Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gull eggs as food → Gull egg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I doubt someone would actually be typing in the entire Gull eggs as food, rather than Gull eggs. It's implausible as a redirect. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; accurate. Not likely to be well-used is not an indication of the redirect being harmful. J947 † ^edits 00:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a bit awkward but still plausible --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article discusses the topic and starts doing so as early as the first sentence. I don't agree that it's implausible. A reader doesn't necessarily know in advance that Gull egg is the main article for that information. They may not know that Gull egg even exists as a separate article, as opposed to just being a section elsewhere as is the case for many other species. Even if they are aware that there's an article called Gull egg (or they just assume it exists), if they've not read it they may reasonably guess that it's mostly if not entirely focused on the biological aspects of the topic, not on the "as food" aspect. Without prior knowledge, it may seem just as likely that the info they're looking for is a subsection at Eggs as food. (No such subsection exists, but if you've not read either article you won't know that.) The phrasing is no more awkward than Eggs as food and it's not implausible that a reader would just add the word "gull" to the front to make it more specific. – Scyrme (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, creator of redirect here. I made this one specifically because we already had an article on here titled Eggs as food, for what it's worth. Iloveparrots (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article discusses the consumption of gull eggs throughout. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is mostly what the article is about. A7V2 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scyrme. Also, if Gull eggs as food ever becomes its own article, any links pointing to the redirect now would point to the full article then. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 08:18, 3 August 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 Speedy retarget to Talk:Michael Duff. I am closing this early for three reasons. Firstly this listing is malformed as the template was placed on the talk page rather than the redirect itself. Secondly, the nom doesn't explicitly advocate anything. Finally, it seems clear that the goal (eg see discussion at Talk:Michael Duff (footballer)#Requested move 2 August 2023) was to change the target of Mike Duff to the dab page Michael Duff, which has already taken place and doesn't seem controversial. A7V2 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• Talk:Mike Duff → Talk:Michelle Duff  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An association footballer (Michael Duff (footballer) is sometimes referred to as "Mike Duff" in some sources which seems to make the redirect from Mike Duff to Michelle Duff misleading, particularly if any Swans fans want to search for Mike Duff and ends up at the wrong page. (I've initially requested moving using the requested move template but opted to do this discussion as the better option after advice from two editors.) Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that has already been sorted. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:09, 2 August 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 speedy delete per criterion R3, along with a number of the creator's other nonsense redirects. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Calvin Anderson (lawn mower) → Calvin Anderson (poker player)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "lawn mower" in article. Can't find any mention online. Don't believe lawn mower is a poker term. :3 F4U (they/it) 20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when I search for "lawn mower poker" on Google, the results come up with people using lawn mowers or those not operated. Therefore this redirect makes no sense. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm myself a bit confused if this is legitimate or not, and I just don't know enough about poker to make a decision. The other three redirects created by this user that go to Calvin Anderson are legitimate (Calvin Anderson (razz player), Calvin Anderson (midstakes poker player) and Calvin Anderson (semi-professional poker player) as they largely match what is in the target article. I lean slightly towards delete because the person who created this also created Calvin Anderson (real estate agent) which first targeted Calvin Anderson, then Calvin Anderson (poker player) but then redirected to List of wealthiest Americans by net worth. It's all a bit confusing. It's hard to tell if there are joke redirects being made in the midst of helpful redirects, or if there is some term in Razz that refers to being a lawn mower. I am still a bit puzzled by the history of the real estate agent redirect though because at current that should be deleted for lack of mention at its target. TartarTorte 13:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creator of this redirect has now retargted Calvin Anderson (jazz player) to Yahtzee, Calvin Anderson (high-stakes poker player) to Mr. Anderson, and Calvin Anderson (bracelet winner) to 2014 World Series of Poker. So I'm not sure what's going on. The last, at least, appears to be when Anderson won an event but it should still go to the main bio article if it exists at all. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 3 August 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jon Barron → Robert Todd Carroll#Jon Barron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect points to a subsection of the Carroll article which was later removed. An article on Barron was deleted at AfD in 2008, and he appears to be mentioned nowhere else in article space. --Finngall ^talk 16:01, 2 August 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• University of Chicago Police Department → University of Chicago  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

