Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 21

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 23:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Шаблон:Taxonomy/Aeluropsis → Template:Taxonomy/Aeluropsis  (talk · links · history · stats)      

The genus Aeluropsis has no particular affinity to Serbia. This cross-namespace redirect therefore fails deletion criterion #8 and WP:RFOREIGN. I think the title was mistakenly copied from the one at Serbian Wikipedia. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This is technically a WP:XNR on this Wikipedia, and should be deleted as so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong delete WP:XNR from mainspace in a non-English language for no purpose on English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia's technical standards are not written using Cyrillic -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete; this is also rather obviously created in error. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Disputes on Wikipedia#Contentious topics. ^Complex/_Rational 19:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Contentious topics on Wikipedia → Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)  (talk · links · history · stats)      

No suitable redirect target. 99% of contentious topics get handled by the community, not ARBCOM. So the current redirect target is not great. And I have no suggestions for a better one. We shouldn't make a crossnamespace redirect to WP:CTOP but that would be the best target I can think of. Polygnotus (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Disputes on Wikipedia#Contentious topics which appears to be where this topic is explained in mainspace. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget per Presidentman. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Presidentman. Polygnotus (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Intella → AMD  (talk · links · history · stats)      

I think this a typo for Instella, the new LLM by AMD . Not mentioned in target (except in a citation URL). Primary topic is unclear, but first Google hits are about something entirely different, and other than that press release I don't really see anything about the AMD LLM. We have several pages mentioning IntellaSys, e.g. Charles H. Moore, Multi-core processor, but I'm not sure if it was ever referred to as jut Intella such that a retarget would be reasonable. Rusalkii (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find any evidence that IntellaSys is commonly referred to as just "Intella" and while we do have two passing mentions of other things named "Intella" neither is enough to support a redirect target or dabmention and targetting just one of them would be unhelpful to those looking for the other. This means that there is no good target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The redirect reads like some sort of misleading WP:SEO for readers who are intending to look up AMD's competitor, Intel, to arrive at AMD instead. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• James Nicholas Stanton → James Stephanie Sterling  (talk · links · history · stats)      

Presumably the subject's birth name. Appears to fail WP:BLPNAME, not sourced anywhere in the article. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-notable deadname. Inappropriate even if it is correct. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MOS:DEADNAME states that non-notable deadnames must not be mentioned anywhere in the project, and redirect pages are no exception. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Lucerys Velaryon Character → The Princess and the Queen  (talk · links · history · stats)      

Unlikely title - was used to create an article when there was already a redirect, but this in turn has been turned into a redirect. If an article were ever to be created for the character, it would be at the base name. PamD 17:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: unnecessary and improperly formatted disambiguator. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 12:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Jim fucking Sterling son → James Stephanie Sterling  (talk · links · history · stats)      
• Jim Fucking Sterling, son → James Stephanie Sterling  (talk · links · history · stats)      

Mostly the result of an old joke, highly unlikely to be useful for anyone to find Sterling's article. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. An old joke/catchphrase. Not notable. Not useful. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: Bundled Jim Fucking Sterling, son with this nomination. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep For the same reasonings as my RFD on Amanda Fucking Palmer, which also coincidentally happened to be an old catchphrase that refers to someone that also just so happens to use the exact same f-word derivative and ALSO happens to be used by the subject in question User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, unmentioned. The comparison to the Amanda Palmer case doesn't apply, since that one was much more "official" and explained at the target, while this one seems not to be. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 13:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Anjeer Halwa → Halva  (talk · links · history · stats)      

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and WP:RFOREIGN - this seems to be just a specific type of halwa (made with dried fruit, some sources say specifically figs) and unless we have content specifically about that (which we don't) this is not a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 William Henry Elder. Jay 💬 13:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Archbishop William Henry Elder → Archbishop William Henry Elder (Eakins)  (talk · links · history · stats)      

