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.
RetargettoHoplobatrachus tigerinus per nom. There does seem to be some usage of "Indian Bullfrog" as an alternate name for the current target, but they are the overwhelming minority, and all seem to stem from this [1] (not sure if this is the original or not) which conspicuously has no citations for that particular name. Potentially some confusion comes from these two species apparently being commonly used in the frog legs trade [2] (and so are often mentioned together). A7V2 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amphibian Species of the World does have a citation for "Indian bullfrog"; it's CITES, and searching at [3] does show Indian bullfrog listed as a common name for E. hexadactylus. Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow... I read that as like "cites", as in they left a field blank or something like that! Especially since the other citations were much more detailed. I still think the name "Indian Bullfrog" is much more associated with Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, but a hatnote should be added. A7V2 (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom --Lenticel(talk) 00:35, 10 January 2023 (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.
This redirect was created around 5 years ago to point to the banner shell. Banner shells, however, are not banners, and have a supported much shorter redirect anyway, Template:Wpbs. If there is value to this redirect, it's as a pointer to Template:WPBannerMeta, but that case is already quite well supported (i.e. it doesn't need a redirect). I'd prefer deletion. Izno (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has 195 transclusions, and all of those which I checked use the redir correctly - as a wrapper for two or more WikiProject banners. I do not see any which might be a mistake for WPBannerMeta. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redrose. No evidence that any confusion is being caused, or that deletion will bring any other benefits. The existence of one redirect is irrelevant to whether a different one should exist or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with the nominator's point about the redirect not including "shell", and transclusions aside, I really don't think readers looking up this title as a search term are intending to locate Template:WPBannerMeta since I really don't believe most editors are trying to create new WikiProject templates. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2023 (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 delete. Jay 💬 12:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is an error that inhibits effective Search Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For reference, here are the search results. (I currently have no opinion about the fate of this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2023 (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).
Christian church directory of the United States[edit]
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.
Cutesy term used to refer to snakes, specifically venomous snakes. From a quick WP:BEFORE:
- No pages link to danger noodle
- A google search brings up 1 potentially-reliable source ([4]). The article only mentions "danger noodle" or "danger noodles" 5 times, so that wouldn't work as a source. Other sources off the bat look like blogs / unreliable.
- A google books search brings up self-published / unreliable books.
- A google news search brings up the same results.
- A Google News Archive search brings up partial results (newspaper articles with "danger" and "noodle" in it, but not "danger noodle")
I would either suggest deletion or a weak retargettoVenomous snake. Someone-123-321 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sturmovik, who seems semi active (judging from the fact their latest edit was on 26 December 2022) Someone-123-321 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to make the site more useful as an alternative to users needing to turn to a commercial product to get pointed to a Wiktionary entry. Danger Noodle as a term for snake was making the meme rounds when I made the redirect and I figured if a user typed it in Wikipedia search the site should try and help them.Sturmovik (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, memes come and go. For example, Big Chungus is a redirect to a section in another article (Wabbit Twouble to be more specific), meanwhile said meme has been dead for a while now. However, it's status of being alive or dead doesn't matter for wikipedia. All that matters is if the meme is notable or not. For example, BC has been featured in enough official media and other RS that it deserves a redirect. From my relatively-extensive search, I could find only 1 RS even mentioning danger noodle. Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Soft Redirect to its wiktionary entry. Otherwise delete as obscure meme at best. --Lenticel(talk) 10:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 16:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding is that WP:V and usefulness is the main standard for redirects, not notability (which is not mentioned at all in the instructions at WP:RFD). You've already show it's a real term that people use and searching through Google books finds it's used generically for a "snake" (and not just venomous ones) in some of them: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] (this is just from the first page of results: [11], there are more). And looking in newspapers.com, there's at least six references in their corpus: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Deleting serves no purpose soft redirect to wikitionary seems suboptimal to having content about this in a Wikipedia article. Both Snake and Venomous snake don't seem structured to making adding this easy but it'd be possible. The only reference to this term in an article is DoggoLingo#Other animals so possibly Retarget to that, which [18] supports it being a possibly origin of the term, although I'm not sure that's true, but it's another reasonable target. Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary where a reader who has never heard the term actually gets an explanation. Compared to eight centuries of English-language writing about snakes [21], a jocular name used for a few years would not belong in an encyclopedia article venomous snakes per WP:PROPORTION: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2023 (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.
Please delete this redirect because 2022 is over and Under the Boardwalk has no new release date. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was the page's title from creation to a few days ago, and the article sates it was expected to be released in 2022 and the official website [22] still says the release date is 2022, so it is highly plausible people will continue to look for it under this title as it will still be referred to as a 2022 film in old sources, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Even if it didn't release in 2022 (and the website still lists that as the release date), the originally planned release date still makes for a plausible title. Regards, SONIC678 17:48, 9 January 2023 (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 redirect page is not linked to from anywhere on Wikipedia.