the target page doesn't mention this title and no articles link here Michael H (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It doesn't appear that this was discussed when created [1] either. A7V2 (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous reasoning. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 19:19, 3 August 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 Retarget to Isometric projection * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Isometric perspective → Isometric video game graphics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Isometric projection. "Isometric perspective" can refer to more than just video games. The disambiguation page Isometric synonymizes it with isometric projection, which I argue is the proper target. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the incoming links, I doubt many people will be looking for anything but the video game page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with only looking at incoming links is they reflect Wikipedia's coverage only and not wider usage. Wikipedia understadably has many more articles about videos games than about other relevant contexts (such as technical drawing) in total; this creates a systematic bias in the incoming links. It doesn't necessarily follow that readers will expect that term by itself to redirect to its usage in video games. Internal links aren't the only way that readers find topics on Wikipedia, and readers entering this term directly into the search bar are more likely to expect it to take them to Isometric projection. – Scyrme (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, there aren't actually that many incoming links in total; it's not like there are hundreds of video game articles linking to it. Any problem with readers expecting Isometric video game graphics through an internal link to Isometric perspective could very easily be resolved by amending the links. – Scyrme (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NinjaRobotPirate, and add "Isometric perspective" to the existing hatnote pointing to Isometric projection. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sure that someone searching for "isometric perspective" is not necessarily looking for the video game page, because I encountered the redirect this way. As for the incoming links, I found that the majority of them are likely a result of people writing [[isometric perspective]] without thinking twice. For the ones referring to isometric video game graphics, it worked out well. Interestingly, however, CYGM filter mistakenly referred to isometric projection when it used the link (until I fixed it), and such confusion is my reasoning behind this proposal. However, it can be argued that, since all these video-game–related articles link to the redirect, it is not worth it to change the redirect and cause confusion. This makes me wonder if there is any reason why links to redirects should even exist. Why don't we have a bot to clear that up? Or do we? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 21:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOTBROKEN, there's nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Thanks for sharing that; I've looked through the style guides, but I still haven't seen everything. However, I would argue that, in this case, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." doesn't exactly apply, since this redirect is "broke" in that it causes confusion. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 02:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't necessarily confusing just because you were confused. We don't base things on what comes first comes to your mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • My assertion is that "isometric perspective", to quote WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, "covers a wider topical scope" than just video games. I have given two examples of Wikipedians other than me equating "isometric perspective" and "isometric projection". The first was the disambiguation page Isometric, which as of revision 1166274447 says "Isometric projection (or 'isometric perspective'), a method for the visual representation of three-dimensional objects [...]". The second was CYGM filter, which as of revision 1105793441 mistakenly used the wrong link when it said "CYGM pattern on an image sensor in isometric perspective". Additionally, the majority of images revealed by a Google search for "isometric perspective" regard isometric projection and make no mention of video games; even the featured result is the Wikipedia article Isometric projection, and the video game article comes second. As Scyrme said, incoming links only necessarily reflect Wikipedia's coverage of a topic, not the world's. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 15:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Additionally, as of revision 1094360850, Gedde's maps of Copenhagen made the same mistake. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 02:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nomination. Isometric perspectives are widely used in art and engineering. Based on my searches outside Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to treat Isometric video game graphics as the primary topic; if anything isometric projection is the primary topic. If it is true that most incoming links on Wikipedia intend to link to Isometric video game graphics then those links should be amended to make them more specific. – Scyrme (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, this redirect was targeted at Isometric projection for the vast majority of its history, from 2006 to 2020 when an unregistered editor boldly retargeted it. – Scyrme (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally, I think this should be disambiguated, but a TWODAB for articles that don't have the same title would feel awkward. Maybe it can point to Isometric? There are probably too many entries, though... Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk page of the proposed target Isometric projection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom and Scyrme and the redirect's own history. JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator. Additionally, the redirect Isometric Perspective – written the same as the redirect in question except for its case – already points to the proposed target. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 02:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per JoelleJay and to be consistent with the uppercase redirect. Jay 💬 17:42, 19 August 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. ✗plicit 13:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned in the target, no sources found with the alternative name. TentingZones1 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero results in EBSCOhost, Gscholar, and Google. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:43, 4 August 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. To advocate the slang as the primary topic, a WP:RM may be started. Jay 💬 07:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would argue that in the English language, this is more likely to refer to Vatnik (slang). (Note that "vatniks" is a redirect to "Vatnik (slang)", so why would the plural form redirect to a different page to the singular?

