Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 28

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 28, 2025.

How big is wikipedia

[edit]

Unlikely cross-namespace redirect. Rusalkii (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oronzo Bacci

[edit]

Just moved a page that was unexplainably created under the wrong title over 8 years ago. The guy’s name was only Orazio and keeping Oronzo is confusing. Delete. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V-Cube 10

[edit]

Several iterations of the V-Cube mentioned in the target, but not the 10. Rusalkii (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think this product even exists. It's not available from V-Cube's store, and all the relevant search results are people speculating about whether it would get made. The only exception is a Wikidata page, which does indeed show an image of a 10x10 cube, but it's clearly not in the V-Cube style and some quick Googling finds it's a different brand entirely.
Side note: V-Cube 9 also redirects to this article despite not being mentioned in it (except indirectly). It does exist though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just adding some context after looking into this some more. I get the impression from V-Cube 6, V-Cube 7, and V-Cube 8 that "V-Cube [N]" can refer specifically to the V-Cube company's products, but also sometimes generically to any NxNxN cube beyond 5x5x5, which seems to be the largest one with a true generic name (Professor's Cube). That would explain the Wikidata page and also make this redirect more understandable, since someone looking for info on 10x10x10 cubes might phrase that as "V-Cube 10," and our article does have some minimal info on them (namely, that the V-Cube guy holds a patent that "is said to" [some other issues here] cover 10x10x10 and 11x11x11 cubes). But IMO it's still a pretty weak link, so I'm sticking with delete. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K.u:K. Armee

[edit]

While commonly called the "k.u.k Armee" I believe this format, with the ":", is a typo, as even the edit summary creating it says "K.u.K Armee", and if not is very unlikely. I'd R3 it but it's too old for that. Rusalkii (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a typo - it should be visible in the edit history. If this article needs to be deleted, then by all means, go ahead. I just figured it could be useful if someone else made the same spelling mistake I did while typing it in ;) CadiaStands42 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems plausible enough to be useful to me. Note that on German keyboards, . and : are on the same key. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israel protests on university campuses in the United States

[edit]

Unnecessary freakishly long redirect that could refer to Gaza war protests in the United States, 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, or 2025 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses. Also WP:CSD G5 could apply here. Delete. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Cross-namespace redirect; very low view counts. MouseCursor or a keyboard? 08:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed new target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck in favour of TheTechnician below. Jay 💬 08:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:About which is "a general introduction for visitors to Wikipedia" (which also immediately links aspiring contributors to a guide in case that's what they want). Current target Help:Getting started dumps newcomers into a page specifically for aspiring contributors. Jay is correct about this but is deeply mistaken about Help:Introduction. Among Help:Introduction's first words are: "This page takes you through a set of tutorials aimed at complete newcomers who wish to contribute." Pinging Pppery, Servite et contribuere, J947, Nyttend, and Thryduulf to see if they may support a retarget, as I think "should this redirect exist?" has been resolved but that "is this the right target?" was never adequately explored. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Below the editing links on Help:Introduction, I saw Talk Pages, Navigating Wikipedia, and Manual of Style, and thought it is a good mix of editing and reading. I agree that Wikipedia:About is better. I have struck the earlier suggestion. Jay 💬 08:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:About per above. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 03:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:About. Not a very plausible search term, but it still has a lot of incoming links from people using it in talk page messages to new users. Granted, most of them are from the very early days and it would be no huge loss if some links went red on 20-year-old user talk messages, but it's enough to sway me toward keeping it. And the new suggested target does seem better. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page

[edit]

This is extremely off. "The WIkipedia page" could mean anything. It could be about any Wikipedia page, not just the WIkipedia page for Wikipedia. I could just as easily see this linking to, for example, the main page. Feel free to disagree here, as I am not 100% sure about this, and if you have a good argument I'd like to hear it. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Liu

[edit]

