Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2025.

• talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ]
• Pathions → Trigintaduonion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Routon → Trigintaduonion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Voudon (algebra) → Trigintaduonion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Chingon (number) → Trigintaduonion#Further algebras  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chingon (algebra) → Trigintaduonion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Chingons → Trigintaduonion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Routons → Trigintaduonion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Obscure terminology that is no longer mentioned anywhere after I removed it with Special:Diff/1283807569. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep (I also oppose the change made). If you look at the history of, say, Pathion, you will see an actual unnecessary article that existed under that name. The redirects from obscure terms to mainstream ones are very useful in preventing recreation of articles about these obscure terms. To save our time and frustrations of the new editors, now an in the future, IMHO these redirects are essential as protection against re-creating these articles. An article about an obscure term is way too tempting to create, especially if any mention of this term is purged from Wikipedia. Викидим (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should not place (rather marginal) editorial goals above policy like

WP:SALTing if really needed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

There are few separate issues to discuss here:

1. I had applied common sense here (which is not against any of the listed rules): returning the situation to the one that existed before the "Pathion" redirect will eventually prompt some new editor to create "Pathion" article, just like it had been already created before. The pre-redirect state existed before, and ended up in an article, so simply returning to it is (almost for sure) creating the need for more work in the future. As an member of
   WP:NPP who will have to read the content of Pathion
   and remove it, I naturally do not want to do it all over again when it can be so easily avoided by just keeping the redirect.
2. The only reason that the redirect now is useless is due to the mention of it now removed from the target. The easy way to remedy it is to return the mention, IMHO. Yes, the term is obscure but then
   WP:NOTPAPER
   , we can mention obscure synonyms at nearly no cost. That said, I am not connected to the term "pathion" or its creator(s) in any way, so if you feel that using it is unprofessional or otherwise negatively affects the quality of encyclopedia, just state it here, and I will not argue.
3. I am OK with salting the redirects.
4. IMHO having a redirect in a case like this is like soft salting, but better. Here is my scenario: a potential new editor who learned a new term somewhere on the Web naturally wants to read about it in Wikipedia. At this point a redirect will let them know that the article is already there, just under a different name. Without redirect, and unable to find anything, they naturally want to create a new article. Salting creates an aura of mystery and desire to go around it and natural desire to spread the prohibited knowledge through, say, naming the new article "Pathion (algebra)". Ergo, IMHO, redirect in this case is better than salting. In the end, salting can cause more work for
   WP:NPP
   and a frustrated potential new editor.

Викидим (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the redirects are actually being used. Викидим (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that describing a term for a mathematical concept that has apparently never seen use in published mathematical literature (and is of no particular significance to recreational mathematics either) is unprofessional if you will. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your reasoning and have withdrawn my original vote. Викидим (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gonzalesgate → Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gonzales-gate → Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is mentioned on neither the 2006 or 2017 pages, 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Bundled both nominations.
  Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Purgegate → Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is mentioned on neither the 2006 or 2017 pages, 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This term also appears to have been used for the 2006 scandal but not as heavily. Most of my hits actually pull up some sort of valve system, which makes me question whether the scandal would be the primary topic here. -
  Talkback) 22:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(Original author) keep This term was widely used at the time, and a Google search now for '"purgegate" us attorneys' produces many results. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Bovlb (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@

Talkback) 22:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

That seem appropriate. Bovlb (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Attorneygate → Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is mentioned on neither the 2006 or 2017 pages, 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to
  Talkback) 22:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Lawyergate → Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hmmm... I thought I had heard this term, but is mentioned on neither the 2006 or 2017 pages, 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to
  Talkback) 22:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Retarget

Edit history shows it was created explicitly for the 2006 dismissal under second Bush administration. Simple Google search brings up both news articles from that time and more recently that refer to the dismissal as "lawyergate"along with @Presidentman's listed sources, multiple of which were published before and after 2017 showing that this term was not simply a reused -gate scandal term. I will note the irony that lawyergate doesn't appear in List of -gate scandals and controversies. This doesn't seem like a controversial retarget.

