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.
Robert Park (activist) has repeatedly ([1][2]) referred to the treatment of Christians in the DPRK as genocide, and the (non particularly neutral) Washington Examiner has done the same (mirrored by Yahoo! Sports for whatever reason). Given that Park's article extensively discusses his use of the term "genocide", a case could be made for retargeting there. But my initial feeling is that this is a plausible search term (based on its usage in reliable sources) and one of those cases where we'd be best off taking readers to the less hyperbolically-titled argument without comment, much as we do with any "Murder of" → "Killing of" redirect. Thus weak keep, but open to being convinced otherwise.-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)23:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak delete: there is certainly no freedom of religion in NK, as among other things religion is seen by the regime as "ideologies" that would compete with the primacy of NK's communist own ideology. This includes oppression of Christians. I have been studying NK for several years and editing about it in Wikipedia. I have never heard of these humman rights violations rising to the level of genocide of Christians. There might be a minority of authors who assert that, but I don't believe this to be the consensus of the field/authoritative sources. For example the UN's most authoritative report (Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) did not come to a conclusion of Christian genocide. And the report is based on a wide range of inputs from direct witnesses and human rights organizations. Therefore, this title should be deleted. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading @Tamzin: sensible points, I am also more open to being convinced to keep, as a way to re-direct those searching exagerated claims, into more neutral articles. Al83tito (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL and also largely per Tamzin. If a reader comes here looking for information on a "genocide" of Christians in North Korea, the current target is (expected to be, when it's improved) where they will find information about that topic, in a similar way to how white genocide redirects to a factual discussion about that topic. For titles like this, one editor's "absurdly inflammatory" is another's "matter of opinion". Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:13, 2 September 2021 (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.
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. After this long and multiple relistings it seems unlikely that another relisting will result in consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect has led to a hatnote at the top of VPR, which it'd be nice to get rid of. It's not clear that the Village pump is the primary target of someone who uses it, as proposed deletions are also quite common. I'd like to see it made into a disambiguation page instead. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Is being nice to get rid of a hatnote really a good reason for disposing of a redirect? Surely usefulness is more important than tidiness, which is a virtue that I'd love to have, but in practice certainly do not, and have not suffered any great ill effects from not having. And proposing deletion is specifically proposing one particlar outcome, not the same as making a general proposal which this redirect is. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate because WP:VPR is already a more widely used (I think?) and shorter shortcut for the pump proposals page. An editor typing in "wp:propose" might be looking for any number of pages. That there are a lot of possible entries (the pump, prod, rfc, wp:proposal... which, btw, also has a hatnote saying wp:propose leads there) persuades me that a dab page would be the most useful target for this redirect. Levivich05:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notice at the top of the page already has a disambiguation:
Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
Proposed speedy deletion criteria belong at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
Disambiguate the possible targets found at CAT:PRO. These shortcuts are ambiguous, and as is commonly the case, various versions point haphazardly to different places. WP:PROPOSE, WP:PROPS, WP:PROPOSALS, and WP:PROPOSAL target several places. Target all to a dab page at WP:PROPOSE and update hatnotes at targets. Not ideal, but an improvement over the status quo. I agree retargeting to Policies and guidelines#Proposals would also be an improvement, but I think a dab page would be a superior solution at this point. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a dab page, it has a set of hatnotes that just lead searchers to AfD and PROD. There are many more types of proposals on Wikipedia. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2021 (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.
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.
RetargettoTemplate:R from short name. The majority of redirects tagged with this template are the names of people, which should use "short name" rather than "initialism". Indeed, the canonical example of using "short name" rather than "initialism", JS Bach, uses "initials", and hence is wrongly categorized. Some redirects using this template should go to "initialism", but this will involve less work than changing "initials" to "short name" on all affected pages. Tevildo (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This rcat template redirect is ambiguous in that it could apply to both short name and initialism redirects, as evidenced by those that are miscategorized. I think it would be better to have redirects not categorized than to have them miscategorized, and regardless of where this is targeted, misuse it likely to continue. Absent that, I agree with the nom that retargeting would result in less miscategorized redirects, so alternatively retarget per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2021 (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.
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.
Neither the target nor any other article mentions this; there is some page history, though it only relied on one primary source and does not seem to be used in any current page. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)20:46, 8 September 2021 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Speedy Delete G6 obviously created in error. The editor who created the page moved it from a userspace sandbox into mainspace but forgot to remove their username from the page title. Was fixed a minute later. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R3 covers the situation where an editor creates a page and then immediately realizes it's an error and moves it to the correct title, but see the inline note on the CSD page for why it only applies to recent creations. The G6 criterion for "pages unambiguously created in error" predates that, and one of the criteria for new CSD proposals is that the situation isn't already covered by an existing criterion. In other words it's procedural wonkery but we could probably do better. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be for splitting G6 up into several smaller criteria, as it stands it tends to get used a lot for everything that doesn't technically fit into one of the other criteria, and "Technical deletions" is not a well defined criteria. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2021 (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.
