Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28

March 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2022.

Transcendental Meditation® program

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation® program → Transcendental Meditation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Transcendental Meditation(r) program → Transcendental Meditation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No evidence that any use of a registered trademark applies to the target. In addition, the version of these redirects without the registered trademark designation, Transcendental Meditation program, is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inclusion of registration symbols in titles implies endorsement by Wikipedia of claims to intellectual property rights that are beyond our scope. BD2412 T 20:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm no expert in this area-although I have edited on TM articles in the past. I do know Transcendental Meditation is trademarked, and my understanding, and this is from many years ago, was that we had to include the trademark symbol when using the words Transcendental Meditation. Whether that matters to Wikipedia or in this instance, I don't know but this is what I remember, for what that's worth. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem, to me, is with "is trademarked". Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. Is the phrase trademarked everywhere in the world? Will it always be? Trademarks expire after a time. It's not our job to police trademarks claimed by others. BD2412 T 04:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BD2412 and
MOS:®, which says "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." The terms also seem potentially promotional, trying to use Wikipedia to promote a claim of protection of these terms. Lots of terms used on Wikipedia are claimed as trademarks, and we shouldn't encourage a proliferation of such redirects. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Transcendental Meditation is trademarked worldwide and has been for decades nor is it promotional to simply use such a legitimate trademark. Those arguments are spurious. However, if Wikipedia has a guideline that prohibits trademarks, however legitimate, than I can understand a deletion. However, please do the research as to the legitimacy of the trademark before supporting a deletion, based on inaccurate claims. Because I don't see, at this point, legitimate arguments for deletion I am now going to vote Keep although, I had no intention of bothering with this. I thought there was something legitimate here, but I don't see that, at this point. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation®/TM® are registered or common law trademarks, licensed to Maharishi Foundation USA, a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization.
This is merely a reference to registration in the United States. There are scores of countries with trademark registration systems. Is it registered in China? In South Africa? In New Zealand? BD2412 T 21:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume so since the Maharishi Foundation is a world-wide org, but I'm no expert in this area. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be. I don't care one way or the other whether this is deleted or not, but I wouldn't mind if the information on the reason to delete was accurate and so far so one has contributed anything more than opinions? I guess because of that I'd just leave it the way it is now, but not attached. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the record, "assume" is the "mother of all screwups" (according to a semi-public figure I admire deeply, a paraphrase, I'll grant; my father used quite a different phrase). Based on MOS, we don't include service marks. That's not an opinion. That's a guideline which we are required to follow. Wikipedia doesn't endorse trademarks, although we do take such copyright quite seriously. We are not a platform for defending service marks of any kind. That's a matter for the holders' legal advisors. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. This is a leftover from a 2003-era page move carried out explicitly to remove the (R) symbol from a page title, and is no longer needed. — The Anome (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in reference to the several assumptions made here. I have no concerns with deleting based on Wikipedia guides. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A similar discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Redirects indicating "®" status, was recently closed to "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 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.

Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 1#Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus

TheTekkitRealm

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheTekkitRealm → Me at the zoo#COM-TEST (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, nor is the target mentioned at the linked draft, Draft:TheTekkitRealm. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obviously a semi-hoax about a non-notable subject, but totally irrelevant to the target. It's just
WP:FANCRUFT from a now blocked user and should have been a speedy delete. — Smuckola (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Smuckola. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as I love TekkitRealm, he is completely unrelated to "Me at the zoo" and he's still not notable either. Gerald WL 02:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to
Guiness World Records staff and creating an ad with the original music video could be worth noticing. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. Veverve (talk) 01:11, 29 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.

Irish separatists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Irish separatists

Immutocracy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Immutocracy

Utricle (fruit)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Utricle (fruit)

Droid \(font\)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Droid fonts (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Unlikely/
WP:COSTLY redirect due to the implausible use of regex escape characters for the parentheses for the disambiguator. The version without regex escape characters, Droid (font), is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Also, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24#Khaled \(musician\) for further reference. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Note that I have unilaterally moved the target article to Droid (typeface) to match other articles about typefaces. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 30 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.

Junk food vegan

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junk food vegan → Veganism#Vegan nutrition (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Junk food" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct concept of diets that are technically vegan but still unhealthy due to excessive junk food content. That is probably something that should be covered somewhere in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 22:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:46, 28 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.

Fastest NFL Player

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest NFL Player → Tyreek Hill (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

According to the target article,
List of National Football League records (individual), leading me to think that deletion is the best option. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, this isn't Guinness World Records or similar. This article says that John Ross is the current holder of this speed record he set for 2017, but even his page wouldn't be the best target for this thing, as the record holder is subject to change throughout the years. Also, people have varying opinions as to who's the fastest player in the NFL, and there are a bunch of different areas in which one can hold that title. Regards, SONIC678 20:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there's a suitable target for this.
talk page 20:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, Hill is known by some (myself included) as the fastest NFL player, and has gained some coverage for it, see [1], [2], [3], though I'm not sure this should be a redirect page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to
talk) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and
WP:V. eviolite (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – While he is considered to be the fastest player in the NFL, this is not a page that should be a redirect. It should be left red or properly flushed out. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fastest at what? Unless there's some official way sources use this phrase, it's vague and also due to have its target become outdated at some point. To much vagueness and maintenance. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 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.

