Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 23

February 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2025.

Broque Monsieur

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Limited

Not mentioned in target. I'm having some trouble figuring out the connection between this and Zomato, a search is pulling up lots of clearly unrelated things. Rusalkii (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald the Lone Assassin

No such work by this name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Institute of Marine Research

One of the characters in the film is named Nelson, but no such institute is mentioned in the article. Rusalkii (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPOT

An anonymous IP erroneously changed the acronym of the Pennsylvania Opera Theater (POT) to TPOT in this edit. This minor but incorrect change went unnoticed and the redirect was created in error. 4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the sources in the article says the abbreviation is "TPOT" but it appears to include the word "the", and I haven't reviewed the other sources yet as to if they say the same thing. I did a search and the only other mentions are Radio TPOT (doesn't have an article), and minor mentions including one in jacksfilms (that one here doesn't have an article either for reasons.) Nijika・🥁・📐 17:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Nakano

Not mentioned at target article. IceWelder [✉] 16:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Cap

Mistaking Cap for Kupp seems like an unlikely misspelling to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

McDLT

The decision was made in 2007 to merge McDLT into Big N' Tasty, on the basis that, in the opinion of an editor with industry experience, these products had fundamentally the same role in McDonalds's business strategy. Although I can see that this is true, and I am grateful for User:Jerem43's contributions to the article and especially our coverage of McDonald's in general, it's not clear to me why these sandwiches should be thought of as the same product from any other perspective. The McDLT predates the Big N' Tasty branding and had a different selling points to the consumer: the McDLT is about the temperature contrast of fresh lettuce and tomato. The article as it stands does not justify identifying this sandwich as an iteration of the Big N' Tasty "series," and I would argue that this particular merge was based on original research. This redirect should retarget to List of McDonald's products#Discontinued food products, where it is already summarized.

For comparison, McOz, Big Xtra, and McRoyal Deluxe redirect to Big N' Tasty as well. I understand these all to be names for tomato and lettuce sandwiches that appeared contemporaneously with or after the Big N' Tasty, and seem a lot more like localized "versions" of the Big N' Tasty concept to me. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pin game

weird case. "pin game" (with a space or dash) seems to be a collective term for the kind of games you'd find on YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM! (with like 2.5 results related to pinball i guess), while "pingame" seems to refer to an unnotable band. though pingame journal is an article that exists, so maybe an argument could be made for it? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the article, By the 1930s, manufacturers were producing coin-operated versions of bagatelles, now known as "marble games" or "pin games". - redirect seems reasonable BugGhost 🦗👻 00:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bugghost says. If some other potential target comes up, that we need to address versus claptrap like non-notable bands, then we can disambiguate by one means or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
time to yap lol
results from a slightly more in-depth search gave me the act of pinning games (whatever that could mean for both terms), "pin-pulling/pushing" games (like the ones in YEAH! YOU WANT "THOSE GAMES," RIGHT? SO HERE YOU GO! NOW, LET'S SEE YOU CLEAR THEM!, and those sexually questionable mobile game ads which i'm surprised don't have a lot of coverage here beyond gardenscapes), bowling, push-pin (that's a thing!?), and ring-and-pin. as is, this is a little confusing because the thing that seems to be the primary topic doesn't have an article, and the most reliable sources i got for pinball or related games were the source used in the article... and the article
that gibberish aside, if that's the case and i haven't misread the article (which is admittedly pretty likely), it refers to bagatelles as "pin games", not pinball, so wouldn't it be better to retarget and mention the nomenclature there for now? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 13:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target Bagatelle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Benjamin F. Montoya"

Same as below, no need for quotes. Yes it's from a page move but there are no incoming links from articles. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Algorithmic dystopia"

Same reason as below, no need to have the title in quotes. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Alex Austin"

Per WP:UNNATURAL, also inconsistent with Alex Austin. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump peace plan

(Deletion discussion also applies to Trump Peace Plan and Donald Trump peace plan)

The "peace plans" proposed by Trump I can think of off top of the head may refer to: the redirect, the current war in Gaza, and the war in Ukraine. It's not immediately obvious which one is the primary topic, especially considering WP:NOTNEWS in mind. I think it's probably best to delete these redirects, or failing that have these as disambiguation pages. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Sour apple

Ambiguous descriptive phrase not even mentioned at target. Numerous sour apple cultivars exist.[1] Paradoctor (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous, agreed, but I think you mean List of sour apple cultivars (cultivars as in cultivated plant varieties), not cultivators (people or companies who grow plants). Carguychris (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving my knowledge of horticultural terms. — Anonymous 17:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; "sour apple" is not just a fruit, it's a flavoring for a wide variety of candies and liqueurs, most of which have no documented connection to the Granny Smith apple, although the color green is commonly used for marketing and labels often display green apples. The problem is finding documentation in WP:RELIABLE sources; this story suggests no actual connection to the Granny Smith, and it also documents previous names and themes used to market the flavoring. I favor WP:REDYES. Carguychris (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carguychris. I think the primary usage of "sour apple" is an artificial flavor, with particularly sour apple cultivars being secondary to the artificial flavor. We have an article for blue raspberry flavor. There could be an article for sour apple flavor, or a disambiguation page if their is an article for the flavor and a list of sour cultivars. But absent an article or list, delete this redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Sour Apple redirect that should be added to this nomination. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Sour Apple with this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glass-ceiling feminism and others

