Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

December 10

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2023.

Joseph McVey

edit

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 Z-Ro. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why this redirect exists. It does not redirect to a specific section of the article and the name "Joseph McVey" (or the name "McVey" for that matter) does not appear anywhere in the article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Northern irish

edit

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 People of Northern Ireland and keep the second redirect which already targets there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should these target People of Northern Ireland with a hatnote to Ulster Irish (the dialect of the Irish language spoken in Northern Ireland and adjacent parts of Ireland) and Ulster English (the dialect of English spoken in Northern Ireland), or should there be a disambiguation page at this title? I don't think people using this title are looking for the Northern Ireland article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target both to People of Northern Ireland - As a Northern Ireland native, targeting both to People of Northern Ireland makes the most sense to me, in terms of how we'd ordinarily use the term. Locally Northern Irish is primarily used as a referrer to our national identity, similar to how you might also refer to yourself as Irish or British. Not sure a hatnote to Ulster Irish is strictly necessary here, as we never (to my knowledge) use "Northern Irish" when speaking about or in the Irish language dialect some of us use here. But it wouldn't hurt either. Not sure a hatnote to Ulster English would be necessary, regardless of whether we include a hatnote for Ulster Irish. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this - if someone is searching "Northern Irish" they're probably looking for information about the people of NI as a national category, rather than the territory itself or Ulster Irish/English. We could add a hatnote, but I don't think it's necessary. sawyer / talk 03:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Disco-rock

edit

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 02:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per previous discussions on similar genre re-directs (see Disco-pop and Funk-pop, there is no mention of Disco-rock on the Dance-rock article, so assuming one means the other is inappropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Fire must never be extinguished

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18#Fire must never be extinguished

Auslit

edit

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 leaning keep. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the existence of AustLit, and "Auslit" not appearing in the target article, I'm not sure this is properly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Auslit" is a widely used diminutive or nickname for the whole genre of "Australian literature". Maybe the "Australian literaure" page just needs a note to that effect. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a useful hatnote Doug butler (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Centaur (chess)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18#Centaur (chess)

Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023

edit

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 WP:G6, admittedly created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. The war has no affinity to French, and the creator admitted at the redirect's talk page that the redirect was a mistake. Further, Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023 does not exist at French Wikipedia. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

North of Ireland

edit

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. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ulster. This phrase is in wide use as an apolitical geographical reference to mean, basically, "the northern area of the island of Ireland, i.e. the traditional province of Ulster, which is now mostly but not entirely within Northern Ireland", with the whole point being a way to say this concisely without saying "northern Ireland" with would be too easily confused with "Northern Ireland". If there is actually significant RS use of it to actually mean "the political entity of Northern Ireland", then it should instead become a disambiguation page, listing Ulster then Northern Ireland as the meanings. But that's very dubious to me, and I would think that {{Redirect|North of Ireland|the United Kingdom territory in the north of Ireland|Northern Ireland}} at the top of Ulster should entirely suffice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Greatest Hits So Far...

edit

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 Greatest Hits So Far. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move at Talk:Greatest Hits... So Far!!! (Pink album) was closed as no consensus; the main reason I opened it was to resolve some WP:MISPLACED concerns. This redirect is of particular note to me – if the concern is that the ellipsis isn't enough to differentiate between this album and others, then I don't see why it should continue targeting the album with this specific ellipsis. Retarget to Greatest Hits So Far. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

GPay

edit

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! 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gpay is different - see https://gpay.com.tr/yardim

Suggest this redirect is deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

List of Umbro sponsorships

edit

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 02:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as these following...

Primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING, now that I purged the offending sub list . SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Airbus Group

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18#Airbus Group

PARAMIL

edit

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 Glossary of military abbreviations#P. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target page makes no mention of an abbreviated form called "Paramil", much less that same form (or any form for that matter) stylized in all caps; "PARAMIL", "PARAMILITARY" or otherwise. I could very well be missing context however, but based on this and google searching the phrase, I'm coming up blank. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Nobody fucks with the Jesus

edit

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 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A comedy catchphrase that isn't listed at the target article. As a standalone phrase, this phrase is already pretty vague out of context, and the current location without a mention does not do it any favors. Would be unclear why this redirect points here to an uninitiated reader. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or soft redirect to wikiquote?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

