filmmaker is not likely to be the primary topic here, and we don't have an article on the primary topic, likely because the link is blue and interested parties are unaware the article is non-existent at this time.  When the article exists, a hatnote can be used.  Until then, the built-in search feature will suffice to assist anyone looking for the filmmaker. Fieari (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).

Astounding incident
 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 delete  .  Jay  💬 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Astounding incident → Deadline (science fiction story) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

While I was RfDing astounding, I noticed this redirect. Maybe delete as too vague/confusing? (A lot of events could be called an "astounding incident", depending on your point of view, and we don't seem to have articles on either the concepts of astoundingness or incidents either.) Duckmather (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment This isn't that vague. It is about an incident concerning Astounding Magazine, where in the target story Deadline was published in Astounding and resulted in an FBI investigation for leaking nuclear secrets during WWII. Perhaps reading the article could elucidate why it is called an "Astounding icident" and not an "astounding incident" -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The first letter of a given article is not case sensitive, because it's always expected to be capitalized as per WP:LOWERCASE; thus, for all we knew, it WAS "astounding incident". If kept, refining to Deadline would be warranted, but because of the capitalization issue, my assertion as per vagueness holds. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, vague, as above. I did not find that "Astounding incident" is a common way to refer to the FBI investigation into the Deadline story. Incoming links and pageviews seem to agree. If it is, it's drowned out by this being a common phrase. &#8213; Synpath 04:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).

Astounding
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31%23Astounding

Astonishing
 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 disambiguate  . I see a consensus for disambiguation here. Any further discussion as to the disambiguation page's content can take place on its talk page. (non-admin closure)  Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Astonishing → The Astonishing (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Yet another astonishing (sorry, I just had to make a redirect for this link) vocabulary redirect. I propose retargeting this redirect to either Surprise (emotion) or astonishing. Duckmather (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate between the two. BD2412  T 02:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is going to be a disambiguation page it should include a link to Astonishing Stories.  As I commented in the RfD just above this, I don't think surprise (emotion) is a great choice, but for consistency if we do that it should also be added to astounding, amazing, and startling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Soft-redirect to astonishing. The word "astonishing" is not merely a synonym for surprise (see the wikt page), and thus should not be redirected there. I support DABing since others have found potiential targets. Ca talk to me!  14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Ca <sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">talk to me!  01:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation page, linking to The Astonishing and Astonishing Stories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A bit more data: Astonishing Stories is not as frequently abbreviated to Astonishing as Astounding Stories is abbreviated to Astounding, as it's a more obscure magazine, but it does happen. Searching Google Books finds use of the abbreviation in James Gunn's book on Asimov's Foundation series, and in Frederik Pohl's autobiography, The Way the Future Was.  I would expect there to be a few more similar usages in histories of sf.  So I think it needs to be included in any dab page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate - I see four possible targets mentioned in this very RfD, that's enough for a DAB. Fieari (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate between nom's two targets and the current target. Not Astonishing Stories, or any other article with "astonishing" in its title, per WP:PTM, but intitle should be included on the dab page.  J 947  ‡ edits 23:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then put Astonishing Stories as a See also. BD2412  T 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and add a hatnote to The Astonishing linking to Astonishing Stories but NOT Surprise (emotion). I agree with Mike Christie's rationale for inclusion/exclusion, respectively, but The Astonishing is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between those three articles by usage. There is no need for a SRD or DAB purely to navigate to wiktionary here. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambig, including Astonishing Stories, per Mike Christie. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

