Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:53, 10 August 2022

< August 7

August 9 >

August 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 8, 2022.

Dark olive drab

Dark olive drab → Shades of green#Olive (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article, and not specifically mentioned in Olive (color). (There is Olive (color)#Olive drab, and there are some variants there including a variant that looks significantly darker that the initial version, but there isn't a color/shade specifically named "dark olive drab" there.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Olive

Dark Olive → Shades of green#Olive (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article, and not mentioned 'specifically in Olive (color). (This could reasonably target Olive (color)#Dark olive green I suppose, but readers may be looking this term up looking for a "dark" version of an olive, as explained in the next sentence.) In addition, I don't think this would be helpful being retargeted to Olive since readers will probably think of redirected there "What is a dark olive?" and not have their question answered. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grooming conspiracy theory

Grooming conspiracy theory → LGBT grooming conspiracy theory (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

As noted on the talk page for this - there are other non-LGBT grooming claims (some of which may be dismissed as conspiracy theories), especially outside the US. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query: is there a suitable alternate target to redirect this to? Or are there articles on the other grooming conspiracy theories that we could turn grooming conspiracy theory into a disambiguation page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory about "grooming gangs" in India. Not sure about UK articles. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason that Grooming conspiracy theory redirects to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory is because you boldly moved Grooming conspiracy theory to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory. I think this is a but much, I just don't see the logic behind the request... If there are other grooming conspiracy theories then wouldn't we make it a disambiguation page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bold move, but one I think had talk page consensus. As also mentioned on the talk page, in the UK in particular there are other far-right Islamophobic claims surrounding "grooming gangs", many of which are conspiratorial in nature. Plenty of these have their own Wikipedia pages, see: List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdom. But I think making this into a disambigation page would be too broad in scope, and subject to OR - best to delete the redirect entirely IMO as it is too vague. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was either bold or had consensus, it can't be both. You appear to have linked to actual cases of abuse, not any related conspiracy theories. Are you sure thats what you meant to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that an edit which had narrow consensus could be considered bold by some, apologies if I don't understand Wikipedia terminology correctly. And yes it was intentional - as I explained, there are a lot of (mostly far-right, mostly Islamophobic) claims surrounding these cases that are conspiratorial in nature. This was raised by other editors on the main talk page for the article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Claims which are conspiratorial in nature =/= conspiracy theory. I asked about other grooming conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a very recent {{r from move}} that lacks other potential targets. There's no ambiguity about this title on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. - Eureka Lott 15:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an existing target, Love jihad, which is a conspiracy theory about Muslim "grooming gangs" in India targeting Hindus. In addition to India, there is a different type of conspiracy theory in the UK on Muslim grooming gangs [1]. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gray-asparagus

Gray-asparagus → Shades of green#Gray-asparagus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target article, nor does the section exist in the target article. Note though that this redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's Laurel green section mentioning gray and asparagus— Tazuco ✉️ 02:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, that section was created/restored after this discussion started. No opinion on it though since it's not a name match. Steel1943 (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It was merged in March 6 by @Wrad. So the target existed, but the content was unsourced. — Tazuco ✉️ 15:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LOSS

Wikipedia:LOSS → Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target. Seems highly ambiguous to be redirecting this to a page about deceased Wikipedians. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shortcuts need not be mentioned, rather that they are related to the page. If someone has suffered a "loss", then someone close to them died. By analogy, that can hold true for Wikipedians as well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tavix. As long as it doesn't conflict with other similar redirects, no problem. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The target list is clearly a list of unfortunate losses to the project. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GONE

Wikipedia:GONE → Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect is not mentioned in the target. No pages link to this redirect. The last view was on July 6, 2022. Seems insensitive to be redirecting this to a page about deceased Wikipedians. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe retarget to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians? An editor can be gone from the project but not dead. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above retargeting (although I have some issues regarding the Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians page in general) per the reasoning given. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, provided a hatnote is added to that page point back to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LATE

Wikipedia:LATE → Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. I'm not sure how "Wikipedia:LATE" can refer to a page about deceased Wikipedians. I suggest disambiguating. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the term "late x" is valid enough that WP:LATE isn't a surprise. TartarTorte 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What other conceivably WP:LATE-related pages would the disambiguation page link to? Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It sounds like the nom is unaware of "late" referring to the deceased? See wikt:late definition Adj.6: Deceased, dead. Disambiguating shortcuts is unhelpful because then they cease to be a shortcut, even more so here without other options to consider. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW, my first thought when thinking of "late" in terms of project pages is Wikipedia:Wikitime or some similar time-related page in the project space considering that edits aren't usually ever late. (Maybe there's an essay saying that somewhere?) Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREISNODEADLINE? TartarTorte 01:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That target was likely what I was thinking about. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DikuMUD Nilgiri (disambiguation)

