Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

October 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2023.

Cytherography

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 00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target page. On all of Google, there is exactly one hit, which was a reddit post asking whether "Cytherography" was a valid term and the answer received was no.

"Cythero" is the prefix associated with the planet Venus, but just because it is a prefix, does not make this a meaningful conjunction as the word does not exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Cytherodynamics

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 00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target page. Google has zero hits for this term, and only shows thermodynamics and geodynamics.

This title came about as the conjunction of the "cythero" prefix, which is used to describe things that are related to Venus. However, I could not find anywhere that shows this prefix being used in this way, attached to the word "dynamics" like so. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:10, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Climatized

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) Duckmather (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Is a closer synonym to Acclimatization, and this terminology of "climatize" is not used at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:05, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Pan Shusi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 22#Pan Shusi

Mahalaya

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. Jay 💬 09:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was blanked by

WP:RFD. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Mahalaya is the last day of Pitru Paksha. The article covers the same. The rituals of Pitru Paksha are also associated with Mahalaya. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz: mahalaya and pitru paksha are not same, mahalaya is also the start of Devi paksha and start of durga puja. It has mythological significance, Durga idols' eyes are painted that day, this ritual is called chokkhudaan and also the holy verses of Chandi goddess is played in every household to mark the beginning of Durga Puja. The day is also known as Agomoni, which means 'coming', which indicates the coming of goddess Durga. And even pitru paksha covers it, the topics are completely different, you cannot redirect it to another different topic, because pitru paksha and mahalaya are not synonyms i.e. pitru paksha ≠ mahalaya. Ku423winz1 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
notability guidelines. Deleting this redirect would only serve to leave readers who search for the term at a dead end, which is probably not desirable. Also, the existence of a redirect does not imply that the two terms mean the same thing; there are lots of redirects out there that could seem completely unrelated to the average reader, but still exist for a variety of other reasons, such as navigational utility. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. Mahalaya is prominently mentioned in the lead of Pitru Paksha, which is more than enough reason to have this redirect according to me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:04, 26 October 2023 (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
).

Good ol' boy

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 Good Old Boys. 4 different possible targets were listed, which, as Pppery mentioned, is an indication that disambiguation may be the best course of action. As such, Good Old Boys, a longstanding disambiguation page, appears to be the most appropriate target. If any of the suggested targets make sense then they should probably also be included there. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Good ol' boy" usually does not refer to old boys networks. It refers to culturally conservative Southern whites - see Merriam Webster, Wiktionary, The Free Dictionary, etc. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative southern whites are only an old boys network if you take a far more expansive definition of the latter term than its article does.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote per Ivanvector and
    WP:ONEOTHER. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 22:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Disambiguation page - Old Boys is another disambiguation target which should be included, which is specific to UK/Commonwealth culture. "Good ol' boy" is not explained on White Southerners, so just linking to that as if it were an alternative meaning doesn't make sense. But linking from a sentence that gives better context would be helpful. M-W gives the definition as "a usually white Southerner who conforms to the values, culture, or behavior of his peers". Good ol' boy used to be an article; a previous version cited the definiton of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "A man having qualities held to be characteristic of certain Southern white males, such as a relaxed or informal manner, strong loyalty to family and friends, and often an anti-intellectual bias and intolerant point of view". -- Beland (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good old boy, Good ol boys, Good 'ol boys, Good Old Boy, Good ole' boy, and Good ol' boys, all of which redirect to the same target, should probably be included in the discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and repoint the variant points to the new disambiguation page -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the late retarget suggestion. Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the target, the disambiguation entry suggestion of Old Boys, and the suggested target of Country (identity).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wikt:good old boy via {{Wiktionary redirect}}. There are too many not-so-great redirect targets on offer here, and I think if we're using Wiktionary's definition to guide us here, it would make the most sense to just send it there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate We now have four different target suggestions, and credible arguments readers could be looking for any of them. That's exactly what a disambiguation page is for. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. - jc37 00:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Pppery. Google Scholar results are about 60/40 for articles about white southern identity vs. articles about old-boy networks, but the existence of separate
    WP:ONEOTHER. My OR theory is that "good ol' boy" and "old boy" developed separately in Southern US and British parlance, and the lines between the usage blurred as the phrases moved through other English-speaking regions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to include the variant redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Shante Advance: Risky Revolution