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.
I think it's better to keep these per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Mystici corporis Christi is the title of a papal encyclical, one which strongly denounced Nazism at the height of the Second World War, and is viewed as one of the most important Catholic writings prior to the Second Vatican Council. The use of the phrase by faith leaders outside of Catholicism seems to me to be more of a modifier, describing the general Body of Christ theological concept common to Christian demoninations as "mystical", rather than the descriptor actually being part of the title. At any rate, Mystici already has a hatnote referring to the general concept. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with WP:SMALLDETAILS, since you want to keep all capitalisation and variants to redirect to the same page. The rest of your argument is rather strange. The concept of the mystical body of Christ/of the Church was not invented by Pius XII, and certainly the expression does not primarily refer to his encyclical, even in Catholicism, e.g. here and here, here.
The other sources do use it as a title, it can clearly be seen. From a new source: "The holy Eucharist serves as the bond of unity in love. The holy Eucharist unites us to Christ and to one another. This is the makeup of the mystical body of Christ: the Church. This concept of the Church as the mystical body of Christ is very dear to our Orthodox tradition because it expresses the reality of Christ in the world and the unity of the Church, which is real only when Christ is the central figure." Also, in John Anthony McGuckin (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity it can be read: "In the Church and throught the sacraments our nature enters into union with the divine nature in the hypostasis of the Son, the Head of His mystical body." (Lossky 1991, quoted on p. 128); "the church is the body of Christ" (p. 455). Veverve (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SMALLDETAILS was the wrong argument, I was meaning to say that the difference between "Body of Christ" and "Mystical Body of Christ" was a detail significant enough to treat separately. But I'll take your expertise over my Google-fu: these should all retargettoBody of Christ, and the "not to be confused with" hatnote there should be changed to one referring specifically to Pius XII's encyclical (because just giving the name is still confusing), i.e. ""Mystical body of Christ" redirects here. For the papal encyclical of Pius XII, see Mystici corporis Christi."Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:55, 15 September 2021 (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.
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 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.
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.
Speedy delete G3 - page move vandalism. There is some speculation that Netflix stock could grow to a market cap of $1 trillion within the next decade, but that's not discussed in the article, and these would be pretty vague search terms for that anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:21, 8 September 2021 (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.
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 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.
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.
Not mentioned at the target; closest thing to a mention is a citation title referring to the target phenomenon as "anti-diet videos". Internet search results appear to be exclusively videos describing diets, and not "what I eat in a day" videos. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the words "diet video" are not directly used in the target, but my logic was that a "diet" is simply defined as the sum of food that someone consumes, and a video of what someone eats in a day is exactly that. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as such videos are not known by the term (even outside of Wikipedia) of the redirect, and we should not be inventing new terms. Jay(Talk)17:14, 23 September 2021 (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.
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.
Not mentioned at the target, while near Surat it's not clear that this is due for inclusion or useful in the absence of a mention. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk15:10, 8 September 2021 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Kept in 2013, but the relevant section in the target was removed as OR in 2014. Based on that RFD and Reddit, it looks this is a year where it is theorized by some that a Y2K type situation might occur, but as it seems unlikely that human life as we know it will exist when this year comes around, this isn't a plausible search term without a mention. Anyone searching this will already know the significance. Hog FarmTalk05:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a written criterion but we have occasionally deleted redirects for being too long. I recall a discussion years ago about the actual title of an old book that was so long that the title caused technical problems, although I don't remember now what those problems were. I think the upper limit was something like 260 characters, which would be a very large number indeed. I've also seen instances where an editor tried to create a redirect to a song from a title containing that song's entire lyrics, which would be too long but are also deletable as copyright violations. Just so you know, if you're using the {{ping}} templates you have to sign your edit or the ping doesn't work. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems like the Wikipedia article was doing the original research of those theoretical year numbers, and the websites that mention that number are derived from there. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 September 2021 (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.
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.
Keep this thing, I'm usually against keeping stuff like this (and I agree with Susmuffin's point above), but since late March 2017 it's been getting alot of pageviews for some reason (606 in the last year alone!). It might inconvenience a lot of readers if the redirect is deleted. Regards, SONIC67805:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is one of those redirects where maybe you wouldn't create it yourself, but it's relatively harmless and perhaps a tiny bit useful and so probably should not be deleted. Winston (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something mysterious with the stats. The pageviews spike on 9/11 of every year starting from 2017. Either the users are typing it wrong, or some article related to 9/11 had a link to this redirect, which has since been corrected. Wait for 2022 and see how it goes. Jay(Talk)19:40, 8 September 2021 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 16#List of U.S. state theaters