DikuMUD Nilgiri (disambiguation) → Nilgiri (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

DikuMUD Nilgiri does not exist (deleted in 2007). Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Leavitt

David F. Leavitt → David Leavitt (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. None of the entries at the disambiguation page is shown as known as "David Leavitt". There is apparently a David F. Leavitt (1897-1945) who was an artist, but there seems to be nothing about him on Enwiki. A link to a disambiguation page that doesn't list him is misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This has a very weird history where this was the original location of David Leavitt but then there was no WP:RS to back that up leading the article to be moved then this was retargeted to the disambiguation. TartarTorte 19:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Texas Trailer Truck

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 💬 16:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Texas Trailer Truck → 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Created, not as a redirect, but as a poorly named article. After learning the target article already existed, it was redirected instead of just deleted. I don't think anyone would search on this. Texas instead of San Antonio yes, but without "deaths" this is just too vague. MB 04:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it is an unlikely search combination, and propose that it is moved as a redirect to 2022 Texas trailer deaths which is much more likely for those who do not know or remember the name of the city. Davidships (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and create 2022 Texas trailer deaths if you think that would be useful. No need to couple that to this. MB 22:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships, I've gone ahead and created this redirect and tagged it as alternative name. CLYDE FRANKLIN 16:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What a nightmare, facing reality to death. I think it would be respectful to not make this about trucks, and remember this was a collective human tragedy where illegal migrants died in an outcome of human trafficking. Before this is about trailers or lorries, it's also an article about human trafficking. The true subjects aren't represented in the redirects or article name. I'm sure this outcome is one they must have knowingly risked; of course the actual horrors were unknowable, but staking life and death must have been the regret. Louis Waweru Talk 00:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about the title of the actual article; it is only about whether this redirect is useful and should be kept. MB 00:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to avoid creating another like it, my comment addresses why it's not as useful as it should be. You suggested another that my comment is addressing: 2022 Texas trailer deaths. Louis Waweru Talk 00:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's too vague without "trafficking", "death", or "immigrant". CLYDE FRANKLIN 01:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Why was this relisted? I don't see anybody supporting this redirect, much less to the point where consensus would be unclear. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: You are correct. Do you want to close this as a Delete instead? I may have been side-tracked by the redlinked title from Louis Waweru's comment, and thought there is more to discuss. Jay 💬 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like a clear delete to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lambda sond

Lambda sond → Oxygen sensor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Although "Lambda" appears in the article, the phrase "Lambda sond" does not, nor is there any sense of what this might mean. BD2412 T 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Check engine light. This is another name for Oxygen sensor, although not stated there. It is mentioned in Check engine light, as well as a few Volvo articles. MB 04:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "sond" and "sonde" mean probe in English; so this is a probe for investigating the lambda ratio -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFFL. The term "sond" is not used in English - the usual term is Lambda sensor, for which a redirect already exists. Tevildo (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean some people won't search on "Lamda sond", which actually has been written about in English. MB 00:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Volvo 200 Series. It appears from MB's links that "Lambda Sond" (with a capital S) was a proprietary term used by Volvo for its automatic mixture control system when it was first introduced in 1976. This system included a lambda sensor, but the term referred to the whole system, not just the sensor. The term is used in the Volvo 200 series article. Tevildo (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two suggested targets now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vertex (urinary bladder)

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. Nominator withdrew without any arguments other than keep, so it is a speedy keep. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 18:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vertex (urinary bladder) → Urinary bladder (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Vertex" is not mentioned, making this redirect unhelpful or confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar finds some 250 hits for "vertex of the bladder", so it appears highly relevant. I added a mention to the target (the correct fix, rather than just deleting information because of a technical error). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @David Eppstein:. In which case RfD withdrawn. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vertex (topography)

Vertex (topography) → Triangulated irregular network (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Vertex" is not mentioned at the target and there may therefore be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is factually incorrect. It is mentioned and relevant. "The vertices of these triangles ... A TIN comprises a triangular network of vertices, known as mass points". Nominator is apparently unaware that the plural of "vertex" is "vertices". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: Since you're far more aware than me: does the article give a definition of "vertex" in the context of topography, and is it different from the common meaning of "vertex" or the use at Vertex (computer graphics)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's different, because it is an object with geographic information rather than graphics-rendering information. Both of these start with vertex (geometry) and add extra information, but the information they add is different. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned (in the plural) at the target. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find "vertex" mentioned twice in the article Triangulated irregular network. The second instance explains what the term means: "A TIN comprises a triangular network of vertices, known as mass points, with associated coordinates in three dimensions connected by edges to form a triangular tessellation." 2601:449:8301:B10:0:0:0:204F (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2034 Winter Olympics