Turkish bath
<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 keep  . That's long enough to leave this open. Discussion here focused on whether hammams were the primary topic of the phrase Turkish bath. Some editors argued that this redirect should target the disambiguation page in a no primary topic fashion. Analysis of the pageviews and mentions in sources indicated that hammams are the primary topic, an argument that was not refuted. A hatnote to the disambiguation page remains at the target article. (non-admin closure) — TechnoSquirrel69  ( sigh ) 00:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Turkish bath → Hammam (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The target of this redirect should likely be reconsidered. The most helpful solution may to turn this into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). Reason: The term "Turkish bath" in a Western context is fairly generic and might also denote other types of steam baths, in addition to the mainly Islamic ones covered at Hammam. Since this was last discussed in 2021 (see here), a more fully-fledged Victorian Turkish bath article now exists. Other articles might also be relevant to link. Note: This came out of a discussion at Talk:Turkish Bath (disambiguation) between myself and. Feel free to read there for more context & explanation. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Hammam is the primary topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Retarget: I don't know the correct Wiki terminology to use, but searchers from different communities seeking information on so-called 'Turkish baths' (which no longer appears as an article) could equally be looking for Hammam or Victorian Turkish baths and some type of 'See:' reference should offer these two clear redirecting link options.
 * Hammam is neither primary nor secondary. Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths only have in common that they are baths, and are both derived from the ancient Roman thermae. Victorian Turkish baths are not steam baths. Nor are they really, as the Hammam article states, "A variation on the Muslim bathhouse"—which is why in France and Germany they are called Roman-Irish baths.


 * The only guiding principle here should be: 'Save the time of the reader' Ranganathan's 4th law. Ishpoloni (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we follow our own policies and guidelines, not library science (for better or for worse, I can't say). The guideline for how to deal with ambiguous terms (like Turkish bath) is WP:D. The first step is to determine whether there is a primary topic. One way to do that is to look at page traffic. The page traffic for Hammam shows that most people get to that page via an "other-search", such as searching for the term "Turkish bath" via an external search engine, but that only 15% of people then click away to Victorian Turkish baths from that article. We can infer that most readers were, in fact, looking for Hammam when they searched "Turkish bath". We can also look at |Hammam comparative pageviews, which shows that Hammam gets far more views than Victorian Turkish baths. Then, if we've determined a primary topic, the guideline tells us to redirect the ambiguous term to that page, with hatnotes to the appropriate disambiguation pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Having had time to familiarise myself more with the often complicated Wikipedia guidance notes, I now believe that the most equitable solution is the one suggested above by R Prazeres, ie, to change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This could either be based on the existing one or, perhaps preferably, like the Mercury page example given in the guidance notes. I believe this is a solution on which we should easily be able to reach consensus.


 * Reasons:


 * 1. Of the 22 reasons for a redirect given on Redirect the overwhelming majority relate to different forms of words, grammar, punctuation, etc. Not one exemplifies a redirect of one subject to another subject.


 * 2. On Disambiguation page the three important points seem to be:
 * (a) naming articles so each has an unique title, eg, Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths;
 * (b) making links so that a term points to the correct article;
 * (c) "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis)


 * Proposed resolution:
 * Change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation)