Creator has a history of creating controversial redirects. — kashmīrīTALK 09:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Retarget to History of Libya: The target covers anything that anyone would conceive of as "Old Libya" and links them there if there is an article on that period of Libyan history. TartarTorte 12:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoHistory of Libya as this seems most likely to be useful. The infobox at the top links to all of the potential periods of Libya a searcher could have meant, and it might be that the overview article is more helpful to them anyway. A7V2 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoHistory of Libya, not exactly the best target but it is at least beneficial to our readers as a starting article. --Lenticel(talk) 01:36, 10 January 2023 (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 keep. The suggested proper cased redirect titles were created by the nom after the discussion. Jay 💬 16:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These 2 redirects should be speedy deleted per CSD G7 because these redirects are an implausible and recently created redirects. Bassie f (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't rename redirects. It complicates edit histories, so it becomes tough to work out what happened here. J947 † edits 09:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that’s why I don’t rename redirects most of the time. Bassie f (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've declined the speedy deletions because they are being discussed here with opinions that do not support deletion they are not eligible for speedy deletion. They would also not be eligible for R3 anyway as they are not implausible typos - the capitalisation of TV as tv is highly plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per above. Plausible search terms, no need for deletion. CycloneYoristalk! 21:00, 16 January 2023 (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 delete. Jay 💬 04:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target. References this meme, but unless there's relevant information about it at the target the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a generic redirect from an unmentioned fictional element. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 01:43, 10 January 2023 (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 delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 04:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target, and the filmography listed below the redirect includes largely non-Hum-Films-related work. Deletion seems appropriate unless someone has sources and can write a stub. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:06, 9 January 2023 (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 disambiguate. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to Diaeresis (diacritic) until just a few months ago the target changed to a phonetic sound represented by that accented letter. This diaeresized Y has use in languages like French. Keep the current target, or retarget back? Colgatepony234 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: While WP:TWODABS as a policy is to be followed, I think both are reasonable targets; however, if we add a hatnote to Diaeresis (diacritic), it would be the third hatnote on the page and if we were to hatnote Close central rounded vowel, not everyone would see as it currently targets a section. I think that in a bit of an WP:IAR argument, DABifying without a consideration of WP:PTOPIC seems to be the easiest way to get readers to what they are looking for when searching for Ÿ. TartarTorte 14:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig neither target seems to be clearly primary over the other. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per the above. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, lowercase IJ (digraph) is also a possible intended meaning. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've drafted a dab below the redirect, and anyone is welcome to make any improvements if needed. CycloneYoristalk! 20:55, 16 January 2023 (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.
One of many needless and improbable redirects to the target page. I've checked Google, Google Scholar, and Wiktionary, and it doesn't seem that the US has ever been referred by this name. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an extremely unlikely way to search for this. Given the sheer recognisability/familiarity of the United States of America, I'd say this more likely a search term for the Organization of American States. But even that seems a bit unlikely. Delete unless some reasonable justification or historical usage can be found. A7V2 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since the redirect is not exactly wrong and is not ambiguous, but rather because the redirect was created 2 months ago, and we've gone this far without it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is "we've gone this far without [the redirect]" a valid reason for the redirect's deletion? DecafPotato (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen this phrase anywhere before, thus the "weak" ... and TartarTorte's point about confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think there is a potential for confusion with OAS; however, Mexico's official name is the United Mexican States, so in theory someone could apply that same formulation to the US and get the United American States. I'll admit, it's not terribly likely, but I think this is why it exists. TartarTorte 00:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all of that, the Spanish name for the United States is "Estados Unidos [de América]". Where as the translation of United American States, "Estados Unidos Americanos", does appear in some older documents in Spanish, it does not seem to be a super common name. I think in general it probably wouldn't cause a whole lot of issues if deleted, but I guess in the odd circumstance someone does use this formulation it could help to retarget them. TartarTorte 00:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep – I don't necessarily see how this could be confused with the OAS, and the Spanish translation per TartarTorte leads me to believe that this is a WP:CHEAP redirect, even if a bit illogical to typical English speak. DecafPotato (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP. I don't care that "United American States" should be deleted for such reasons. MusiBedrock (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like too many unhelpful redirects are kept on the basis of being WP:CHEAP, which is only an essay, not an official policy. Your rational for voting keep is unclear. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to argue against someone recommending keep on the basis of an essay (especially one with as much community endorsement as WP:CHEAP) then you really need to have a much stronger basis for deletion than merely "improbable" (of equal standing) and "needless" (explicitly rejected). We don't delete redirects just because some people don't find them helpful, they need to be harmful in some way and that harm needs to outweigh any usefulness. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless. I don't see any significant potential for confusion with the OAS, but I do see significant potential usefulness to the current target for a non-native speaker. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2023 (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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 16#Christian church directory of the United States
