Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2022.

Mudak

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 Tal language. ✗plicit 01:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mudak
    Mat (Russian profanity)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
     ] 

Not mentioned at target, and мудак is not a mat word. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 18:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Lenticel, though it should be noted that there is actually a diacritic on the d in the proposed target article (it's a Ɗ). eviolite (talk) 22:59, 22 March 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.

Zhopa

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
(non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Not mentioned at target, and жопа is not a mat word. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 18:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to
    Zhopa (album). Seems to be the most plausible target in the wiki --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:18, 22 March 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.

Slaughter(livestock)

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 00:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:RDAB. The correctly spaced variant, Slaughter (livestock), exists and is a redirect towards the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 26 March 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.

Slow Blind Driveway

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Slow Blind Driveway

Space ethics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Space ethics

Apple blossom

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 Apple Blossom. A round robin move may be done. Jay (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has altogether two sentences about the blossoms, buried inside the section with the botanican description, and I doubt these could satsify any readers who may be looking for content on the blossoms of apples. More importantly, I'm not convinced there is a

primary topic here: the dab page Apple Blossom
has entries for two other plants with the name (as well as half a dozen proper nouns). I propose retargeting there.

This was disscussed in 2017; pinging participants: MelanieN, Oiyarbepsy and Wbm1058. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposed retargeting sounds like a good idea to me. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I see that I actually carried out this retarget in 2017, but somebody immediately changed it back. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 22 March 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.

Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT

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 is a blocked sock. -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-shortcut, same length as the target. The title of the page but capitalised is not a "shortcut." Gaetr (talk) 13:52, 22 March 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.

SwitchOTR

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 00:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See similar discussions ZieZie, Juhn and more. Reasons for deletion

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.

Väinö I of Finland

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 00:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere in the target. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per comments on Frederik Kaarle I of Finland. Misleading to the point deletion is a better answer, he was not King of Finland. SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 23 March 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.

Aasha (2015 film)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do about this one. It's a redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry except a circular link. It's in use in

WP:BLARed (with what I see as a useless result) in December 2021 by Onel5969. Narky Blert (talk) 11:08, 22 March 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.

Geko (rapper)

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 Moot. Already done as a technical move, withdrawn
(non-admin closure) Muhandes (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

See similar discussions ZieZie, Juhn and more. Reasons for deletion

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.

Pat Ford (activist)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#Pat Ford (activist)

Michael II of Portugal

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 11:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 08:01, 22 March 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.

Edward II of Portugal

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 11:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up hoax or fantasy name. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 22 March 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.

Edward III of Portugal

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 soft delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up hoax or fantasy name. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 22 March 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.

John IV of France

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 11:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 22 March 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.

Aimone I of Italy

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 soft delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 22 March 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.

William III, German Emperor

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 soft delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 22 March 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.

Louis Ferdinand I, German Emperor

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 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be some kind of hoax or fantasy. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Mr Prinz von Preussen may have been many things, but "German Emperor" is something for alternate histories. —Kusma (talk) 09:12, 22 March 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.

Georg Friedrich I, German Emperor

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 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be some kind of hoax or fantasy. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we shouldn't have fictional redirects about real people. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 22 March 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.

Louis Ferdinand I, King of Prussia

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 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fantasy redirect. —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 22 March 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.

Georg Friedrich I, King of Prussia

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 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be some kind of hoax or fantasy. There is no king of Prussia anymore. DrKay (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we shouldn't have fictional redirects about real people. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 22 March 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.

Nicholas III of Russia

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 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I can find appear to be typos for Nicholas II. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 22 March 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.

Louis I of Brazil

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 soft delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 22 March 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.

Pedro III of Brazil

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 soft delete. ✗plicit 11:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be the primary topic for this term. If a better target cannot be found, perhaps it should be deleted. DrKay (talk) 07:36, 22 March 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.

Elizabeth I of Brazil

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 29#Elizabeth I of Brazil

Maria I of Russia

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 soft delete. ✗plicit 11:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 22 March 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.

Frederik Kaarle I of Finland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Frederik Kaarle I of Finland

Tradewinds

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Tradewinds

Spider-Man 9

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 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These films were never ordered in such a way and are never referred to by these numbers either as they aren't part of one series of films, but 3 completely different film series. This is also a very made up (

Spider-Man 4 or 5? These redirects are just absurd and unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 05:24, 22 March 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.

Frivolous

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Frivolous

The Walking ED

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 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article's title appears to be a fan-made project that has not garnered significant notability. Though it is based on the TV series, that in itself does not merit enough evidence of notability on WP. There is no mention of "The Walking Ed" in the target article. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 22 March 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.

RYE

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.
(non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I would normally just retarget this to Rye myself, this has been targeted to Rye (disambiguation) for 16 years, so I thought it would be better to get some others' opinions on this as well. TartarTorte 01:33, 22 March 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.