Stacy Liu is an actress who has appeared in many British TV series. If she is not notable, so be it, but a redirect to an article about just one of her appearances, which mentions her only in passing, is not helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, might be better to add her to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red instead of redirecting to this list. Katiedevi (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not helpful for someone looking for info on this actress. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Faces

[edit]

Retarget. The book titled The Hero with a Thousand Faces seems more likely to be searched than the song. I found this redirect by trying to find the book and only remembering the "thousand faces" part. Number of edits, watchers, and page views seems to support the book as being the more relevant redirect. There is another redirect Thousand Faces (song) to take care of the song. closhund/talk/ 06:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I edited the redirect page, it said there was an error. I don't know what the error is, I just tried to follow the instructions at WP:RFDHOWTO closhund/talk/ 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filmi music

[edit]

Filmi appears to be music in Indian cinema in general, whereas Hindi film music is only one part of Indian cinema. Filmi devotional songs too talks only about Hindi songs. Filmi qawwali includes Pakistan and Bangladesh as well, while Filmi pop appears to be Pakistan-specific. Apart from the redirects needing to be consistent, should we also make one of these a disambiguation page, in case Filmi is not seen as the WP:BCA umbrella topic? Jay 💬 10:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the nom's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Filmi music and Filmi song
• Remove Filmi songs since you rightly point out that 'Filmi' refers to Indian cinema in general. I'm not sure a disambiguation page is necessary. It may be more useful to update the pages you have mentioned to be more inclusive, but I am open to discussion. Katiedevi (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All India Council for Technical Education (India)

[edit]

Seems like a very unlikely search term, with the repeated "India" at the end. And if you type it in you get the correct link anyway long before you reach the end of the string. Fram (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible search term मल्ल (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unambiguous and harmless Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons as Servite et contribuere. SirPenguin25 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the second "India" seems redundant and frankly unnecessary. This isn't going to help any reader. --Plantman (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Servite et contribuere. There needs to be some active reason to delete redirects that are both accurate and harmless. Neither "redundant" nor "unnecessary" are ever reasons to delete a redirect on their own, and certainly not redirects that are accurate and harmless. That leaves only plausibility and when multiple people assert a redirect is plausible then it normally is (see WP:R#KEEP point 5]]). Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Pushes the bounds of plausibility, but I can imagine some kind of automated tool work (or even just a brain fart) that could lead to this. Enough to put me in the "harmless" camp. And after all, at least one person (the original article creator) managed to end up there seemingly without finding the main article. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Body", "Cosmetic", "Personal care" treatment

[edit]

Each of these redirects are not mentioned in the target article, as well as their target section not existing. In addition, there's no clear connection between the redirect and the target without the word "spa" in the redirects, meaning these "treatments" may involve a subject not directly related to spa, such as massage. Steel1943 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Body treatment is a {{R with history}}, and the other nominated redirects targeted Body treatment when it was an article between February 2006 and October 2009. (For what it's worth, I oppose Personal care treatment targeting Body treatment for any reason ... in case the discussion takes such a path.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete All three of these terms did appear in the article until a rewrite in October by User:Micahtchi that (among other changes) removed about 20% of the content. One of the changes was to remove the entire "Treatments" section, but with the comment "treatments would be relevant to a current day section that is better written than current." So basically, there probably ought to be a section that might in fact cover these treatments, there just currently isn't because the old one was judged worse than nothing. Still probably worth deleting until when and if such coverage is restored. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Combine
I want to clarify the reasons for my rewrite. I deleted those sections because they were disorganised, repetitive lists (Hot tub, for example, was hyperlinked thrice), or unsourced/badly sourced paragraphs. They essentially operated, to me, as contextless "see also" sections. They would, in my opinion, need to be grouped by culture or time period, eg. sections on ayurvedic treatments and related with context, location of origin, and spread, rather than a list saying "spa treatments can be: item 1 2 3 4 5". These lists are impossible to write discretely, in the same way a list of makeup products or lolly flavourings would be. If bullet point lists are necessary, then short ones would be difficult considering how broad this topic is globally. So, yes, I did think they were worse than nothing-- they were almost useless, and confused the article.
I think this topic area in general suffers from low-quality articles, selfpromo, lack of notability, pseudoscientific claims, and repetitive information (1, 2, 3, 4, for example). In my opinion, "body" "cosmetic" and "personal care" "treatments" are similar enough that if written could be combined into an article with subheadings of their own (or even in Beauty salon, which also needs a cleanup), not necessarily written into the spa one-- the division of the three reads to me more like marketing terms. Whatever the vote would be for combining the three to create a new article that isn't yet another rewrite of the history of soaking in hard water for purported therapeutic benefit, that's mine. Micahtchi (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I agree with you that what we had was worse than nothing and think your changes were good. If someone's willing to step up and do what you describe, I'd definitely endorse that solution over deletion as well. I'm not too optimistic though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sounded harsh. And, yeah, I agree. Micahtchi (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy water