RCSCott91 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at target; the unrelated

• Plausible misspelling of Neg (as in Negging), though Neg redirects to the NEG disambiguation page, and it's too much of a leap to assume a search intends to find Negging. It's reasonable to retarget to Newegg for the trading abbreviation. For use in search, redirects are mostly not case-sensitive. ⇌ Synpath 14:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several possible targets: disambiguate or pick one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra _talk 20:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig, all the potential targets are plausible, but none of them stand out as especially obvious. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• disambig per the above -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2007 Brazilian plane crash → TAM Airlines Flight 3054  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. It's too vague, I checked the ASN archive and found three other 2007 plane crashes in Brazil with fatalities. They're not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles but I think my point still stands. Mr slav999 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is once-in-a-decade type of crash for Brazil, not

WP:ROTM. On the other hand, it is oddly specific. Most people would remember a city or airline and decade, not the precise year (cf. São Paulo plane crash that is clearly meaningful). Викидим (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per they're not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, making the current target the
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Prisca Singamo → Malawi at the 1992 Summer Olympics#Athletics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect was created for this person when the outcome of the AfD was delete.

• Keep. No valid argument was made against implementing redirect as an
  alternative to deletion at the AFD either before or after I cast a vote to redirect. Recent precedent has also been to redirect less-than-notable Olympic athletes an article on their participation in the Olympics rather than delete. A deletion review is not required to create a page that is substantially different than the deleted version. Frank Anchor 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC) (underlined text added to supplement my argument. Frank Anchor 16:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC))[reply
  ]

  Maybe because you were the last one to comment 7 days after it was opened. Others including myself did not have the opportunity to respond as the AfD was closed soon after. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, go ahead and respond now. What opposition, if any, would you have had to the late redirect vote? Frank Anchor 16:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Notifying AfD participants @Habst, @FuzzyMagma, @Sirfurboy, @Geschichte, @joellejay. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay LibStar (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did not participate at the AfD, but she is mentioned in the article. A redirect seems valid here. -
  Talkback) 15:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I don't know what is achieved by deleting the redirect, although I notice that this tendency to redirect to the event they competed in does fall afoul of "no mention at the target page". So I don't feel strongly it should be deleted, but keeping doesn't seem to be P&G compliant. Yet if the decision here is that it should be kept, and if that can be confirmed as being in line with policy and consensus, then we could save a whole lot of time at AfD by using
  WP:BLAR on the thousands of one line database generated stubs of non notable competitors, instead of taking every single one of them through a deletion discussion that trots out the same arguments over and over and sees them redirected anyway. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In this case, no mention at the target page does not apply because the subject is explicitly mentioned at the target page. In other cases, this is generally a

WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be addressed by adding a mention at the target page (though that is not relevant in the context of this RFD). Frank Anchor 17:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

• Investment firm → Investment company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Investment firms → Investment banking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Investment firms" redirects to Investment banking and "Investment firm" redirects to Investment company. They should redirect to the same article. Without any knowledge of finance and based only on the definition of "firm" and "company," I would be inclined to choose the latter. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Investment company. The word "firm" refers to a company. "Banking" refers to a concept. Carguychris (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Boldly fixing the redirects shown above. They now match both the OP's prose description and actual reality. - dcljr (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to investment company per Carguychris. "Firm" is a synonym of "company". 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Carguychris and Beefaloe. - dcljr (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the latter to Investment company as "firm" and "company" are synonymous. Frank Anchor 12:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Investment company simply because Firm redirects to Company. Best to keep this stuff consistent. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget. As above. I probably made the redirect target
  ☖ 23:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Psyklopedin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Uncapaedia

• Cliovelle → Hormone replacement therapy#estrogen+progestin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Listed at List of combined sex-hormonal preparations as a trade name of a drug which is, however, redlinked. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivina → Hormone replacement therapy#estrogen+progestin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target, and otherwise apparently only two trivial search results in articles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the article on Postgaardia, Postgaardida is not monotypic and has more than 1 genus (Postgaardi and Calkinsia). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: A 2020 study also mentions Calkinsia as part of Postgaardida: Kolisko M, Flegontova O, Karnkowska A, Lax G, Maritz JM, Pánek T, Táborský P, Carlton JM, Čepička I, Aleš H, Julius L, Simpson AG, Tai V (2020). "EukRef-excavates: seven curated SSU ribosomal RNA gene databases". Database. 2020 (baaa080).