CAT:SURNAMES

edit

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. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. (While the target category gets a lot more pageviews than the others nominated here, as nearly everyone has a surname, the PNR does not appear to be a necessity for this otherwise-ordinary category). Utopes (talk / cont) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: intuitive and harmless. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Ideally, I’d be !voting to delete all the CAT: XNRs nominated on this page, per my comments under § CAT:XHOSA and § CAT:CROATIA. However, the age of these redirects mean I’ve been !voting weak delete instead (rather than just delete) on the other nominations. CAT:SURNAMES is different from the others, though, in that its traffic has historically been consistently much higher - in my opinion, this comparison demonstrates it pretty well. For me, this tips it over the edge - the likelihood and number of off-wiki links that might break if this were deleted makes it (for me) worth keeping (against the arguments to the contrary I’ve made under the other nominations), per K4. Because of all the arguments to the contrary, however, my !vote is a weak keep. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to the above - Tavix’s comment below also goes to a potential K5 reason for keeping, as someone is finding the redirect useful. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the amount of pageviews a good reason for keeping this redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:SURNAMECAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace. PS: I'm guilty of creating one of these myself in 2007; the next of these RfDs should be CAT:CUE since WP:CUE already has WP:CUECAT to match all its other convenience links like WP:CUEBIOS, WP:CUEGAMES, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I view this as a pseudo-maintenance category for surnames. I have used this shortcut to navigate to this category, then I go to 'related changes' to patrol for things like juveniles inserting themselves or their friends into a surname list. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to reinforce, this situation is different from the other 5 as it has received historical attention. I don't know whether its a particularly useful XNR in 2023, but I can envision this having some importance despite it being an otherwise normal content category. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

CAT:SLOVAKIA

edit

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 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:SLOVAKIACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

CAT:CROATIA

edit

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 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: intuitive and harmless. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to straightforwardly !vote weak delete on this nomination; however, I noticed that there is a (piped) wikilink to this redirect from the reply at User talk:Oxford St./Archive1 § Diacritics. This for me has really made it hard to decide how to !vote here.
    On the one hand, XNRs are costly, unneeded for this sort of category (per Utopes at § CAT:XHOSA), and might (even if incorrectly) imply that other, similar, categories should have a CAT: XNR. There’s also a precedent that similar redirects have been deleted at RfD before - while this obviously isn’t binding, I guess I’d want to have a good reason to come to a different decision on a similar matter to previous deletion discussions.
    On the other hand, I worry about the possibility of breaking links made to these redirects, given that they’ve been allowed to exist since 2007 — hence why my other delete !votes have only been weak. In this instance, there is a wikilink that’s been made to this redirect, which will break if it’s deleted, and the existence of which may (potentially) be indicative of more links existing to this redirect off-wiki (although, of course, there’s no way of knowing that for certain one way or the other).
    In the end, I basically have to weigh up what I personally view to be of greater importance in this case - and while I worry about the possibility of breaking links (as I also do with the other CAT: nominations); having considered it, I don’t think that the one wikilink is enough such that the CAT:CROATIA RfD should result in a different outcome to the other nominations. Therefore, weak delete, per above and per my comments at § CAT:XHOSA.
    Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 17:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:CROATIACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

CAT:BOTSWANA

edit

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 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:BOTSWANACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

CAT:TIGRINYA

edit

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 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:TIGRINYACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