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 withdrawn. Cabin has a lot more time on their hands to keep edit warring over this, and I don't, so I'm gonna leave it. – numbermaniac 03:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2034 Winter Olympics → Winter Olympic Games (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Do we really need a page or a redirect for this, 12 years in advance? We don't even know what city will be the hosting the 2030 Winter Olympics yet, let alone 2034. – numbermaniac 07:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While it's extremely likely there will be a Winter Olympics in 2034, this feels a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL. After the year shift of the Tokyo games, I feel less certain in saying regularly scheduled events will take place in the year in which they would be scheduled normally. I think that this should be deleted and recreated when the games are announced. TartarTorte 13:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore article - bidding is going to happen in 5 years and the 2026 Winter Olympics article was created 6 years before bidding actually happened. [2] Cabin134 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard for redirects of this type is if we have any information at the target to direct searchers to. There is no information about 2034 at the target, so the redirect should be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i thought that since 2036 Summer Olympics is alredy an article and 2032 Summer Olympics is also alrdey an article. It is a good to make the article in 2022 since NBC annonced that Salt lake city is now for bidding. https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2022/06/24/salt-lake-city-winter-olympic-bid-2030-2034/ Cabin134 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article - This listing is completely inappropriate. The nominator BLARed what was an existing article ([3]) then three minutes later listed it for RfD ([4]). Article currently restored, it should stay that way and the nom or someone else can send it to AFD. A7V2 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was simply restoring the redirect that was present earlier before it was replaced by a largely unreferenced article. – numbermaniac 03:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

BLPprod

BLPprod → Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect from article namespace to project namespace. Could redirect to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. F Adesdae 378 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Only used on 7 pages, many of which are related to this RFD. If it is kept, its current target is the correct one. There are two types of prod: regular PROD, and BLPPROD. It is currently pointing to the page on BLPPROD, which is correct. It does not need to point to a page that talks about both kinds of prods. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLPPROD is mentioned in Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. F Adesdae 378 21:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an analogy/example, WP:AFD redirects to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and not Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It's good to be specific. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary WP:XNR that is a little bit too "meta" to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion as there is mainspace content on the subject. J947 † ^edits 04:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the mainspace article. Good find, J947! Glades12 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear this was the nom's find; it's just that everyone's eyes seemingly managed to trick themselves into thinking it was another project page. J947 † ^edits 22:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I should've paid more attention. Glades12 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Proposed deletion per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May I ask the reason that the folks above want WP:BLPPROD and BLPprod to have different targets? And is there precedent for having shortcuts in mainspace that point to projectspace? Finally, why are we maintaining a mainspace redirect that no one uses, as evidenced by the "what links here" page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: We're treating this redirect and WP:BLPPROD differently because they're in different namespaces. People browsing mainspace (especially our readers who don't edit) are obviously looking for encyclopedic content, so if possible, it's better to redirect them to a content article than a project page. People who forgot to type in the namespace while looking for a project page can use the self-referential hatnotes in articles about Wikipedia anyway. As for your last question, we don't delete redirects (or most other types of pages, for that matter) just because few people use them. A redirect doesn't hurt anyone unless it's misleading, confusing, disruptive etc., and deleting one that can plausibly be retargeted does more harm than good. WP:Cross-namespace redirects is an essay but gives a pretty good overview of this issue. Glades12 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. I did not find convincing the retarget alternative to save the deletion, although the proposed target has a mention of "BLP-PROD". The redirect is 7 years old but has negligible incoming links (it could be because of the odd capitalization) or pageviews. If it was a useful redirect, it would have been clear by now. Jay 💬 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Golem

Iron Golem → Minecraft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target has changed back and forth several times between different video games with no discussion. MB 03:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate to all prior targets -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As overly vague. It is also the name of a Dark Souls boss and a recurring Final Fantasy enemy. However, there is no specific page with the name "Iron Golem" it needs to disambiguate. However, I would also not be opposed to a disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There are almost two dozen articles with mentions of iron golems, and as far as I can see from a quick glimpse, none of those entities appear to get anywhere close to being significant subtopics of those articles, and so are below the noteworthiness threshold for disambiguating, and the search results do a good job of revealing them. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well: should have looked closer: Iron Golem is the alternative title of the TV film Iron Invader, so that's one valid target. Disambiguation could work, with one entry for that, another for Golem (which unfortunately doesn't mention iron varieties but is the closest thing to a general article), and a {{canned search}} to reveal the search results. – Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate between the possible targets, one of which has an article (the film). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate When I made my initial redirect change to the Minecraft article, it was because most readers typically associate the Iron Golem with the mob in Minecraft which is more well known within popular media as well as the fact that most of the redirects history was redirecting to the Minecraft article. With that all being said, there are other fictional entities with the same name so a disambiguation is a more appropriate course of action than only focusing on one, especially since it doesn't even have a standalone article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per those above. BD2412 T 06:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Iron Invader, which looks to be the only cromulent target. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any of the other suggested disambiguation entries meeting WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Iron Invader per Tavix. 2403:6200:8830:BFD9:91AA:FE9C:D025:1248 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Iron Invader since it's alternatively named as such. I don't see the point on a dab with entries about games with iron golems in it as it is a very ubiquitous enemy monster. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckfest

Fuckfest → Group sex (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a valid synonym. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with MZMcBride— Tazuco ✉️ 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid and fairly widespread synonym for the target. Redirects aren't articles, and they don't need to use tame language to be useful to readers. Glades12 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Glades12: But that is not my actual concern. The problem is that the term as such does not appear in the target (see WP:R#PLA). Hildeoc (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem, but I don't think deleting this redirect is a good solution. Maybe we can find a reliable source (not Urban Dictionary, of course) and add a list of slang terms at Group sex#Terms? Glades12 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move Fuckfest (album) to the base title and hatnote for wikt:fuckfest. There is no other encyclopedic topic by this name. This term has multiple meanings besides group sex, and is not suitable for disambiguation among the relevant articles for those meanings (adding large numbers of slang synonyms to those articles in an effort to meet WP:DABMENTION will not substantially increase any reader's encyclopedic understanding of those topics.) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)r[reply]
or we could keep this target and add {{Redir|Fuckfest|3=Fuckfest (album)}} (displays ""Fuckfest" redirects here. For other uses, see Fuckfest (album).") to group sex. — Tazuco ✉️ 00:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a suitable redirect to group sex in the first place, since the word can also mean multiple acts of sex with a single partner, or clusterfuck/imbroglio/disaster. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

뻸

뻸 → Hangul (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirects to Hangul, it might make sense to redirect to Hangul Syllables instead as this is on that page as U+BEF8; however, seeing as no other symbols redirect to that page and there are many, many symbols, it seems like this could be deleted without harm. TartarTorte 00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — It's a very specific Hangul block as well and has no common usage. I see no utility in keeping it as a redirect. Yue🌙 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yue. Also there is no entry in Wiktionary. 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:401B:6EE7:75D8:26B (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giant white shark

Giant white shark → Megalodon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I don't see any real useage of this term for "Megalodon" at all, and it seems like an implausible search term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I don't imagine anyone looking for megalodon would search up "giant white shark". The closest published thing I can find that uses that wording is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02988410 which says "giant-toothed white shark". Beyond peer review, https://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/fish-shark/giant-white/index.htm#plicatilis calls Cosmopolitodus the "giant white shark" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincian

Vincian → Gay men (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a neologism. The Tumblr coining of this term determined it was a replacement of achillean (an LGBT slang for MLM (men loving men), which includes both gay and bisexual men, not just gay men, however some Fandom and Miraheze wikis treated this term as a word for gay men only). I propose this to be soft redirected to wikt:Vincian. Or similarly as Achillean, to be retargeted to Leonardo da Vinci — Tazuco ✉️ 00:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 As noted on the talk page for this - there are other non-LGBT grooming claims (some of which may be dismissed as conspiracy theories), especially outside the US. [[User:QueenofBithynia|QueenofBithynia]] ([[User talk:QueenofBithynia|talk]]) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Query''': is there a suitable alternate target to redirect this to? Or are there articles on the other grooming conspiracy theories that we could turn [[grooming conspiracy theory]] into a disambiguation page? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
+*: {{re|Sideswipe9th}} [[Love Jihad]] is a conspiracy theory about "grooming gangs" in India. Not sure about UK articles. --[[User:Gilgul Kaful|Gilgul Kaful]] ([[User talk:Gilgul Kaful|talk]]) 10:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reason that Grooming conspiracy theory redirects to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory is because you boldly moved Grooming conspiracy theory to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory. I think this is a but much, I just don't see the logic behind the request... If there are other grooming conspiracy theories then wouldn't we make it a disambiguation page? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 *:It was a bold move, but one I think had talk page consensus. As also mentioned on the talk page, in the UK in particular there are other far-right Islamophobic claims surrounding "grooming gangs", many of which are conspiratorial in nature. Plenty of these have their own Wikipedia pages, see: [[List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdom]]. But I think making this into a disambigation page would be too broad in scope, and subject to OR - best to delete the redirect entirely IMO as it is too vague. [[User:QueenofBithynia|QueenofBithynia]] ([[User talk:QueenofBithynia|talk]]) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)