Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 20

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 delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Big hat boy → Uraba lugens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There appears to be no usage of "big hat boy" to refer to this species of moth in particular. While the name does make some sense from the appearance of the moth's caterpillar and "Mad hatterpillar" is there as a common name, the article does not mention "big hat boy" in any capacity, and googling for terms like 'caterpillar "big hat boy"' or with the taxonomical name brings up no related results other than this wikipedia page itself. Randi Moth (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I created the redirect because the name was present when I reviewed the page August 26, 2018. The common name had been added July 17, 2018, without explanation, then removed as invalid August 28, 2018. I agree with Randi above, and I can't find any evidence that it is real. Good catch. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Per
  WP:G7. I’ve tagged the redirect. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 02:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 23:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sake no dengaku → Salmon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention anywhere on enwiki. Delete unless a mention can be added. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick DDG search shows that it is some sort of obscure salmon dish. It is not mentioned in the article so it should be deleted.

ping me) 13:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If a mention were to be added, salmon as food would be a much more appropriate target. But it does seem like this is an obscure term likely not worthy of a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as surprise since neither "sake" or "dengaku" refer to salmon. However, Dengaku (food) can be a possible new article to cover the glaze you put on tofu, and stuff that you would find on the Oden and Miso pages. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @AngusWOOF: Sake means "salmon" in Japanese, see [1] ansh.666 16:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above with no prejudice regarding article creation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 23 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

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. I'll proceed as a bold action, and anyone is free to revert that.

(non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Equatorial → Equator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Earth's equator may seem like an obvious

• Here's also the clickthroughs from the time when this was a dab page: [4]. In October this year, the link to Tropics alone got more than 6x as many clicks as the link to Equator. – Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion review. The Afd closed today with consensus to blank the previous disambiguation page and redirect to the current target. To come straight to Rfd to propose a new disambiguation page over the new redirect is procedurally out of line and could be seen as forum shopping to get around current consensus reached elsewhere (though I have no doubt the nominator's intentions are benevolent and sincere). If the close was possibly incorrect, or should not have been closed with the goal of further discussion,
  WP:DRV is the correct venue, not Rfd. Otherwise, I don't see how we can go against current consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The key question is if there's a primary topic and in the AfD this was once asserted to be the case and then challenged, with no followup discussion. Calling that "consensus" is a bit of a stretch. Again, I don't think things can be helped by going back to AfD, or even worse, to DRV, for resolving a quesion that's really beyond the scope of those venues. And given the data above, I'd be really surprised if there's anyone left out there who genuinely believes redirecting to be a good idea. And if procedural correctness is to be preferred over common sense, then I could have just used a loophole: I could have just created the dab page I'm proposing above: it would be substantially different from the one discussed at AfD, so it wouldn't be bound by its outcome. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree there may not have been consensus at Afd, and the proper venue to reach that determination is DRV, not here. I don't see how Afd wasn't the proper venue for the discussion- someone proposed there shouldn't be a dab page because all non-partial title matches could be covered at a redirect target (Afd being the proper venue to propose controversial
      WP:FORUMSHOP. Disambiguation may be the best outcome here, but this is not the way to about it given the Afd outcome as it currently stands. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The AfD nom wanted the page deleted, so AfD was hands down the right venue for that. As for moving a closed discussion to a different, more suitable, venue: that's done all the time. I could have easily started an informal talk page thread with a round of pings to everyone, just like here. I really don't think there's the need to resort to high-level bureaucracy to deal with every minor unfinished business. I probably made a mistake here in going for a formal venue like RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I realise now that it does feel weird to be having one formal discussion after another. Given that the case against the current primary topic is so obvious and granted that none of the previous participants have objected to this so far, I'm going to just withdraw this nomination and then create a dab page as a
      bold action. – Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

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

(non-admin closure) → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 05:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Gypsies → Names of the Romani people#Gypsy and gipsy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to primary topic Romani people. 162 etc. (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. The term “gypsy” can be seen as offensive; it is better to link to an explanation of the term than uncritically treat it as a mundane synonym. Dronebogus (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm nominating

Gypsy already redirects to Romani people. 162 etc. (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Retarget to
  Gypsy. Users are more likely seeking the group to which this name refers, rather than a discussion of alternative names. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget to Romani people per nom and Mdewman6 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Romani people per nom. Note that was where the term redirected for a long time until a change this year, so just restoring the original redirect. SnowFire (talk) 05:07, 23 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

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. Nominator blocked as sock, further discussion has not elicited clear support for any particular outcome. No prejudice to renomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DemiRep → Bikini Kill  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No explanation at target page.