 * An allied matter:
 * In case there are Western European readers of this Wikipedia, there should be Redirects < Irish-Roman baths and < Roman-Irish baths > Victorian Turkish baths. Ishpoloni (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Turkish Bath (disambiguation) per nom. -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Turkish Bath (disambiguation) per nom.
 * awkwafaba (📥) 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay  💬 14:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * A. The identification of a primary topic only seems to apply when there are synonyms for the terms used to name a specific subject, or for grammatical clarifications (see Reason 1 in my previous reply).
 * B. When there are two completely different and separate subjects, ie, Hammam & Victorian Turkish baths, there cannot be a "primary topic" simply because both are types of hot-air bath, any more than there can be a "primary topic" between Apple & Pear simply because both are types of fruit.
 * C. Wikipedia's object in the case of multiple subjects (see 2.c above) is to enable readers to speedily find the subject wanted, whichever one it is.
 * D. The current situation where a reader, perhaps the (wo)man on the Clapham omnibus rather than an academic, seeks information on Turkish baths and is willy-nilly diverted to an article on hammams—and so may never discover the existence of an article on Victorian Turkish baths—cannot be equitable, or helpful.
 * E. The solution suggested above by R Prazeres to retarget to Turkish Bath (disambiguation) not only follows Wikipedia principles, but provides the speediest route to either of the two subjects sought. It should now be adopted as a win-win solution for both subjects, and will in practice lead readers to articles on subjects they may not previously have come across.Ishpoloni (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The argument in B is off-base, as these two topics can both be referred to as "Turkish bath" in colloquial English. signed,Rosguill talk 19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - pageviews analysis suggests that Hamam is the primary topic, with that page receiving far more views per day (of which views coming from the redirect are only a fraction). Arguably even stronger evidence is that even sources contemporary to Victorian England identify the Hamam as the Turkish bath (see page 34 onward ). Those looking for the Victorian topic can be directed by the existing hatnote at the current target. signed,Rosguill talk 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Erasmus Wilson, on page 34 of his 1861 book which you mention, is specifically using the term Hamâm in describing it "…as it exists at the present moment in Constantinople", a bath which (p.36) "…is moistened with a thin vapour"—the very opposite of the dry Victorian Turkish bath. And when he describes the bath in the British Isles (p.50 et seq) the terminology moves from Arabic and Turkish terms to Roman ones, beginning a paragraph (p.96) "As the British thermae is at present in a state of infancy…". From this moment, the inspiration for British hot air bathing moves from Turkey to ancient Rome and becomes what will later be identified as the Victorian Turkish bath. Today, this is dying; in contrast, the hammam is starting a revival. This does not make the subject of the Victorian Turkish bath less important, or a "secondary topic". Ishpoloni (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that these baths are distinct is not the crux of this discussion, the question at issue is, which bath is someone looking to read about if they search for the phrase "Turkish bath". The evidence available suggests that the answer to that question is Hammam. The fact that the Victorian Turkish Bath is not a hammam is the reason why we have a separate article for that topic, and why we have a hatnote at Hammam differentiating the topics; it is not a reason to have Turkish bath point to Victorian Turkish bath given current pageviews and reviews of coverage suggest that the readers searching the term are more commonly looking for the actual Turkish style of bath. signed,Rosguill talk 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rosguill's arguments are convincing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget Have those in favour of keeping the redirect read the two articles concerned? Are they the same subject in any way other than that they are both baths? Redirect guidance has no example of a subject redirected to another subject—the proper function of a 'See also' note. Primary and secondary refers to preferred terms when the terms are synonyms or grammatical variants. Look at the two subjects in Google; there is no overlap between the pages. Contemporary sources do not refer to Victorian Turkish baths for the same reason Elizabeth I did not call herself Elizabeth I. They were only invented in 1856 and no hot-dry air bath from that date onwards was ever written about, or spoken about as a hammam by the Victorians (they more likely preferred Anglo-Roman or Irish-Roman) though a very few orientalists named their establishment '*** Hammam' or '*** Oriental baths'—sources would be welcome for 'any' discussion of these baths as hammams. There seems to be no neutral reason why a redirect to the Turkish bath disambiguation page is not an easier way for searchers to find either unique 'subject'. Ishpoloni (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

An instance. Mary Doe reads a newspaper article on The life and death of Colonel Blimp mentioning a Turkish bath. Wanting to find out what this was, she refers to 'Turkish bath' on Wikipedia and is automatically given an article on Hammams. How clever. Ishpoloni (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The data linked by voorts early in this discussion suggests that for ever Mary reading The life and death of Colonel Blimp, there are about 5.7 Elizabeths who actually wanted to read about Turkish steam baths. As for Mary, she can find the link to the correct topic in the hatnote that is at the top of the page. signed,Rosguill talk 18:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What she actually finds at the top of the Hammam page is what you call a hatnote, and is NOT (as you state) "the link to the correct topic" but a link to a disambiguation page which she should already have been given. The fact that there are two different hatlinks does not make the problem simpler, and she is lucky that there are not more than two.
 * Apart from the fact that some people do not understand what you call hatnotes, and that not everyone agrees that they are helpful, eg, "The_problem_with_disambiguation_hatnotes", it is totally irrelevant how many people want to read about Hammams or "Turkish steam baths" because we are not choosing here between synonyms, but between discrete subjects.
 * What is important is that seekers after information about a subject should be able to find it at their first attempt, or if there are complications, immediately after being given actual links to the alternative subjects available, together with brief definitions which will ensure the right page is reached at just the second attempt. Redirecting "Turkish baths" to its current disambiguation page does that absolutely perfectly, whichever of the two subjects is being sought.Ishpoloni (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

