Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 17: Difference between revisions

:::eyed people will notice that that exhaustive list does not include any locations, so i’m not entirely sure if it would have info to scrape from wikipedia if it said anything about the place it’s forecasting the weather of in the first place. it took me like 5 tries to not accidentally write “foreskinning” ”'[[user:consarn|consarn]] _{[[user talk:consarn|(talck)]] [[special:contributions/consarn|(contirbuton s)]]}”’ 14:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

:::eyed people will notice that that exhaustive list does not include any locations, so i’m not entirely sure if it would have info to scrape from wikipedia if it said anything about the place it’s forecasting the weather of in the first place. it took me like 5 tries to not accidentally write “foreskinning” ”'[[user:consarn|consarn]] _{[[user talk:consarn|(talck)]] [[special:contributions/consarn|(contirbuton s)]]}”’ 14:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

::All those weather forecasts and travel guides just scrape the NZGB for place names, similar to the GNIS scraping for non-existent places. Although the NZ places typically do exist, just as really remote rural localities with little online information. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 21:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

::All those weather forecasts and travel guides just scrape the NZGB for place names, similar to the GNIS scraping for non-existent places. Although the NZ places typically do exist, just as really remote rural localities with little online information. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 21:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’; opening up search results for the various enwiki mentions of “Otepopo” and redlinking in a navbox to encourage article creation appears preferable to the current situation. ”'[[User:J947|J]][[User talk:J947|947]]”’ ‡ ^{[[Special:Contribs/J947|edits]]} 02:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2026.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 25#Unified Protocol

Too ambiguous. This redirect started in 2017, and was only retargeted to the current Iran war almost a month after it started. And let’s be real, not many people call this current war “Trump’s War” in particular, except for Trump haters. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 21:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert to the redirect to Bibliography of Donald Trump (book title). —Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer, per guidance at the top of WP:RFD, Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers. I’ve reverted your edit to the redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! No problem, I thought I was helping by going back to a less contentious version of the page. I don’t really care what happens here but I think a redirect for the book title makes sense. (shrug) —Another Believer _(Talk) 19:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Myceteae: Meant to ping you and also I’ve added a comment below if the context’s helpful. —Another Believer _(Talk) 19:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you said @SeaHaircutSoilReplace no one is talking about the Iran war as that. We appear to have enough consensous so I will wait 30 minutes then I will retarget at ~7:30 ET Avishai11 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, are calling it that. ChuckEye (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuckEye And yet, the link you put redirects a 404 error. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 18:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Here’s the fixed link. Warudo (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuckEye @Warudo That source still does not appear to be neutral. It’s clearly some critic of Trump. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 00:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I never commented on the quality of the source, I only fixed the link. I’m not familiar with this website. Also your ping to me didn’t work. Adding a username to a comment after the fact does not ping. Warudo (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“ItS jUsT tDs” – That’s not how Wikipedia works. You don’t get to decide which sources you like based on your perception of if the author is on ‘your side’ or not. We have to be neutral, the sources don’t have to be, per WP:NPOV.–v/r – TP 16:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Considering WP:LEAST, a user clicking on a link to ‘Trump’s War’ would probably expect to find an article about a war with that colloquial name – not a list of books about Trump (even if a book with that title is in that list). But, per nom, this term isn’t currently widely used to refer to any particular wars, so I think a redlink would cause the least confusion for everyone. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There aren’t any redlink issues if this redirect gets deleted. There are 0 links to this redirect. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 23:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HotMess’s rationale Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC) Retarget to Michael Savage#Trump’s War: His Battle For America with {{R from short name}}{{R from avoided double redirect}}, now that I’ve learned that this is actually the title of a book, which is probably PTOPIC when capitalized as a proper noun (Trump’s war would go to a list of wars under Trump administrations, I think). Delete is also a fine option, to avoid WP:Astonish and also because there are no inbound links to this anyway.[reply]