These terms are not mentioned in the article. From looking at my search results, this term was first coined by Angela Davis, and there is an interesting quote at Wikiquote. Either delete them (unless a mention of the term is added to some Davis-related article) or soft redirect to Wikiquote. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsuke1998AEOS, have you read WP:RFD#DELETE about the limited circumstances under which a term that is "not mentioned" should be deleted? It needs to be "novel or very obscure". This one is neither novel nor very obscure. No reader is going to be shocked to click a link to that and end up in that article. Therefore we should keep it.
If you would like, you can add {{R to article without mention}} to the first one. Alternatively, you could edit the target article and add a mention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Yes, I have read it countless times every time I go make a nomination. My issue is not that "glass-ceiling feminism" is not mentioned in the article, but that it is conceptually distinct from liberal feminism (I would argue it is closer to the topic of white feminism), therefore it is not currently useful. Because the situation here is not clear, a nomination would be better to determine the outcome (whether the redirect should point to some other article, or be deleted). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-emptiness-of-international-womens-day/ says that glass-ceiling feminism is related to intersectional feminism, which redirects to Intersectionality. The lead of the current target says that "liberal feminism has taken a turn toward an intersectional understanding", so the current target isn't entirely bad (assuming that one source isn't wrong).
Could we do better? Glass ceiling is an obvious alternative. White feminism is possible, though it implies that the problem doesn't really exist in countries with different racial/ethnic hierarchies (e.g., in Japan, where people with non-Japanese ancestry are discriminated against, or in much of Europe if you are one of the disadvantaged white ethnic groups, such as Sami or Roma). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Glass ceiling is seemingly an obvious target, though I'm not sure whether that opinion piece would constitute due weight in the article. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under-16 and Under-17 teams (part 2)

Delete all: Wikipedia:XY – the under-17 team is not discussed at these targets. Maiō T. (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English WikipediA

WP:UNNATURAL capitalisation; implausible redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per {{R from camelcase}}. I am bad at usernames (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a plausible search term, and if it was the search results would help a user find the right page. {{R from camelcase}} is for legacy page names.
I note that the creator of this redirect also created Ddox as a redirect, suggesting a deficient understanding (at best) of the purpose of redirects. Oblivy (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy, on that note, having looked through their contributions, I see that they have made many other confusing, often downright bizarre, redirects. Looking at Wikipedia:‑( makes me seriously question their level of competence. — Anonymous 03:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment camelcasE sayS nothinG abouT makinG thE lasT letteR captiaL, buT aS yoU caN seE thiS iS A verY normaL waY oF typinG sO thiS redirecT shoulD defientilY bE kepT[just kidding] Anthony2106 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but someone should nominate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikipediA&oldid=208363752
Used on that uses page, they probably just copyed wikipediA Anthony2106 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeletE peR noM. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:8139:4F47:7D35:2A9F (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consarn - wikipedia's logo has the last letter larger than the rest, it's not implausible. WikipediA exists as a {{R from stylization}}. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's logo may be stylised as "WikipediaA", but it is never stylised as "English WikipediA"... 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? But the logo doesn't contain a doubled A at the end...? Why would WikipediaA be okay at all? Fieari (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CAMEL. Early in Wikipedia's history, two capital letters were required in every title, and while people were arbitrary as to where to put the capital letters for a while, it became a standard to do the first and last letter for some reason. Thankfully, this titling requirement was eventually lifted, but it's standard practice to keep all the old stupid CamelcasE links for historical reasons. Not to mention that, yes, the Wikipedia logo does have a larger "A" at the end, which could lead someone to plausibly type it even today. Fieari (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Sorry, I just assumed this was old because of the formatting. It is a new redirect, so my reasoning is only per the logo styling now. Fieari (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add {{R from stylization}}. LarryL33k (Contribz) 00:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BugGhost and LarryL33k. This stylisation business was once included in the lead paragraph, but was deemed to be not accurate due to all of the letters being in caps. However, to me this is still an indication that some people do perceive it this way. Havradim leaf a message 03:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do people searching Wikipedia seriously not know what Wikipedia is called? Sorry, this is just silly and pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously there are people who go on this website who don't know much about it yet. People aren't born knowing about this website, and there are people who don't speak English. If you go onto the main page for the first time and see a logo that says "WikipediA" it's not a large leap to think the website is called WikipediA. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PADEMELONS

Delete as not explained at destination. While I found the in-joke viewing page history then searching, others may find this WP:RASTONISHing. This shortcut was never used by editors besides its creator and unnecessarily uses up a potential shortcut seeing the shorter WP:AIFAIL already exists. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Creator) meh. Maybe it'll get used in the future, maybe it won't. That said, I don't find the WP:RASTONISH argument very convincing, since a silly title like WP:PADEMELONS count point anywhere. Cremastra (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volgare

An Italian word for vulgar, unclear relationship to the Latin language Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_23