This page originally was where Archbishop William Henry Elder (Eakins), an article about a painting, was. When the painting page was moved to its current location Ham II, redirected Archbishop William Henry Elder to William Henry Elder, the subject of the painting. While the page about the painting existed at Archbishop William Henry Elder, it appeared on the front page. Ham II believes that the redirect should go to the article about the person, not the painting, citing MOS:ART/TITLE. I believe that since the article appeared on the front page at this link, to preserve continuity with front page archives it should continue to redirect to the painting, perhaps with a hatnote. There does not seem to be clear redirect policy on this, hence my desire for discussion. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Further comment: the whole reason I initially redirected it back to the painting is that I was looking at front page archives and saw this, was interested, and ended up at William Henry Elder, very confused as the Talk page didn't indicate the page ever appeared. I had to dig for a few minutes to figure out what was going on. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Target the person. At the very least the current situation is objectively wrong, per WP:MISPLACED - if the painting is the primary topic it should be at the base title, however it doesn't seem that the painting is the primary topic so the title should point to the person. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Target the person I suspect readers who type this phrase in would likely be surprised if they ended up at an article about a painting rather than a biography. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to William Henry Elder. Wikipedia is for its readers, not editors browsing archives. A notice along the lines of "the painting appeared on the main page under this title" can be added to the talk page, which (unlike mainspace) is primarily for editors. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• When I moved the article from Archbishop William Henry Elder to Archbishop William Henry Elder (Eakins), I updated the links in article space and in Template:Thomas Eakins, but left links in other namespaces alone, e.g. the links at Wikipedia:Main Page history/2022 September 12b, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/September, Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders/2022/September and Wikipedia:Did you know/Monthly wrap/November 2022. I agree with the arguments above that the target of the redirect should be the person. Should I have been bolder and updated past uses of the link on archived pages as well? (I have the same question about uses of the link on talk pages and user pages. In all these cases it would essentially be fixing a broken link.) Ham II (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Target William Henry Elder. It's at best unclear that the painting is the primary topic; the best solution seems to be to target the article on the person with a hatnote to the painting of him. If the painting were clearly the primary topic then we should move that article over the redirect but I don't think it is. I don't see that preserving a redirect in the form it appeared on the front page at some time in the past is in any way a consideration – how often do we reasonably expect people to have an issue because of this? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Cinderella III: In Another Fairytale → Cinderella III: A Twist in Time  (talk · links · history · stats)      

Film is not titled this. RanDom 404 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment when trying to find a connection, I found the French Wikipedia claims (without an inline citation) that this was a working title. The exact phrase also appears in other French-language sources according to google results, but I can't access any of them for various reasons (e.g. paywall, misconfigured server, expired security certificate). I tried to see if it was ever in the English article, but wikiblame just times out. It wasn't present in any of the 5 revisions I randomly spot checked, but that proves nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 17#Cinderella III: The Reverse of Time, another redirect to the same target where again the French Wikipedia seems to be the only source for a working title. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 08:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This was the renamed article title for 2 days in 2006, before the page move was reverted. The editor tried edit warring but was eventually blocked for vandalism. Jay 💬 10:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Riemann surface#Hyperbolic Riemann surfaces. Jay 💬 10:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Hyperbolic surface → Hyperbolic geometry  (talk · links · history · stats)      

The target does not talk about hyperbolic surfaces. This should redirect to Hyperbolic manifold or to Riemann surface#Hyperbolic Riemann surfaces. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

In this kind of case you should just make the change. There's no need for a discussion. –jacobolus (t) 20:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably hyperbolic manifold would be best? The article says that if 2-dimensional, they're called "Hyperbolic surfaces". "Hyperbolic Riemann surfaces" might be a subset? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 08:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Riemann_surface#Hyperbolic_Riemann_surfaces, all hyperbolic manifolds are Riemannian. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 💬 10:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Newmarket railway station, Wellington Region → Newmarket railway station, Auckland  (talk · links · history · stats)      

I can't find any reference to a Newmarket railway station in Wellington ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: This might have been created to circumvent the limitations of the old Template:S-rail or Template:S-line adjacent railway stations template, which was relatively recently replaced by Template:Adjacent stations for New Zealand railway station articles. From memory, I believe that the previous S-rail/S-line template would automatically append , Wellington Region to the end of wikilinks at times. Otherwise, it's still misleading/confusing - we shouldn't have a redirect from Apple to Orange. Fork99 (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete the incredibly low view count suggests this isn't a useful redirect. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 history merge and delete. Jay 💬 10:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yeh Chanda Kanoon Hai Redirect → Yeh Chanda Kanoon Hai  (talk · links · history · stats)      

It appears that Jasonramg wanted to create an article by first moving an existing redirect to the title with "Redirect" appended at the end. This is improper, and what the user should have done instead is to just edit the existing redirect to replace it with an article. So, all of the pre-move edits should be history merged to Yeh Chanda Kanoon Hai prior to deleting the redirect. GTrang (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• China Shop → The China Shop  (talk · links · history · stats)      

No one calls just simply "China Shop", the English language has the word "the" for a reason. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see any evidence that this 1934 Disney cartoon is referred to as "China Shop." Could be WP:ASTONISHing to people expecting to see content about the "like a bull in a China shop" idiom. Not currently linked to, doesn't seem useful. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that there is also If I Had a Million#China Shop; also, it is possible to use a {{Wiktionary hatnote}} to wikt:bull in a china shop. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• China shop → The China Shop  (talk · links · history · stats)      

Inspired by the expression "like a bull in a china shop", which doesn't have its own article. The redirect is supposed to refer to a literal china shop that sells glass dishes; but there is not an article for that either. No way I'm keeping this redirect! QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons as China Shop. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note that Chinese shopping centers redirects to Chinatown § New Chinatowns and Chinese-themed malls (a section that does not exist, but that is another matter). Jay 💬 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).