Keep I don’t see any problems with this at all. Let it be changed, it isn’t creating any issue. Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean. “Let it be changed” BUT “keep” at the same time? SeaHaircutSoilReplace 12:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague per HotMess/WP:ASTONISH. This is a plausible non-neutral name for any number of conflicts Trump has been involved in. There is no primary topic—the non-notable book certainly is not it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Long-term pageviews show a spike in traffic in January 2020 following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and in March 2026 following the outbreak of the 2026 Iran war. Otherwise traffic is stable at ≤5 views/month since the redirect’s creation in June 2017. This is most consistent with readers associating the term with the latest hostility (especially against Iran) although possibly this is an artifact of links being inserted in articles and then subsequently removed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just a comment that I had also created Trump’s War: His Battle for America as a redirect to Bibliography of Donald Trump in 2017. —Another Believer _(Talk) 19:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The book’s full title has a clear primary topic, unlike “Trump’s War”. Comparing long-term pageviews shows that these two redirect sometimes trend together but not consistently, and Trump’s War: His Battle for AmericaTrump’s War: His Battle for America does not see the same large spikes related to current events, nor has it been retargeted, unsurprisingly. (Off-topic but Michael Savage strikes me as a better target for Trump’s War: His Battle for AmericaTrump’s War: His Battle for America. That’s beyond the scope here and could be retargeted per editorial discretion or nominated separately if there’s disagreement. I don’t feel strongly enough to take action one way or the other.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand. Feel free to redirect the page to the author. Makes no difference to me! —Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve taken the initiative on this, since it makes sense to me and isn’t currently under dispute. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of wars involving the United States in the 21st century where there’s a column noting the presidents involved in each war. I think this would be the least surprising target given the search term. — Tavix ^(talk) 17:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Michael Savage#Trump’s War: His Battle For America per WP:DIFFCAPS but create Trump’s war to target List of wars involving the United States in the 21st century per Tavix. I weakly prefer this to retargetting this redirect to Tavix’s target. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: I think a disambiguation page or set-index article makes sense here as there are several pages this could refer to, namely the book and the wars that the US has been involved in during Trump’s presidency. ScienceD90 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

vague between a list of voice actors for the pokémon themselves (which doesn’t exist here) and a list of voice actors for characters in pokémon (which doesn’t exist be here and would itself be vague)

i would recommend seeing its afd, but it’s a little on the sloppy side, and irrelevant now that the target it was redirected to there is no longer an article. there’s also nothing worth preserving there, as it was cruft with barely any sources, and the few it had being unreliable consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the nitty gritty of the merge and the pre-blar content, this might warrant a timeline

• 1:44 pm, 6 august 2008: i guess an afd for the list of voice actors happened before and was closed as delete, but i found nothing on what it was like then or who created it
• 9:21 pm, 30 april 2009: megahl90 (re)creates the list of voice actors
• 9:40 pm, 30 april 2009: in that process, megahl90 removes the listed voice actors from the list of anime characters for some reason
• 10:41 pm, 4 may 2009: dinoguy1000 nominates the list of voice actors for deletion
• 10:49 pm, 10 may 2009: megahl90 merges the list, despite consensus in the then ongoing afd that that wouldn’t change things much, and removes the afd template in the process (hate when people do that). they also clean it up a little and reformat it into tables
• 11:03 am, 11 may 2009: thefarix reverts the merge, cleanup, reformat, and some stuff between them, and advises against reformatting it into tables for some reason
• 11:28 pm, 11 may 2009: the afd for the list of voice actors closes as redirect, despite rough consensus to delete (6 out of 10 votes) and with consensus that merging is le bad because wikipedia is just like that sometimes
• 00:20 am, 14 may 2009: megahl90 merges the list again lmao. i haven’t found an instance of either of them actually discussing the merge, but doesn’t reformat it into tables this time (bummer). the “discussion” that happened around it boiled down to complaints in the afd that megahl90 wasn’t discussing their sweeping changes
• ??:?? ?m, 15 may 2009: bud tingwell gets all dead and stuff, and nothing of note for this case happens for at least two weeks (maybe more)
• 6:26 pm, 3 july 2025: that drooling moron consarn nominates the list of anime characters for deletion
• 7:34 pm, 10 july 2025: the afd for the list of anime characters closes as redirect

now, this has some… odd quirks on the level of rby counter’s wording on bulbapedia, that i think mean no content needs to or should be preserved. namely…