[edit]

Not mention the target article. Third-party search results for this phrase are mixed between a potential subtopic of the target article's subject and Vichy Catalán. Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulphur bath

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contamination of drinking water

[edit]

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 Drinking water#Health issues due to low quality. Might as well, consider this a "withdraw". (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Target section does not exist, and the concept of contaminated water seems to be identified and/or mentioned in multiple places in the target article, but none seem to be adequate to identify a subject as defined by this redirect. With that being said, delete per WP:REDLINK, weak retarget to Water pollution, or very weak retarget to Drinking water (remove the section redirect). Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps retarget to Drinking water#Health issues due to low quality? This section deals with drinking water in particular, and explicitly mentions "contaminated drinking water" (I know, I know, not the exact phrase, but close enough). --Plantman (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Safe for drinking water

[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "for" in this nominated redirect makes it an unlikely redirect in reference to its target. The wording of this redirect makes it seem as though a reader would be looking for a concept such as a container that can be used for safe storage of drinking water, and such information seems to not be in the target article currently. Steel1943 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Infused [Ww]ater

[edit]

These redirects should either have their targets synched or should both be deleted. I have no strong stance either way ... but am defaulting to weak delete if by chance there is no participation since I'm not certain these phrases can describe any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Infused water has a WP:BLAR'ed article hiding in its history, potentially a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the Google results for "Infused water" are references to fruit/herb-infused water, which we don't have a page on at the moment. So it would be unhelpful for the vast majority of people familiar with the term "infused water". --Plantman (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wall pressure

[edit]

Not mentioned in this specific manner in the target article, leaving it unclear if the target article is the intended article. Though Osmotic pressure#Applications makes mention of a concept related to "cell wall", per third party search engines, seems this phrase has a connection to two potential, and possibly, distinct topics: One related to biology (which is probably where the connection to "cell wall" comes into play), and one related to fluid dynamics. Steel1943 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Steel1943 comment, and do think that that could be possible confusing. ExplorerofUniverse (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are lots of sources mentioning both "wall pressure" and "osmotic pressure," but all the ones I can find seem to contrast them. I can't find any indication that they're ever used as synonyms, which would be the only justification I could imagine for keeping this. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desalination membrane

[edit]

Not mentioned in the body of the target article in this specific manner, thus making it unclear why readers would be redirected to the current target article when searching this term. I was originally going to WP:BOLDly retarget this redirect to Membrane distillation, but after reviewing that article, I'm not convinced that that article and the nominated redirect represent the same subject, especially considering that Desalination is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reverse osmosis relies heavily on membranes, and the section #Desalination does mention membranes quite a bit. While it doesn't outright say "desalination membrane" (except in the references) it does talk about membranes in the context of desalination a lot. --Plantman (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to weak keep, more in favour of retargetting. See below. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that, but the same claim could apparently be made regarding membranes for the whole concept of Desalination in general; Reverse osmosis, Membrane distillation, and Desalination all make reference to using "membranes". Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 I feel like either Reverse osmosis or Desalination is the best place for this to point to. I'm slightly leaning towards Desalination now, because it provides an overview of all the different uses of membranes in desalination process. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it as it is (pointing to RO) if there was a consensus to do so. --Plantman (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RO/DI

