Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17

February 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2022.

Delroy Atkinson

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 23:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delroy Atkinson → Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales#Cast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Atkinson is an actor with over 20 credits, so to redirect it to a cast section of one of his roles with no further information about him is not beneficial for readers. This has scope to one day be an article, but as a redirect, it does not work. – DarkGlow • 22:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To encourage article creation if notable; to enable uninhibited search if not. (NB linked in 3 articles, not including the current target.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Direct wikipedia search from opera

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 23:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Direct wikipedia search from opera → Opera (Web browser) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as it is nonsensical, isn't properly capitalised, and the pageview stats show that not many people are using this redirect (Still more people than expected) Quick Quokka ^[talk] 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless if there's a plausible reason which I'm not seeing. Bonoahx (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seemingly implausible Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Originated as what appears to have been an attempt at a how-to guide that should have been deleted. Current title is entirely unplausible and the target doesn't mention Wikipedia searching capabilities at all. eviolite (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sub-Nation

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. (non-admin closure) feminist #StandWithUkraine🇺🇦 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Nation → Administrative division (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete not mentions in the target. Thesmp (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Administrative divisions are also known as "subnational entities," as mentioned in the lede. This does not seek like an implausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback)
Keep per Presidentman, term is mentioned in a similar form; plausible search term. MB 17:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Constitutive nations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Constitutive nations

Constitutive peoples

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutive peoples → Administrative division (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Constituent peoples → Administrative division (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete peoples are not subdivision. Thesmp (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I merged your discussions sharing targets and rationales. Hopefully that helps. Seed of コスモ (alternate account of Sonic678) 21:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Russian land

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Russian land

Needless_Markup

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 23:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needless Markup → Neiman_Marcus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should be deleted for being an abusive redirect to an article that does not, in fact, discuss the nickname at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.21.253 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add {{R from non-neutral name}} I'm also trying to figure out what kind of phrase that would be, a malapropism? mondegreen? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned at te target and possibly ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since not mentioned. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Folklore of Poland

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 14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore of Poland → Slavic paganism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Polish folklore → Slavic paganism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, Polish folklore is minimally described at the target and is almost certainly notable in its own right. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delte I think all links to this redirect come from template. Currently, no article describes the problem even partially. We could link it to Slavic folklore, but that article is also bad. Sławobóg (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom and WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see that Polish folklore also exists as a redirect – should that be added to this nomination? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: yes, it definetely should. Veverve (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the second entry was bundled only yesterday.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think the same reasons discussed above apply for the second redirect. Bonoahx (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per my reasons given above. Veverve (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Elder Llywelyn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 27#Elder Llywelyn

Top 100 Singles

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 Top 100. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 Singles → GfK Entertainment charts (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

May also refer to Billboard Hot 100 or any other top 100 singles chart around the world. George Ho (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the dab at Top 100. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf. Veverve (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Top Singles Sales

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 List of best-selling singles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Singles Sales → Billboard Japan#Singles and tracks (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Hot Singles Sales → Billboard charts#All-genre (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

May also refer to one of Billboard single sales charts, Oricon Singles Chart or UK Singles Sales Chart (redirects to list of #1 singles). There could be others that I'm not aware of. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of best-selling singles, which is about global sales. If someone is looking for something more specific they can search again with a more specific term or use the navigation template at the bottom of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Michelle Davis (blogger)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Michelle Davis (blogger)

Goat sucker

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goat sucker → Nightjar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Goatsucker → Nightjar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target recently changed to Nightjar, a bird "sometimes" called "goatsuckers". Target for past 15 years had been Chupacabra which is the literal Spanish translation of "goat sucker" (clearly explained in first sentence of lead, and the bird is mentioned in a hatnote). I think it should be restored. MB 02:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Goatsucker, might be worth bundling here? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added. MB 04:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that to a once widely used term, recently seen as "goat ſucker" in the mid 17C. The second version goatsucker has existed for over twenty years, fwiw, I don't suspect the other name of a cryptid has been in wide usage for much longer than that. ~ cygnis insignis 03:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is goatsucker ever used for the Chupacabra in the English language? From a quick survey of the references, I don't see any using goatsucker; all use Chupacabra. It might be a literal translation, but that is not the same as being a name used in English. On the other hand, goatsucker is used for the nightjar. So goatsucker should redirect to nightjar. On the other hand, "goat sucker" might be better as a disambiguation page. — Jts1882 | talk 07:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yep, it is verifiable, in sensationalist literature (and Forteana). I knew what the cryptid was without checking, but consider it faddish, a conflated deviation from extensive historical references to a goat sucker (prompting the same search I have undertaken more than once for 'which bird is that again?'). ~ cygnis insignis 13:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A centuries-old British and also American name for the nightjar, which I've known for over 60 years. Well-attested in standard dictionaries, see e.g. Collins, Webster 1, 2, lexico. Clear case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify Goat sucker as being an ambiguous term, and have Goatsucker redirect there. If the Nightjar is only "sometimes" called a goatsucker, and the Chupacabra is translated as such, I see the playing field as being level in this regard. Havradim leaf a message 12:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that solution, it could also indicate if the name was used in reference to some species more than others. ~ cygnis insignis 07:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate per Havradim -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation is achieved with the current hatnote. Nightjar as primary topic is consistent with wikt:goatsucker. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the hatnote at the current target already serves a dab function for the cryptid --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alleinheit