-2 (number)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#-2 (number)

Widow black

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. I have
nuked RomanceLove88's redirects given the sheer volume of them that are problematic. If anyone wants to recreate any they find useful, they are welcome to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This redirect doesn't make sense. Why would someone who is looking for information about the black widow spider type in "widow black" in the search bar? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - typing "widow b" into google it prefills "widow black ..." for various different things so clearly enough people search this on google for them to bother, so presumably that may be the case here. It seems plausible enough and doesn't seem like it would cause any problems. A7V2 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor. We shouldn't start creating redirects from words in backwards order and more specifically, shouldn't give this specific editor the OK to keep spam creating these. Ain't useful. Gonnym (talk) 05:12, 22 March 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.

Pointless MCU redirects

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. I have
nuked RomanceLove88's redirects given the sheer volume of them that are problematic. If anyone wants to recreate any they find useful, they are welcome to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Outrageously absurd and unnecessary redirects. MCU films are never called "episodes" or "chapters". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, these are ridiculous and unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor who has never even edited these articles. As the nom points out, these films were never called episodes or chapters. Gonnym (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. – SirDot (talk) 23:33, 24 March 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.

Pointless MCU redirects (pt. 2)

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. I have
nuked RomanceLove88's redirects given the sheer volume of them that are problematic. If anyone wants to recreate any they find useful, they are welcome to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

More absurd and unnecessary redirects. These films and TV series are never called that, so it doubtful any reader would search up these keywords. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the proper procedure, but adding the following redirect that was just created as well:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 22 March, 2022 (UTC)

Delete I agree, these are ridiculous and unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor who has never even edited these articles. As the nom points out, these films were never called by these absurd short names. Delete also The Black Widow (2021 film) which is not the name of the film and for over a year the wiki worked without that, making that search time just not something editors were missing. Gonnym (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to edit an article prior to creating a redirect to it. Comments like that are unnecessarily bite-y and smack of ownership issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor creates around a hundred pointless redirects in an area they haven't edited and which almost all of them are complete garbage, I believe pointing that out is very appropriate. Gonnym (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Would the redirects be more acceptable garbage if the editor had paid dues first by making edits to an article? Unless you request sanctions against them for a lack of competence, I don't see the benefit to your comment. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except maybe The Black Widow (2021 film), which seems to be the only one where it is reasonable someone might search for that. The others are very implausible to be searched for or used as redirects. —El Millo (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. – SirDot (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe except the Black Widow redirect. – SirDot (talk) 23:34, 24 March 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.

Pointless MCU redirects (pt. 3)

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. I have
nuked RomanceLove88's redirects given the sheer volume of them that are problematic. If anyone wants to recreate any they find useful, they are welcome to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Third set of pointless redirects. A number after the phrase "Marvel Cinematic Universe" or "MCU" is ambiguous and unhelpful, and MCU phases are never called "seasons". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep these, they seem plausible enough. What in particular are they ambiguous with? Also FYI new discussions at RFD should go at the top of the page, not the bottom (though I suppose in this case it helps to keep these large discussions out of the way). A7V2 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I am only advocating to keep this batch, not the others. A7V2 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are ambiguous. "MCU: One" could refer to the first MCU film, the first MCU TV show, the first MCU phase, etc. In any case, nobody uses "MCU: One" to refer to any of those topics, which is why the redirects are illogical. The many variants make them even more ludicrous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Switching to delete most. A7V2 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apparently I didn't notice the ones with "phase" in their name. Keep those, delete the rest per Oinkers. A7V2 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, these are ridiculous and unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor who has never even edited these articles. As the nom points out, these leave ambiguity if dealing with the phase or with a specific film. Also "season" is not a term used for films. Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Theyre ridiculous, unnecessary, and even vague too. As the releases per year have grown, one could just as much interpret the seasons as yearly, heck, even as far back as Agents of SHIELD season 1, you know, the presence of television seasons no matter how many overlap, would definitely help that. “MCU #” could be a film-by-film or work-by-work thing too. These redirects are dumb. CreecregofLife (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mcu: phase one, Mcu: phase two, Mcu: phase three, and Mcu: phase four, seems like valid search terms. Delete the rest for being too vague. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s actually pretty fair. I think the others just being so ridiculous just left the reasonable ones lumped in… CreecregofLife (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included these ones here because I am already excluding MCU: Phase One, MCU: Phase Two, MCU: Phase Three, MCU: Phase Four, and MCU: Phase Five. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Mcu: phase [written-out number]" redirects and delete the rest per Oinkers. That's a valid way to search for the phases, all the rest...just are ambiguous. Regards, SONIC678 15:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They are never called "chapters" or "episodes" since the MCU is not one long ongoing TV series. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. – SirDot (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is holding these up anyway? I mean I guess it’s the manual nature of deleting all these pages, and that they’re big enough to be sectioned like this. It seems like a pretty unanimous wipe, are we just running out a clock at this point? CreecregofLife (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFD § Closing notes states: Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed. It's only been three days. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:46, 25 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_22&oldid=1080091514"