Salad vegetable

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Salad vegetable

Shabji

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 Sabzi#Culinary uses. MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per
WP:FORRED. This redirect seems to be in the Bengali language, which the target article's subject does not have affinity. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Per
WP:FORRED: non-English title is in common use. I have takeaway menus for two separate UK restaurants. My options include (1) Shabji Bhajee £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables) & Shabji Sag £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables cooked with spinach).(2) Shabji Paneer £3.50 (no translation). Hazardous to Health (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
...And what type of cuisine do these restaurants represent? Seems like a cuisine type that uses a foreign language. The menu items you listed may be okay to have on this Wikipedia per
WP:FORRED" should be valid for the nominated redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
(1) "Indian & Bangladeshi" (2) "
Indian and Anglo-Indian cuisine is so pervasive that the last link is actually a sub-section of "English cuisine"! Hazardous to Health (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Your comment didn't address my point in the least, and the point you are mentioning again is menu items (phrases which include the word) rather than the individual word itself. Please reread my comment if necessary and, if needed, address what I was stating rather than, I'm assuming unintentionally,
WP:BLUDGEON-ing your stance. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:Redirects are cheap...I answered your question and explained why the redirect is useful (not essential - useful). Hazardous to Health (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and nom's arguments that while the cuisine would have made sense, this word by itself doesn't, unless we have a better target. Jay (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jay. Retarget Sabzi as second choice (I'm not entirely sure but I think shabji is the same thing as In Indian cuisine, a vegetable cooked in gravy, also spelled sabji, based on a bit of Googling, so it could also be a valid transliteration of the other terms?). eviolite (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Redirect as addditional context has been unearthed. See my Comment above - now amended. Shabji (Prev >> Vegetable) is an alternate spelling for Sabji (Prev >> Curry). I have redirected both to Sabzi#Culinary uses and thus a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion Hazardous to Health (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the edit on Shabji since the RFD has not closed yet, so changing its target can be considered disruptive. However, at the present time, I have no opinion in the matter regarding this proposed option for the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed Sabji for discussion. See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Sabji. Jay (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also have struck off your previous keep vote, to avoid the confusion of a double vote. Jay (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabzi#Culinary uses, as that does appear to be a helpful target. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:47, 17 April 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.

Fruit vegetable

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Fruit vegetable

Mammoth tank

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 Panzer VIII Maus#Development. Jay (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth tank → Command & Conquer (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete - not mentioned in main article and fictional cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very kick ass unit but has no significant bearing in real life and in the game's lore--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Panzer VIII Maus, a real-life tank that had the codename Mammoth, per our article -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to
MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I would be more inclined to disambiguate, but have no objection to the proposed retargeting. BD2412 T 00:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the WWII panzer, what would be the potential targets? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any exceptionally large tank, I suppose. Or, a tank in which one keeps a reconstituted woolly mammoth as a specimen. BD2412 T 17:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those (military armored vehicles) are called
superheavy tanks, which could be indicated with a hatnote at the Maus article if needed -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:07, 28 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:S

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Wikipedia:S

.日本国

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.日本国 → .jp (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

deletion, .日本国 is not a real domain and (unlike the proposed .日本) is not mentioned anywhere on the page, so there's no reason to redirect it to that page.
talk) 06:37, 28 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.

Charles Gerard Conn

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 Charles G. Conn. Jay (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gerard Conn
C.G. Conn (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
]

Is there a reason that this points to the company founded by Charles G. Conn, rather than pointing to the person? BD2412 T 02:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. The companny doesn't seem to ever be referred to as the founder's full name so I think
WP:ASTONISH applies. eviolite (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Retarget per nom. -
Talkback) 04:10, 30 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.

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)

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 no consensus. However, there is implicit support for the creation of the disambiguation with a properly titled Consanguinity (canon law). Jay (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consanguinity (in Canon Law) → Consanguinity (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think it should be turned into a DAB with Consanguinity#Christianity and Affinity (Catholic canon law). However, the capitalisation of the redirect is clearly wrong (it should be "Consanguinity (canon law)", see Canon law). What do you think? Veverve (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If such a DAB is created, it would be reasonable to retarget this there. If this RfD is considering whether to keep or delete, then I'd lean delete. "in" + "Canon Law" is a doubly nonstandard disambiguator. On the other hand, it's been around 16 years and does decent pageviews, so I could also see the case for keeping. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, actually, per my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19 § Bigamy (in Civil Law). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as badly capitalised, and unnecessary disambiguation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 28 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.

Stevens grips

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 (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens grips → Stevens grip (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I made this redirect by accident during a page move. As the CSD was not formally met, I want to open up a discussion to delete this redirect. I doubt my typo is actually helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Default to ~~keep~~ comment since the nominator's rationale is invalid per this diff; the title existed as a redirect prior to the nominator overwriting it. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was Stevens grip, not Steven grips. An error was made during the page move.
Stevens technique are the pages in question and aren't nominated for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, I see that now after noticing the
WP:ROUNDROBIN moves that DrVogel performed in the edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

IMO this ought to have qualified for G7 or G6, but since it's been sent here, and this doesn't seem to be a countable noun, sure, delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject not plurable? If I see a group of people each using the Stevens grip, can I not say they are using Stevens grips? BD2412 T 22:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that people use many types of
fakings". It doesn't make much sense. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete, in that case. BD2412 T 17:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tamzin and nom. eviolite (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Seems to be an honest mistake. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 30 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_28&oldid=1085524416"