LATAM
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1%23LATAM

Draft:2025 IndyCar Series
<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 procedural closure  . The modified proposal is starting to veer outside the scope of RfD and can be handled separately. (non-admin closure) — TechnoSquirrel69  ( sigh ) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Draft:2025 IndyCar Series → 2025 IndyCar Series (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Redirect in draftspace created as a result of disruptive article creation by an IP user over an existing redirect, and NPP not reverting the disruptive edits, but instead draftifying their "work" (which consisted of a lazy, unreferenced stub). Suggest deletion. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) HistSplit per 2601:5CC:.... &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * HistSplit or just override the redirect with the previous draft, noting attribution in the edit summary if more convenient. Too soon applies to articles, but drafts are fine. Should have been histsplit the first time as the existing redirect should not have been deleted, but we can remedy that now. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A165:7AFC:68F9:104D (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - I am fine with 2601:5CC:...'s suggestion. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

Severa
<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 move without redirect to Severa (software) and move Severa (disambiguation) to Severa. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Severa → Visma Solutions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I don't see why this name should redirect to this person. ★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move Severa (disambiguation) to here over redirect. I'm not finding evidence that the software is the primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Move or keep at the current title? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move per Presidentman, clearly not the primary topic. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A165:7AFC:68F9:104D (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move dab per Presidentman -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a redirect with history, so if the consensus is to move the disambiguation page, it probably should be moved away from the base title (maybe to something like Severa (software)) instead of deleting it. - Eureka Lott 13:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:2C4B:B172:D025:C559 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is the primary topic: all other entries at the disambiguation page are WP:Partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it a primary topic? The name has been used for thousands of years, the company itself isn't even notable enough for it's own article.★Trekker (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * ... an alternative might be to move the name-holder list to a surname SIA at the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp?
<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.


 * Author said they were alright with its deletion  .  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * <span id="Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp?">Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp? → Athabasca rainbow trout (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The question mark at the end is possibly a typo and not accurate. I double checked with the creator of the redirect and they stated that the redirect's origin is from the infobox (which isn't cited). I'm not seeing results under this title through my search engine. It always seems to be Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

Yin-Yuan
<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 retarget  to Yin Yuan a newly created disambiguation page signed,Rosguill talk 19:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yin-Yuan → Ingen (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Can't find any use of this romanization in literature or on Google. Potentially ambiguous with Yinyuan. Game Is (presumably)  Wikipedian  ( tea? ) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ingen has been referred to as Yinyuan. This page says, "The year 2022 marks the 350th death anniversary of Zen Master Yinyuan Longqi (隱元隆琦 1592-1673, Ingen Ryūki in Japanese)." This article says, "Ingen Ryūki (Chinese, Yinyuan Longqi; 1592–1673), although unknown from Chinese sources, was ..." The page should not be deleted. I am fine with either keeping the page as is or retargeting the page to Yinyuan which already has a hatnote to Yinyuan Longqi, which redirects to Ingen. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There should be dab pages to cover this. I've stubbed up DRAFT:Yin Yuan and DRAFT:Yuan yin to cover it -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! I support your proposal to create a disambiguation page with the first draft as well as to create the second draft. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to accept and move the drafts into articlespace. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As there is an open RfD, moving the drafts into mainspace could be controversial. I hope there is a consensus to do the move so that the RfD closer does this. Otherwise, I plan to do this myself at the close of the RfD. Cunard (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yinyuan is the common romanization of the Chinese 隱元, but the romanization with a dash in particular is what doesn't seem used at all. Is this otherwise a common way of romanizing Chinese names? Separating their characters with dashes? Game Is  (presumably)  Wikipedian  ( tea? ) 06:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hyphens are used in Wade–Giles romanization. From Naming conventions (Chinese): "When using a Wade–Giles romanization, a hyphen should used between the syllables of a two-character given name, with the second syllable uncapitalised (unless a different form is clearly preferred): write Lee Teng-hui, not Lee Teng-Hui. Hong Kong names should also generally use the hyphenated style." However, Yinyuan is a Pinyin romanization, not a Wade–Giles romanization. I think it should be fine to redirect a hyphenated version of the name to a "Yin Yuan" disambiguation page for being a plausible search term. Cunard (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I wasn't aware of Wade-Giles romanization. Support Retarget Game Is  (presumably)  Wikipedian  ( tea? ) 00:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the "Yin Yuan" DAB page after publishing to mainspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere "yuan" is the neutral/third form of yin-yang, but I guess that would be wuji and it was probably an invention. -- MikutoH talk! 00:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