[edit]

Seems to be a WP:XY in the context which it is used. "RO" represents the nominated redirect's target ... but apparently, "DI" stands for Deionization, which is a redirect towards Purified water#Deionization, and thus apparently a separate subject. In addition, in the target article, the current target section and Reverse osmosis#Water and wastewater purification both mention deionization. With all this being said, and the fact this redirect is a mishmash of acronyms, probably best to delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The RO/DI combo is explicitly discussed in that article ("An effective combination of both RO and deionization is popular among reef aquarium keepers...") but not in Purified water#Deionization. And from discussions like [2] and [3], I get the impression that RO/DI water is considered a sort of subcategory of RO water, so even the parts of that section that don't explicitly address it might still be of interest to someone searching "RO/DI." -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Water

[edit]

Seems ambiguous. The phrase is not mentioned in the target article's text, and water that is portable doesn't necessarily have to be in bottles (could be in a box, a can, etc.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Packaged drinking water

[edit]

WP:XY, could also refer to Canned water. Steel1943 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While that does make sense in theory, the vast majority of Google search results point to bottled water. --Plantman (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Plantman that there is an obvious enough "default" kind of packaged drinking water that we can assume this is what anyone typing that would be looking for. But I'm not totally convinced it's a plausible search term, at least not any more so than anything else that can be packaged. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a hatnote situation. Worgisbor (congregate) 17:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"War on tap water" and "War against water"

[edit]

Neither one of these redirects are mentioned in the target article (specifically, the word "war" is nowhere in the target article), leaving it unclear what subject these redirects are meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. 'Nuff said. --Plantman (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both these feel like slogans used by anti-bottled water campaign(er)s but we don't have a single section on that cause (relevant information spread through the article), they aren't mentioned and don't seem to be particularly notable so there isn't a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Thryduulf. "War on tap water" does seem to be used a lot, and always in direct relation to bottled water, but this article just doesn't have the sort of content anyone searching for that would be looking for. And "War against water" is just silly. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit and vegetable juices

[edit]

WP:XY since Fruit juice is an incoming redirect to the nominated redirect's target page, but Vegetable juice is a standalone article. Even more peculiar is that Vegetable juice is linked nowhere in the nominated redirect's target article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexualities

[edit]

I believe that Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation is a better target for orientations in specifically, and Outline of human sexuality for the rest. LIrala (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first one as is. The current target describes sexual orientations in depth and detail, talking also about various classifications of sexual orientation instead of just one, so I feel like it would be more helpful to a reader. No comment on the rest. --Plantman (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Keep – Agreed with Plantman. 'Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation' is a brief section which even uses the MainArticle template to link to Sexual orientation; it'd be nonsensical to link to a section when there's a much more robust main article. Retarget as proposed per Trystan's rationale. After all, this is a list. Still hold on (2) as 'orientation' is just one component of the very broad idea of 'sexuality'.
2) Retarget to Human sexuality. Oppose keep because Outline of LGBTQ topics is comparatively overly broad for such a search. Oppose move to section on sexual orientation because 1) 'Sexuality' combines many more facets than simply orientation and 2) even if it didn't, we have the article 'Sexual orientation'.
3) Delete. Without a very good excuse, there's no reason to have 'List of X and Y' and 'List of Y and X' when we can simply have redirect 'List of X' and 'List of Y'. If someone wants genders, they'll type 'List of gende' and have 'List of genders' show up – likewise for sexualities and for sexual identities. If 'List of genders and sexualities' were an actual article, then sure, but these make zero practical sense. What's worse is that with three items to choose from, we have so many possible permutations. If there's strong consensus against deletion, then Keep, as because 'gender' is along for the ride, 'Outline of human sexuality' fundamentally does nothing for one entire half of the redirect, and additionally, 'sexuality' as mentioned in (2) is much more than orientation.
4) Same as (3) (and again, sexual identity is much more than orientation).
5) Same as (3).
TL;DR: Oppose all of these. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MN