CAT:XHOSA

edit

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 05:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarily, from my angle, these particular pseudo-namespace redirects are neither of those two adjectives described here.
To set the scene, there are over 2 million pages in Category space. Contrasting that to the 550 redirects that populate the CAT: pseudo-namespace, 0.0002 of the categories have associated CAT pages (and that's disregarding the redirects that double-up targets). Per WP:PNR, the intention of pseudo-namespace redirects is to be "shortcuts to frequently-referred-to Wikipedia pages". Now, "frequently-used" is a very open-ended description; it's one that (rightfully) opens the door to different categories of all shapes and sizes. If a category needs to be closely monitored due to it frequently changing, or if it needs to be quickly accessed for maintenance and/or other repetitive work, I can definitely get behind the need for a shortcut.
But don't get me wrong. Wikipedia is a technology built around namespaces. From my POV, all PNRs are harmful in nature to varying degrees even if just by a fraction, as they bend and break the guidelines of namespaces. Though, on the flipside of this con, most PNRs should in practice (and do) make up for this inherited fault by leaps and bounds due to the convenience factor that is offered to experienced editors whom make use of these shortcuts. If even just a small handful of people find use in a particular (and approved) PNR that would unlikely impede in general searches, then it's fulfilling its purpose.
Returning to the 2 million point, I see nothing intuitive about this title. For a redirect to be "intuitive", it would mean that, without already knowing the answer, one would be able to expect and intuit the existence of a title, without having to type in even a letter, or search it for oneself. Given that Happiness is a page in existence, I can intuit that "there exists a page called Happy", and that it is a redirect to the aforementioned page. It makes sense. On a more relevant example, 0.0002 categories have a CAT page. These are, more often than not, intuitively reserved for highly important categories that need to be searched quite often, to the point where they would clearly benefit from a CAT page, especially when they have a long title that might not be easily remembered. Category:Candidates for Speedy Deletion comes to mind; it makes sense why there would be a CAT PNR redirected there.
Now, we have CAT:XHOSA. The target category has 6 pages, and 4 subcats. Out of the millions of categories, the Xhosa category doesn't even make the shortlist of cats I'd expect to warrant a PNR shortcut. Especially when the name isn't even shortened; it's literally just the name of the cat, but occupies a place in a pseudo-namespace when it doesn't need to. Because PNRs appear in search results and otherwise make organization more difficult by circumventing the software, such redirects should be kept to a minimum and only kept in exceptional circumstances where usage is predicted to be regular and helpful. In most cases, the MOS space is a highly reliable pseudo-space as it is part of the Wikipedia community vernacular, and even obscure MOS points will need to be linked to now and again. However, such pages are limited in number, so it's easy to capture the whole scope with relevant redirects, and nearly any MOS redirect can be intuitively inferred to exist.
CAT pages are not MOS pages. While maintenance categories see regular use of CAT: shortcuts whenever maintenance is being performed, I see nothing to indicate that the Xhosa Category would need to be regularly accessed in this way, much less in a shortcut with the exact same title as the category itself. PNRs are not dumping grounds for infinite redirects, and if a PNR in question isn't a valuable shortcut to a category of importance and/or has no chance of ever being used as such, it has no reason to defy norms and exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Utopes. As a shortcut, CAT:XHOSA isn’t that much shorter than Category:Xhosa. It also isn’t currently getting pageviews that would indicate that the shortcut is useful to someone/in use. However, this redirect was created in 2007, and certainly used to get pageviews back in 2015 (the earliest I can see), which tells me that this redirect may have previously been useful, even if it isn’t much today. (See also, monthly pageviews from 2015-2023)
    So, in favour of deleting: it’s a CAT: cross-namespace redirect (D6, and for the reasons Utopes gave), that’s not that ‘short’ of a shortcut, and has very few recent pageviews (both anti-K5). In favour of keeping: it used to have a little greater use, and it’s existed since 2007 (which both potentially engage K4 for me, at least to an extent). If this redirect was created yesterday and brought straight to RfD, I’d probably !vote delete. However, given the length of time that CAT:XHOSA’s existed for, I find myself !voting more weakly for deletion.
    Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: There is precedent where similar redirects have been deleted (see RfDs for CAT:MAZDA, CAT:PROFANITY). Obviously this doesn’t bind the decision here, just thought it was worth noting. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 16:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because XNRs that live in mainspace are not "cheap", we should only keep them for useful internal maintenance purposes. (E.g. the "MOS:" pseudonamespace was authorized by consensus to deal with the problem of shortcuts to MoS sections taking up so many of the sensible/mnemonic shortcut strings in "WP:".) There's not much cause for a "CAT:" redirect unless it's serving a frequent maintenance purpose. We have no proper use at all for ones that are to encyclopedia-content categories. If some wikiproject wants one for its own convenience, try "WP:XHOSACAT" or something else that doesn't pollute mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, looks like a maintenance category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I meant to link the CAT:MAZDA and CAT:PROFANITY precedent, which is what I was gauging with this set of nominations; I appreciate the link 🙏. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_10&oldid=1190496112"