There also seems to be a substantial talk page on there that probably ought to be merged to Talk:Telogreika. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The term is not that well-entrenched in English. Google search several first pages show it is either a garment or a surname. I see no reason to have a racist slur the primary meaning. - Altenmann >talk 22:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn.- Altenmann >talk 00:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? I got nothing for surnames- on three searches (DuckDuckGo, then Google, then Bing), I got a mix of results for either the pejorative or the garment. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Altenmann: Firstly, I think it's a big stretch to call the term a racist slur. But if that's what you believe, then do you think that Vatniks (the plural) should also redirect to Telogreika? GnocchiFan (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it is a racist slur now, in the context of the ru-uk war, just like "banderite". But maybe not yet in English language. - Altenmann >talk 00:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ^{[citation needed]}. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk page of Vatnik (slang).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: When I google “vatnik”, I literally only get results about the slang term, which occasionally mention the jacket meaning for context at the beginning of the explanation of the slang. Seems like the original niche meaning about a Soviet wadded jacket has been mostly replaced by the more popular slang in English. HappyWith (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's unclear what is being advocated here. It would not be appropriate, per WP:MISPLACED, to retarget this to Vatnik (slang), so I would suggest if that is the desired outcome that a WP:RM be started, or just do it, after this discussion is closed. A7V2 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do get its recent spike in use as slang due to the current war but the slang is already mentioned in the current target's hatnote. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 4 August 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 no consensus. There was minimal participation in this discussion (excluding the blocked IP), and the only participant was hesitant to !vote to retarget. However, there was agreement that the redirect should not stand as-is. Hence, retargeting to option 2 Constitution#Democratic constitutions which found favour. Jay 💬 06:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Constitutional democracy → Liberal democracy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was the result of an ancient merge way back in 2008, and both respective talk pages have banners regarding this history. The target has changed significantly since that merge and does not actually even mention the phrase "constitutional democracy". Furthermore, I don't think these terms are synonymous, and looking at "What links here" I'm not convinced all its uses intend to link to Liberal democracy. I think it's time to reconsider the target. I'm not sure about the best target.

1. The first option is Democracy, much as Constitutional republic redirects to Republic. Democracy doesn't use to the exact phrase either, but it otherwise seems like a less surprising target.
2. A second option is Constitution § Democratic constitutions, which has more specific coverage of the topic.
3. A third option is Representative democracy which does mention the exact phrase, although these topics also aren't synonymous; however, it would be less surprising than Liberal democracy.

I'm currently leaning towards to the second, as it seems the most relevant in terms of actual content regardless of phrasing. If others are concerned about incoming links that do intend to link to liberal democracy, a {{redirect}} hatnote could be added to retarget destination to ensure it isn't a problem. (Though personally, I doubt it's needed.) – Scyrme (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is also mentioned at types of democracy. It's a short definition, but it eliminates potentially inaccurate conflation with "liberal" or "representative" democracy. The shortness makes it seem like a little bit of a dead-end to be honest though. Of the three above, the second one seems the best to me given the relevant content, though the section itself mainly discusses specific examples and not really a broad definition. Thus, I'm hesitant to !vote to retarget there. In any case, I don't think the redirect should stand as-is. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also prefer Types of democracy to the current target, in that it at least mentions the topic. However, I agree that the short single line description there is an unhelpful dead-end for any readers wanting to learning more beside 'it has something to do with a constitution' (something they would already know). The history, internal links, and context given at Constitution § Democratic constitutions would be more helpful, especially in light of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. – Scyrme (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All true, but I would suggest an even broader redirect choice (and regardless of small/capital letters): Constitutional Democracy; Constitutional Republic; Democracy Constitution; Republic Constitution; Representative Democracy; Republic; Types of Democracy; the list goes on. Redirect 'choices' like those in bold should be grouped as direct, while others be referred to via links in many other articles, as e.g. in "(Types of) Democracy". Alternatively, 'republic' choices could be inbuilt in the header like Democracy / Republic, while only one of them would be sufficient to get there. Please visit Draft:Constitutional Democracy to see the true extent, incl. identical original meanings of "democracy" & "republic". It appears that some vested interests play dirty tricks and pre-determine this discussion by removing it from the redirect page, simply by re-christening the "Constitutional democracy" redirect (originally to "Liberal Democracy"; under above discussion) now as "Constitutional Democracy" (manually redirected also to above draft), but also directly to 'Liberal Democracy" now in a tick... UDC author (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] The redirect header is fixed on "Liberal Democracy", although there exists a Draft:Constitutional Democracy dealing far more precisely with this specific topic; Could you please add this redirect option to enable thorough redirect discussion?... ( 'Liberal'(unregulated laissez-faire)'Democracy' is a self-interest invention, as it literally includes anarchy, while commonly meaning status-quo of present hidden dictatorships ... Copied from Draft_talk:Constitutional_Democracy: Liberal democracy and constitutional democracy have different meanings when strictly observing the word senses that compose those terms. -- Reply: Your last sentence regarding the word sense of "liberal (unregulated) democracy" deals with such a problem, too; It covers the common status-quo non-democratic minority rule, because organised bully-boys would enforce more liberty for themselves than for others...). 