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. While I don't like keeping what is essentially near-vandalism, editors have made reasonable arguments for keeping here in spite of the history.
(non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This page was created at the wrong title with only the words "please add some more" and no actual context to the upcoming Shantae game, and was moved almost instantly after creating. No incoming links. Because of the circumstances and instant fix, I implore

WP:IAR be considered in order to not forever immortalize this error that was resolved in minutes. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Horacio Astaburuaga

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Horacio Astaburuaga

Gyango

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 04:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable monster from this series that is not mentioned at target. A now-banned user had taken and moved several similar BLAR'd redirects to new titles, essentially doubling the amount of unlisted monster titles that point to this target. Out of the 47 redirects that point to this page, exactly 1/47 look keepable. I haven't yet investigated the histories of the other 46, but this is something to look into soon. For now, I'm just nominating the one as it has crossed my path. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was the original title of the article, which was moved to
    Gango (Ultraman) and merged to List of Ultraman monsters, which was then redirected to Ultra Monsters (deleted at AFD) then retargeted to the TV series article, where it was mentioned. There seems to have been no reference for the content that was removed. A search finds other articles in Lists of Ultraman characters; if these are relevant could the same sources be used to create a list that this could redirect to? Peter James (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Untitled Sandra Oh and Awkwafina comedy film

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Untitled Sandra Oh and Awkwafina comedy film

SNES Mini

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. Not a redirect. Filer blocked, no action needed. Star Mississippi 14:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This had been a dab page that was converted to a redirect by User talk:Alpha200807 (talk · contribs) then nominated for RfD for no obvious legitimate reason.
(The change was quickly reverted, hence your confusion).
I can't see any clear reason for this, but it's noticeable that I'd already reverted a previous edit by the same user just a few minutes prior.
Please note that I've opened a discussion on this user at the Administrator's noticeboard. Ubcule (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional; I notice that their account has just been blocked. Ubcule (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Cow belt

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 restore article and send to AfD. The proposed retarget to BIMARU states can be considered there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural nomination started by 103.251.217.210 (talk · contribs). Their reason is "This is a slang name intentionally made into redirect and target redirect page doesn't make sense because some other states also come... I don't know how to create discussion but can you delete it or can you start discussion" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Article and send to AFD if deletion is desired. This spent over a decade as an article before an editor turned it into a redirect last year, following a contested prod. Given the extensive history as an article I think this should be evaluated as an article. A few searches show examples of this name being used in reliable sources, e.g. [4] [5]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suspicions that 103.251.217.210 is LearnIndology editing logged out to avoid their IPA topic ban, given they tried to get this exact same redirect deleted via speedy deletion quoting the exact same "this is just slang" "even though its been redirected it should be deleted" rationale [6] [7] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    what is the definition of cow belt? which states according to you can be considered cow belt? You know that it is a derogatory or slur term like bimaru state etc... & In Indo-Gangetic Plain, states like west bengal, delhi, punjab, parts of gujaat, Assam also come & why do you want insertion of offensive word to wikipedia? 103.251.217.210 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    WP:RNEUTRAL applies (we don't delete redirects just because they're offensive if they are reasonably useful). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Make that retarget to BIMARU states per the comment below. I didn't find that article when I looked yesterday but the sources I gave do suggest that the term applies to those states in particular, and not the wider Hindu Belt area. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to BIMARU states Cow belt is a degoratory used by leftists for UP & Bihar. State like Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand doesn't come in cow belt even though it is in hindi belt. It has no reliable or scholarly sources available. DSP2092talk 21:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 11:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article debating this as a redirect when there appears to be an ongoing content dispute including an entire article history seems backwards. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed target BIMARU states.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article and send to AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD as a contested BLAR and contested prod. This should be without prejudice to a "redirect" consensus at the AfD, but deleting article content at RfD is acceptable only when that content is speedily deletable, this is not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to BIMARU states per Ivanvector and DSP2092, and add a mention there if possible. I don't think the article is worth restoring, and it would be a waste of time to nominate at AfD just to have it deleted or redirected once again. CycloneYoris talk! 06:54, 21 October 2023 (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
).