• the content seems to have been added back. it was deliberately taken away to provide validation to the extremely crufty list
• this means that it’s very likely that no merge ever actually occurred in the first place, despite megahl90 saying it was a merge
• both not merges were undiscussed, and one was actively done against consensus
• the sources on both lists at the time were either unreliable, user-generated, primary, unusable, or “trust me bro”. this probably doesn’t mean much in the context of attribution, but would almost definitely have had no valid rationale for keeping in afd today

i initially just wanted to leave this here to spare me from the confusion when i inevitably read this again in the future, but by now, it just left me with relative certainty that, on top of my initial rationale of this title being vague, the pre-blar content is even more not worth preserving than usual

anyway can we do this with touhou too, i want someone to go back to the early 2000s to introduce ludicrous amounts of crufty jank that will take literal decades to make heads or tails of consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, may an admin provide a starving young lady (or me) with a report on whether the content that was deleted in the 2008 afd had anything of note to it, and if it’s even still accessible? i’m willing to bet it was mostly gen 4 fancruft because it was the current one at the time and i hope y’all know how unbearably horny gen 4 anime fans are, but curiosity killed the glameow and a max revive brought it back or whatever consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the deleted version had 284 edits and the final revision had 14,509 bytes. I’ll restore the history so you can go through it. — Tavix ^(talk) 18:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there was no need to do that, just check if there was anything of note~

but you’s gone an’ done it anyway, so thanks. on somewhat closer inspection, it does seem to have been partially recreated, just formatted differently and with languages that aren’t english or japanese removed, and megahl90 definitely knew that since they worked on a lot of it (including reformatting some of it into tables, which i’ll assume now counts as a running gag), so it could probably have been speediable as a recreation then, even if an incomplete one

i’m not actually entirely sure if any of this would be “of note” to this discussion, though, so maybe the glameow stayed fainted this time. if it is, that means the list was recreated against (admittedly flimsy) consensus and not improved in the slightest in that time, which is pretty unpog… or whatever the kids say consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wait, no, this is of note to this, since it effectively confirms that no merge occurred, as the list of anime characters already had vas listed at the time of the first afd’s closure (diff), meaning i might have been right for the wrong reasons, and wouldn’t have needed to bother with the previously deleted history consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix admittedly, this one is just for curiosity’s sake since it’ll serve no purpose, but is the first creation’s log still accessible on your end? i’m pretty sure that one’s actually gone lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I restored everything, which as far as I can tell includes the first creation. There are no other deleted revisions in this title’s history. — Tavix ^(talk) 14:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 25#Pax Judaica

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 27#Concoction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 24#Stone Age Amazon

According to the New Zealand Gazetteer Otepopo is a separate locality to Herbert. The entry for Herbert does not mention Otepopo as an alternate name. This document https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/oaaplra187640v1876n78551/ suggests that Otepopo is separate to Herbert and there are maps of Otepopo that show Herbert separately https://natlib.govt.nz/records/21707419 One source writes that Otepopo and Herbert are separate townships within the wider Otepopo district ^[1]

The claim that Otepopo is a former name of Herbert appears to originate on Wikipedia, with the only other sources to state as such being clearly circular. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Otepopo is the area centred on the surveyed Town of Herbert. In the absence of an article about Otepopo, Herbert is the most appropriate target (and is certainly more appropriate a redirect than Waianakarua to Herbert, which isn’t even the same place, even though there is a paragraph about Waianakarua in the Herbert article.) The Otepopo Athenaeum and Public Library Reserve Act 1876 you have linked to in fact specifies “in the District of Otepopo, in the Township of Herbert, in the Province of Otago” which does not mean that Otepopo is a separate township – Otepopo is, as in your other link, the name used for the Survey District but is in fact an ancient name for the area (Dorothy McKenzie in her history of Otepopo – which I don’t have immediately to hand, but have read thoroughly a number of times – suggests that the name could be a reference to Double Hill – which is situated within the Town of Herbert – being reminiscient of a woman carrying a child on her back). Daveosaurus (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