Aromantisch
<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 delete  . Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Aromantisch → Romantic orientation (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

implausible RLOTE created as an article in Dutch in 2017 and redirected 6 minutes later, barely has any pageviews (113 over 7 years is essentially bot and Special:WhatLinksHere noise). should be retargeted to aromanticism if not deleted. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. No particular connection between Dutch and aromanticism which would justify this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, no language ties justifying it. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:RLANG, as per above-- this is simply the Dutch word for Aromantic. (Admittedly there's no difference between RLANG and RLOTE, they redirect to the same article; I just prefer RLANG as a redirect and see it more often than RLOTE.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless redirect that helps nobody. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

why not retarget to aromantisch? Wiktionary has an entry for it. -- MikutoH talk! 23:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) nvm I confused with aromatisch -- MikutoH  talk! 23:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

Consecutive games
<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 retarget  to Iron man (sports streak). Rough consensus. I added a hatnote for Chaotic Enby's suggested page. (non-admin closure) Ca <sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">talk to me!  00:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Consecutive games → List of Major League Baseball consecutive games played leaders (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Too specific a target for a general concept. Not really a notable topic on its own and too vague to make a good search term, so deletion is likely best. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague -- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete too vague to be meaningful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Repeated game, the game theory framework for consecutive repetitions of a game, a more plausible and much less specific topic. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 11:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that makes sense as a target. The word "consecutive" is not found at the target, and we don't have the singular consecutive game. The plural form is usually used in the context of sports, it's just that there is no good target in that context for such a broad/vague term. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good point. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Iron man (sports streak) as the article most likely to get readers information on this topic. - Eureka Lott 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Iron man (sports streak). That article describes athletes who have played a lot of consecutive games. I can't think of a better redirect target and this seems like a valid search term. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Iron man (sports streak) - I've read the article, and it covers all sports and is directly about the topic of this redirect. It's a good target, and exactly what someone would be looking for when searching this. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom I still lean toward deletion, but would be fine with retargeting to Iron man (sports streak). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).

Ron Johnson (rapper)
<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 delete  . Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The name of Yuno Miles being "Ron(ald) Johnson" was sourced to WP:GENIUS (see ), which is WP:GUNREL, particularly for a WP:BLP. I could not find any other sources that indicate that Miles' name is actually "Ron(ald) Johnson", nor do any of the sources mentioned in the ongoing AfD for Yuno Miles contain that name. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * <span id="Ron Johnson (rapper)">Ron Johnson (rapper) → Yuno Miles (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * <span id="Ronald Johnson (rapper)">Ronald Johnson (rapper) → Yuno Miles (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Delete. It's even worse-- Not even Genius itself supports this redirect (see here and here), referring to Ron Johnson not as a name for Yuno Miles, but as a writer for Yuno Miles-- as in, an entirely different person who's worked with him in the past. It's like saying that Britney Spears's real name is Max Martin. These redirects are Certified Trash. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per Lunamann and nom. Fieari (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <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).