210.48.190.71 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] That draft looks to essentially be a personal political manifesto, the extended version of which is linked on the talk page (a .pdf file on Google Drive). It's not adequately referenced, not neutral, and appears to be full of opinion/original research. The intent of it seems not here to write an encyclopedic article, rather it's more concerned with righting great wrongs. It was moved to draft space precisely because it's not ready to be seen by general readers; even looking past these problems (among others), redirecting readers to it defeats the point of keeping it in draft space. This is not the proper place to discuss whether that article ought to be moved into main article space. Please do not derail this discussion about the target of the redirect in order to promote personal political views. – Scyrme (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] The draft itself is the extended version with references as well as multiple direct WP links. It is written in a very compressed way with some German-influenced grammar for extra precision, thus differing from established WP style(s); It is neutral, although it may have some style shortcomings that are meant to be corrected in this draft space with constructive criticism by WP activists and knowledgeable public who has specific practical knowledge in different-languages countries; It has already public access. By its very topic-nature it implicitly unavoidably uncovers partly unintended shortcomings of countries' constitutions regarding their democracy safeguards, also backed-up by recent WP news from Israel & Greece, with imbedded links. Above all, it hits the topic precisely & literally, unlike the indeed biased redirect "Liberal Democracy" article (German Wikipedia explicitly defines it as being guaranteed by a constitution, unlike English language use!)... Therefore it is the appropriate alternative option to this redirect. I created this draft directly as such ― it was never "moved" there! Please leave this info for fellow WP activists to decide, too; It will also be published elsewhere... 210.48.190.71 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarity, I'll strengthen this to a retarget to Constitution § Democratic constitutions recommendation; of the targets suggested, it seems to have the most relevant content, making it the most informative/helpful destination for readers. – Scyrme (talk) 05:37, 7 August 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/retarget. Consensus has developed after the third relist. The only one that actually needs to be retargeted is Combat Jujitsu. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Combat jujitsu → Submission wrestling#Combat Jiu-Jitsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Combat Jujitsu → Jujutsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Combat Jiu-Jitsu → Submission wrestling#Combat Jiu-Jitsu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Inconsistent targets. WP:DIFFCAPS may apply but would favour the Brazilian invention for the proper noun and generic jujutsu for sentence case, whereas current targets make the opposite distinction. A dab like Combat judo is one possibility. Certes (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Jiu-Jitsu also exists and redirects to Submission wrestling#Combat Jiu-Jitsu. Certes (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added Combat Jiu-Jitsu to nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not counting the first relist as it was done well before 7 days from the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Submission wrestling#Combat Jiu-Jitsu, the only target that covers the exact phrase. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Submission wrestling § Combat Jiu-Jitsu. It's much more likely someone searching for this phrase will find what they're looking for there. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Submission wrestling#Combat Jiu–Jitsu where the exact phrasing is mentioned. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:05, 4 August 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 retarget to Fanta#International availability. Jay 💬 06:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit → Lilt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There was a clear RM discussion on this, which said to revert the recent page move and ideally put new information relating to this drink in Fanta, but that leaves the redirect in an awkward position. Should it target the previous brand of Lilt, which has the history of the drink up to it being acquired, or should it target Fanta, which is the brand which the drink is currently under and the article where future content will go (if any, which I find somewhat unlikely given the lack of coverage on flavors there)? (Side note: if retargeted to Fanta, it should target the section Fanta#International availability, as that currently holds the paragraph about the acquiring of Lilt.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fanta#International availability and bold the mention there per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. But keeping and adding bolded mention to the lede is ok as well. A7V2 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there anything to be said for making it a disambiguation page linking to both Lilt and Fanta?

If it's going to redirect to a single article, I think it should be to Fanta. The clear outcome of the discussion as to what to call the Lilt article was that that article should be left to deal with the discontinued brand, and any new information that might be added in relation to the new Fanta flavour should be added to the Fanta page. In those circumstances it wouldn't make sense for Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit to redirect to Lilt. Gatepainter (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gatepainter: I think a disambiguation page isn't really suitable since this term is not itself ambiguous. If the new product is going to be discussed at Fanta (which it currently is) then I think that is the most suitable target (the section I mentioned above as well as bolding the usage) as it has a link to lilt as well for anyone who wanted the article about the old product. A7V2 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Gatepainter (talk) 13:48, 3 August 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).