so… what of that info would a reader get from the article in its current state, and do you have usable sources to add said info to it? from traumnovelle’s findings, it seems herbert is instead an area centered in the surveyed town of otepopo, even though the implication is that otepopo isn’t a town here consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only content about Otepopo in the article prior to an edit of mine was a claim that was it the former name of Herbert, which is an unsourced claim that dates back to an IP edit [1] and just a dictionary definition of Otepopo, that is not useful information for a reader and will far more likely lead them to believe Otepopo is another name for Herbert, which does not appear to be the case. I am not familiar with Waianakarua and if it should be in that article.

It being a name for the much wider area does not mean it is a name of the town. The archaeological report I referenced is probably the most detailed and reliable source on this matter. The Otepopo district is much larger including Maheno, New Zealand, Hampden, New Zealand, and Kakanui. This report also refers to the ‘township of Otepopo’ (cf. https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/34535)

Herbert is north of Mount Charles and an early 1863 map of the ‘Otepopo settlement’ shows it south of Mount Charles. There is some overlap in the naming of things like the local church using the name Otepopo but these are likely in reference to the wider area being known as Otepopo and is common elsewhere in New Zealand where names of the wider area are used for specific buildings such as churches and schools. For example Raetihi has the Waimarino museum and Waimarino A&P show, with the name being derived from the Waimarino County.

I’ve looked at quite a few sources and cannot find any stating that Herbert was ever known as Otepopo, the closest is that the area Herbert is on (which is a much wider area than Hebert) is known as Otepopo. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Charles is within the Town of Herbert – it is the summit shown as “Trig A” within the Cemetery Reserve on https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_016/jpg/NZMS016_Herbert_1870.jpg The other summit of Double Hill (Mt. Charles No. 2) not shown on the original town plan is situated on Section 9 of Block 29 of the Town of Herbert.

You are welcome to your opinion on Waimarino and Raetihi, as that is not an area I am familiar with from personal experience, but I do know Herbert well from my own personal experience and would strongly advise you to “breathe through your nose” while people familiar with the area explain matters to you. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The centre of the town is north of the mountain, but that isn’t the point here. Otepopo is well outside that boundary you show there with this map [2] highlighting parts of the Otepopo settlement, all of which fall well outside that boundary. This is in addition to all the text provided by the source that treat Otepopo and Herbert as distinct entities. I have yet to see a single source that is not obviously circular that treat Otepopo and Herbert as the same entity. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete for… well, let’s just make a list

• per nom, otepopo itself isn’t mentioned in the target, only places that have “otepopo” in the name
• also per nom, there seem to be multiple places within the same general area with equal claim to the title of primary topic, though what those places actually are is vague
• also also per nom, none of those places seem to actually be notable in the slightest (and i couldn’t get the first document to load, but that’s besides the point)
• partially per nom, but mostly per my own findings, some of those otepopos… might not actually exist!? i’ve found weather forecasts and travel guides, but those are suspiciously stingy with actually saying what an otepopo is, so i can’t even be sure they’re referring to any given one

this whole thing is confusing and gave me early morning head ouchies, so returning to red would be an overly optimistic way to interpret this mess consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weather forecasting sites frequently scrape location information from Wikipedia, I would not regard any of them as a reliable source for a place’s existence or location (well, I would trust at least some national meteorological offices, but I can’t think of why we’d need to). Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

to probably be unfair, the info on that site was as follows

• what the weather might be for the week
• why i should play fortune tiger

eyed people will notice that that exhaustive list does not include any locations, so i’m not entirely sure if it would have info to scrape from wikipedia if it said anything about the place it’s forecasting the weather of in the first place. it took me like 5 tries to not accidentally write “foreskinning” consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All those weather forecasts and travel guides just scrape the NZGB for place names, similar to the GNIS scraping for non-existent places. Although the NZ places typically do exist, just as really remote rural localities with little online information. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; opening up search results for the various enwiki mentions of “Otepopo” and redlinking in a navbox to encourage article creation appears preferable to the current situation. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]