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 03:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alleinheit → Unity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:RLOTE. No connection between the concept of unity and the German language. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bonoahx (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Alleinheit" (that is "All-Einheit", the unity of all that is) is not a common German word. It is a terminus technicus related to pantheism and the philosophy of religion, I think. – Tea2min (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, the redirect is unhelpful, and I don't see a more proper redirect target at the moment. I guess something about the concept could be mentioned e.g. at Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (compare the article de:Alleinheit at the German Wikipedia). Right now, this term isn't mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if this term is used at all in the relevant English literature. – Tea2min (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sadie Lane

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 03:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Lane → Erin Brown (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I've been unable to find any published, reliable sources linking the actress Erin Brown to this pseudonym. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Sadie Lane" is not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Abuelo

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. Jay (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abuelo → Grandparent (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect from Spanish, not all grandparents are Spanish, and this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE. "Grandparent" is a generic concept with no particular affinity for the Spanish language. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Often used in English among Latino families, as is noted at the target article. (In North America, many families call one set of grandparents by their ethnic names (e.g., Hispanic grandparents might be called abuelo and abuela or "abuelito" and "abuelita".) It is plausible to hear this term in the middle of an English sentence, and thus reasonable to have a redirect for it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep becoming more common as a loanword in English, enough so to be a plausible redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a common term used in Latino media, and english-speakers may want to know what it means. Hextor26 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Abuela

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abuela → Grandparent (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a redirect from Spanish, not all grandparents are Spanish, and this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE. "Grandparent" is a generic concept with no particular affinity for the Spanish language. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (drafted) for Las abuelas, La abuela, albillo (which lists "abuela" in its synonyms section), and Cristina Calderón (nickname "abuela"). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per 61.239.39.90. --Bonoahx (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate as draft. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aussie V8s

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 V8 engine#Australia. While it is not a unanimous choice, it seems like a general consensus is that this is a more appropriate target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie V8s → Supercars Championship (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Quite ambiguous. This term can be used to refer to any Australian-built V8 powered car eg [1], not particularly (or even at all) to the V8 Supercars (as it used to be known). I don't think a retarget to any particular car, or to Automotive industry in Australia would be suitable either so I think best to delete. A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No contest from me. I just always thought "Aussie V8s" meant V8 Supercars (Supercars Championship#V8 Supercars). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to V8 engine#Australia. Jay (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to V8 engine#Australia per Jay wizzito | say hello! 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said in the nom, the term generally refers to cars. See the link I gave in the nom, also [2]. I couldn't find any sources referring to engines in this way, and in my personal experience that's also true. Certainly the suggested target is only about the handful of Australian produced V8 engines but the term is used to refer to Australian cars with V8 engines, whether they be Australian or more often American. A7V2 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the V8 engine article, I see the word V8 being used in multiple places as V8 model, V8 unit, V8 configuration, V8 type, and also without a qualifier, simply as V8. Are you suggesting that "Aussie V8s" is not a term that can be used in that context? Jay (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I have never heard of anyone using the term "Aussie V8s" (and couldn't find any sources online either) to refer to something other than Australian built, V8 powered cars (or models). Given this redirect has, since it was created in April 2017, received just 88 views, 10 of which were since I nominated this, I think it's really just an extremely unlikely search term for anything. It's difficult to know what such an unlikely searcher is looking for, but I suppose it's possible that V8 engine#Australia is that. Perhaps the current target is what they are looking for (after all why else was it created)? I still prefer deletion but I think I prefer V8 engine#Australia to the current target. A7V2 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wp1

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 Notation in probability and statistics#Abbreviations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wp1 → Almost surely (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
W.P.1. → Almost surely (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it stands for "with probability 1". Alternatively we could retarget to Notation in probability and statistics#Abbreviations, which mentions this abbreviation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Notation in probability and statistics#Abbreviations per Mx. Granger wizzito | say hello! 22:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Notation in probability and statistics#Abbreviations per Mx. Granger. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consistent with with probability 1, and more helpful than the glossary entry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cornis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Cornis

Bovine

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bovine → Bovinae (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Most dictionaries give the primary definition as "relating to domestic cows" or equivalent, rather than the subfamily Bovinae (which is included as a secondary definition in some dictionaries). I think this would be better turned into a disambiguation page to cover various related topics like Bovine herpesvirus etc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Hemiauchenia: “most dictionaries” is a bit of a weasel wording. i think “most people” would consider a cape buffalo or a gaur to be bovines. Also, disambigs are not for every article that has the term in the title, only for topics that are referred to by the disambig. For example, no one refers to any of the Bovine herpesviruses as simply ”bovine”. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are members of the tribe Bovini, with the latter being placed in the genus Bos closely related to cows. Who when looking up the term bovine is looking for the antelopes of the tribes Boselaphini or Tragelaphini such as the eland, which are also included in the subfamily. Does anybody call these bovines? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does. The article on Tragelaphus describes them as bovines. Plantdrew (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the adjective bovine relates mainly to domestic cattle, it can also apply to members of the larger subfamily. On the other hand, the noun bovine refers to any member of the Bovinae (see e.g. Merriam-Webster's entry for bovine). Bovinae already has a link to Cattle in the first sentence, and a hatnote could be added if desired; however, most of the page titles beginning with Bovine fall under WP:PTM. Thus a disambiguation page would only distinguish between the noun and adjective, which would make it essentially a dictionary entry. I think the current target is the most useful. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

February 17

Delroy Atkinson

Direct wikipedia search from opera

Download Songs

Download Albums

Top Albums Sales

Hot Albums

Constituent monarchies

Sub-Nation

Constitutive nations

Constitutive peoples

Russian land

Needless_Markup

Folklore of Poland

Elder Llywelyn

Top 100 Singles

Top Singles Sales

Michelle Davis (blogger)

Goat sucker

Alleinheit

Sadie Lane

Abuelo

Abuela

Aussie V8s

Wp1

Cornis

Bovine