What would you like to be done with this redirect? Jay 💬 08:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Mcr discography

• Presbyterian Church in Korea (BokUm) → Presbyterianism in South Korea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This former article was initially redirected to Presbyterianism in South Korea after a deletion discussion when one editor suggested it should be redirected there as the church was mentioned on that page inside a table. However, I recently moved that table to Presbyterian Church of Korea as it appeared more adequate there (look at edit summary for further rationale). I am thus requesting that this redirect be re-targeted to Presbyterian Church of Korea as well. (courtesy ping to @Dclemens1971, Moritoriko, and Asilvering) 00101984hjw (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page says that Presbyterian Church of Korea is a historical denomination that appears to end in 1959. While a majority of the table does use some version of the name Presbyterian Church in* Korea a number of them don't. (I assume "of" vs "in" is a translation artifact?) Also there are some that split before the schism that ended the singular PCK and many many that split off of a schism of a schism. Maybe the table should just be split off into its own article/list but I don't think it belongs where it is now. A bonus would be if someone makes one of these for the Korean Presbyterians but too much information is missing for me to be able to do it now. Moritoriko (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a bit misleading, as "Presbyterian Church of Korea" here refers to the usage of "대한예수교장로회" in each churches' Korean official names, and not necessarily their official English names (associated ref is in Korean).

And yes, there were countless schisms which happened between churches after the 1950s' initially split of the original PCK. I guess we could make a list like List of Presbyterian churches in South Korea or List of South Korean churches which have branched from the PCK but I think the retargeting is reasonable here. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ASAP → Wikipedia:Administrators without tools#Reaching out  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Based on conversation at the AWOT talk page and the LP03 RfA, I am bringing this redirect up for discussion here. I think the (former) advice to AWOT recipients to transclude a request as soon as possible (ASAP), wherefore: WP:ASAP redirects here contravenes guidance elsewhere that RfAs should be carefully considered and could lead some recipients to open an RfA too hastily. The ASAP advice has been removed from the page, and now the question is whether this redirect is still needed or should be deleted or pointed somewhere else. No strong opinion but opening the discussion. (Courtesy ping to Kudpung, Floquenbeam and CaptainEek from the talk page.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Even causing one editor the pain of jumping into a
  WP:NOTYET self-nomination (which is, at the time of this !vote, underway) is too many. That essay and template need work to prevent this again, and the ASAP language can easily lead one to believe that if they don't submit their nomination soon they might never get the chance again. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Per some of the responses below, I am changing my !vote to Redirect to Wikipedia:There is a deadline — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably some acceptable targets out there (e.g.

WP:YESDEADLINE). But the status quo is unacceptable; support anything other than the status quo. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Agreed with the above that this contravenes best practice. As for the redirect itself (since removing it from WP:AWOT doesn't mean we necessarily have to delete it), there are minimal incoming links, so this is of little historical/back-compatibility value, and I see no other reason to keep. Sdkb ^talk 05:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There simply isn't anything on Wikipedia that requires action as soon as possible. Frost 06:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, apart from cv and cp. jp×g🗯️ 14:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This redirect has become obsolete since the removal of the associated text, and I think that leaving the status quo would instead encourage early (often
  WP:NOTQUITEYET) RfAs like the one we are currently seeing, which is just a waste of community time. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect to

WP:YESDEADLINE this is really the only aspect of wikipedia that screams "asap" to me User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. This redirect serves little value and risks rushing candidates into running for adminship earlier than they should. No bueno. Giraffer (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to
  WP:YESDEADLINE per others here. This redirect in its current state does more harm than good. The section of the essay that it points to should be rewritten with better instructions. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget as Someone and Elli suggest. jp×g🗯️ 17:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as it doesn't point to AWOT, I don't have an opinion on what happens to it. And thanks, Dclemens1971, for starting this when I was too incompetent to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Retarget per @Someone-123-321 - either works. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 12:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because this shortcut represents a very common acronym, and the target is definitely not what I would be intending to find. Heck, Wikipedia:There is a deadline is not what I'd expect to find either; another possible target is Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. So ... guess I'm "weak disambiguate". Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]