Social Security System (SSS)

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 Social Security System (SSS), no consensus on what to do with Social Security System. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The SSS disambiguator doesn't seem to do anything here, as it's the acronym for the title itself. And to this end, the Philippines aren't the only country to have a

WP:DIFFCAPS applies, to me it seems that both of these titles should point there, at one place. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: I have since added Social Security System to this discussion, in the event that the inclusion of "System" in the title has a significance for either target. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the second entry Social Security System.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:08, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Yoann beaudry

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Is this G10? Because I'm getting nothing. Too old to be R3'd (it's been around since 2007!) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 October 2023 (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
).

American rainmaker

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #5: The redirect makes no sense. I cannot find any connection between Al Gore and "American rainmaker" either on his page or through a Google search. The article history only includes the creation of the redirect, and no articles link here. Significa liberdade (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Kresblain

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kresblain is an obscure character from Arthur. He is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 03:06, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Clark Caves

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 05:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clark Caves is a very obscure location from Arthur. It is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. This redirect has history, but it is not worth keeping. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 03:06, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Sugar cube

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. Nom withdrawn.
(non-admin closure) – robertsky (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The name "Sugar cube" is more recognizable than

Cube sugar article to a new name "Sugar cube". This requires vacating the current "Sugar cube" redirect, hence the request. Викидим (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@
round-robin move. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you! Please close this one. Викидим (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2023 (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
).

Right to be free from slavery

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Right to be free from slavery

Fish ribs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Fish ribs

Poor country

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.
(non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

A poor country is not a developed country nor a developing country. A developing country is termed as middle income country by the World Bank. A poor country is instead classified as Least developed countries. So redirecting poor country to developing country would be factually wrong. So the redirect should be changed to Least developed countries, which World Bank classifies as Low Income Countries. - Crashed greek (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Least developed countries. I don't think the current target is inappropriate because although not all developing countries are poor countries, poor countries are developing countries. The term "Least developed countries" is a subcategory of developing countries. However since that subcategory relates more specifically to the search term it makes sense to retarget. Hut 8.5 18:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, (Developing country). It is incorrect that a poor country is not a developing country. The article Developing country makes it clear that there is no universally agreed definition of "developing country" but discusses the terms "developed" contra "developing" with no indication that there is a third group of countries that are so poor that they do not even count as developing. Given that there are no set definition of what countries count as "poor" or "developing" I think that the reader is best served by a redirect to the general article from which he or she can continue in the direction they want.
It would be misleading to redirect to Least developed countries since that is not of list of the poorest countries. Least developed countries is a very specific list of countries kept by the UN, where gross national income per capita is only on of three criteria that decide if a country is included. (The other two are an index for health/education and an index measuring the structural vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks.) For instance, Syria which is in the low-income group of List of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita is not on the list of Least developed countries, but Laos which is in the lower-middle-income group is on the list. Sjö (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMF clearly has separate classification as low income countries, [11], the drop down list has only poor countries. And IMF has separate classification for middle income countries [12] too. Same with UN which is Least developed countries and Middle income countries [13] with income range with both upper and lower thresholds of $1,036 and $4,085, below that are least developed countries. Same with World Bank, which further divides middle income countries as lower middle and upper middle. All three reputed organizations have the "poor country" classification clearly, without any ambiguity as you claimed. While wikipedia has poor country article of UN, it doesnt have world bank and IMF ones, though the latter 2 have clear classification for the poor country. So it would be appropriate to redirect to the UN poor country, than the developing country which mainly corresponds to middle income country. That would be good until or unless separate poor country article is created. Crashed greek (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresent the sources, please don’t do that. None of the sources you mention call the least developed countries poor, and they do not have a clear classification for ”poor country”. Sjö (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not misrepresent the sources. All the lists of UN, World Bank and IMF you can see the list of countries, they are all almost the same countries group with lowest GDP per capita. You are just doing mental gymnastics here in wrongly accusing me. Crashed greek (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article developing country (at least its intro) discusses "low and middle income countries" or "developing" contrasted with "developed" countries. "Least developed country", according to its article, is a subcategory of "developing countries". This redirect should point to the broader topic (developing country). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Developing country article clearly says it is not a universally agreed definition in the lead section. Generally undeveloped countries are not included. Crashed greek (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source that supports that generally undeveloped countries are not called developing countries. It would benefit the discussion if you specified the page number or quote that supports your statement, if the source is longer than a couple of pages. Sjö (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk 00:13, 14 October 2023 (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
).

INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation

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. This discussion involved several redirects made for
§ Reasons for not deleting of the redirects guideline. Many of the arguments made for both positions boiled down simply to claims of usefulness or uselessness without further context. Ultimately, I could not assess any consensus on how to handle this nomination, and no alternatives to the two extreme positions were discussed. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussion
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These redirects are useless INTDABLINK of the form

talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

vacated closure

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 Procedural close per
talk 18:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Update: I count about 350 nominations, based on contribs. I've reverted maybe 60. I don't want to do that. thryduulf, you seem knowledgable. Is there some kind of rollback/bot option here?
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
).

talk) 23:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 00:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I picked Oceanus (spacecraft) (disambiguation) at random from the list, but the fact is that a substantial majority of incompdab-to-dab mergers were done as part of a project that I undertook years ago to eliminate partial disambiguation. We used to have tons of freestanding disambiguation pages at titles like "Foo (bar)" because the page creators didn't understand partial disambiguation. That still happens. I think the core issue is the fact that "Foo (bar)" is still in itself an ambiguous title. Compare Glass house (a disambiguation page) and Glass House (a redirect to that disambiguation page). Both Glass house (disambiguation) and Glass House (disambiguation) redirect there, even though the page title, strictly speaking, is not "Glass House". There are many comparable links where a "Bob Foo" and a "Bob Foo (disambiguation)" or a "Tom Foo" and a "Tom Foo (disambiguation)" redirect to a "Robert Foo" or "Thomas Foo" disambiguation page which also has its own "Robert Foo (disambiguation)" or "Thomas Foo (disambiguation)" incoming redirects. BD2412 T 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Anyone who can provide a good refutation to this has my delete !vote. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the purpose of intentional dab links is not as an aid for searching, it is to mark links made using such redirects as intentionally placed and not just an inadvertent link to a disambiguation page. Differences in capitalization (or punctuation, etc) are very easy to type for any reader. And it is normal to use such redirects with small differences on the existing articles with titles based on those small differences. But to intentionally type one of the strangely constructed redirects in the set above is highly unusual for most readers. And I can't think of a case where any of these would validly need the use of such redirects for an intentional disambiguation link. older ≠ wiser 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I nominated only INTDABLINK of incompdab redirects with parenthetical qualifier here. "Tom Foo" and "Bob Foo" could be seen as special cases of natural qualifier or
talk) 23:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Even without
WP:INCOMPDAB entering into the picture, I think there's an argument for a "Foo (incomplete disambiguator) (disambiguation)" redirect to exist where "Foo (incomplete disambiguator)" is in fact an ambiguous phrase. Unbreakable (song), for example, is ambiguous. "Waterfall Creek (South Australia)" is ambiguous. I am not campaigning to create these, but the ones I am seeing here are at least harmless to keep. BD2412 T 23:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
When the
talk) 00:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please refer to the old RfD list I add above my nomination rationale, which collated outcomes of all related RfD I could found, especially thanks for Certes. This discussion should be relisted to obtain more opinions, as most of old RfDs result in a deletion of nomination. To get more editors involved in this all-in-one thread, I would ping all the participants in the previous discussion who haven't commented here (feel free to ignore this if you have no interest):
talk) 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps because it is an all-in-one case. I don't recall either of the previous !votes, but the "(footballer) (disambiguation)" case brings up an interesting point. Are we violating the GFDL by deleting edit histories that demonstrate the correctly attributed authorship of merged-in sections? BD2412 T 19:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally yes, see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: When I typed in "Tamar (Bible)" the second choice provided was "Tamar (Bible) (disambiguation)", "Tamar (Bible)" not being an option. --Bejnar (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you type that? The search box suggests "Tamar (Bible)" for me. If you used Visual Editor, it has a known problem, currently being solved, which stops it suggesting the best match. If the existence of this useless page is impairing the results of some sort of search, that's another argument for deleting it. Certes (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep; although I sympathize with the arguments that these redirects have extremely little value to most readers, I also fail to see how keeping them does any harm. My view is that we should delete redirects that are misleading or confusing, but if they have neither benefit nor detriment then the default would be to keep. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed the group headers because they were breaking this nomination on the main RFD page, and making it seem as though it was not part of any daily nomination. In addition, and practice, we usually do not edit nominations on RFD to accommodate tools; if the amount nominations causes XFDcloser to break, it is what it is. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 – —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 00:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I will relist this manually (with tag updates handled through
WP:AWBREQ) if and only if TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) does not close this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The purpose of these redirects, as explained above, is to take people to broader disambiguation pages. I don't understand your comment about not disambiguating anything, given that redirects to disambiguation pages and other pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set indexes and some lists) are common and desirable even if the target page name is not an exact match, and this includes those in Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in the section title and discussion over and over again, these redirects are not the redirects from incomplete disambiguation but
talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
And multiple other people have explained in the discussion over and over again that they are actually useful, and per
WP:R#KEEP point 5 that is a reason they should not be deleted. Just because you don't find them useful doesn't mean nobody does. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's so useful to you, are you also fine with the mass creation of INTDABLINKs for all
talk) 01:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't encourage the mass creation of such redirects, but neither do I actively oppose if someone feels it would be useful. I do actively support the individual creation of any that people specifically find useful and oppose the deletion of those that have already been created. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this discussion is about delete all or keep all of such redirects as opposed to that of individual creation. If there's any individual redirects whose deletion is controversial, such as
talk) 02:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Like Thryduulf, I don't encourage the mass creation of such redirects, nor oppose keeping redirects that someone finds useful. However, I think we should delete as useless clutter the redirects that no one finds useful, which is probably everything that has not been struck from the list above. Certes (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my point. One must specify the redirects when they are talking about usefulness, otherwise they simply prefer all INTDABLINKs of redirects from incomplete disambiguation, which also include mass creation of such redirects.
talk) 10:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Supporting keeping those that have been created already does not imply support for mass creation of those that have not yet been created. Continuing to misrepresent the views of other participants is not acceptable behaviour, especially when you have explicitly been told that your comments are incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a logical inconsistency to say these redirects are useful -- but if the existence of such redirects is unreliable or unpredictable -- the usefulness negated. Essentially, arguing that these have any utility is an argument for creating these for every such incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd disagree with it, there is an argument that these redirects are of such marginal use and little consequence that we should ignore them, keeping any which exist without encouraging further creations. This seems to be the practice for Foo (disambiguation) redirects where Foo is an article with a dab-like function, e.g.
name lists. Certes (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a good argument I would have pointed out. When we're talking about usefulness, the scope of utility and the scope of objects are important and should be directly related to the rationale. Because INTDABLINKs are useful only when the associated dab pages are actually linked, we're discouraged from creating them when they're not used. However, in this case, I haven't seen any argument that could clarify such kind of difference, while INTDABLINKs of redirect from incomplete disambiguation are unlikely to be linked in any cases.
talk) 13:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As I wrote in my initial !vote, the only purpose of 138th Street (New York City Subway station) (disambiguation) is as a target for a hypothetical link which
intentionally refers to all New York City Subway stations called "138th Street" collectively. We have no such links, and it seems very unlikely that we will. If we ever do then I have no objections to recreating the redirect. Certes (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2023 (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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_14&oldid=1185746922"