[edit]

WP:MN pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard from 2006 to 2018. It was then redirected to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and currently points there. It has received about 1200 pageviews since 2018. Editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota have requested that the shortcut point to that project as MN is the standard abbreviation for the state. A discussion at the notability guideline's talkpage did not find consensus. gobonobo + c 21:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my comments in the linked discussion - Shortcuts being ambiguous is very common and not a problem. What is a problem is retargetting well-used shortcuts as this just causes confusion when one person refers to it (not necessarily linked) expecting it to still target the original location (how often do you check the targets of shortcuts you use frequently) at the same time as others refer to it expecting it to point at the new location. Editing long-closed discussions to change the target of redirects like this is disruptive makework. The incomming links for this redirect I spot check all clearly intend the current location. Deletion would just break things for no benefit to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota as a short and logical shortcut to a project that needs one. I'm not buying an argument that it's a sensible shortcut for the current target. When referring to notability, the N comes first, not last (eg: WP:NBAND, WP:NALBUM). Employing a hatnote (especially with an explanatory note that it was the previous target) would resolve any confusion for anyone following old music-related links. -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This has been used as a shortcut to WP:MUSICBIO etc. in discussions and presumably in edit summaries for many years now. What Thryduulf said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate due to being old, and this most likely has excessive edit summary linking, which cannot be changed. I do sympathize with the nominator, but it seems this is now the best solution. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or Disambiguate – "NY" goes to the WikiProject New York (state). I do not see any reason for MN not to redirect to WikiProject Minnesota. The Minnesota User Group is trying to rekindle interest and develop new projects after going dark after COVID-19. This means rebuilding the infrastructure and making finding resources on Wikipedia for Minnesotans and those wishing to help on Minnesota topics more straightforward.
As per my original comments: The original link was created in 2006 to redirect to "WikiProject Music/Noticeboard" which is currently inactive. A redirect to "MN" made sense for "Music/Noticeboard." It makes little sense to for WP:MN to go to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" it appears someone just coopted it. As @Pingnova pointed out the section already has three shortcuts and WP:MN is not listed as one of them supporting the idea that it was just taken.
It is important to point out that the shortcut WP:MN has been used only 96 times since 2006. However the shortcuts WP:BAND, WP:MUSICBIO, & WP:SINGER each has been used thousands of times. The comment that MN is a "well-used shortcut" does not play out according to the evidence. Keeping a "MN" as short link "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" appears to be nothing more than link hoarding or pride. If it is a case of the latter then remove it from "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and send to a Disambiguate page, so then no one will be happy. Myotus (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In lieu of a no-consensus close, let's try one more time. Keep as is, retarget to WikiProject Minnesota, or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my original comments, retarget to WikiProject Minnesota. Old redirects can be automatically updated to the notability page with a bot, and considering it was used less than 100 times for its original purpose, I don't think it was ever that popular of a shortcut for the original target. Additionally, other US state WikiProjects have their postal abbreviation as a shortcut, which makes sense, because inside and outside the States they are frequently referred to by their two-letter abbreviation in text and verbally. It makes sense for the MN WikiProject to have the WP:MN shortcut. The current main shortcut WP:MINN is an extremely uncommon abbreviation for the state name that's also depreciated in most style guides because it isn't the US Post Code official abbreviation, and thus it's also little-known domestically and internationally, and isn't anyone's first (or even second or third) thought for a web shortcut. While WP:WPMN uses the best-known abbreviation, it appears confusingly redundant. There are no other more notable uses of the abbreviation MN than the state. This change makes sense. Pingnova (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Pingnova. Worgisbor (congregate) 17:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

[edit]

Previous consensus against having redirects like these be XNRs, but should they target Citation#Styles? My preference is still deletion. Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_28&oldid=1293093734"