Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2024.
Soft D
[edit]I believe this has nothing to do with Finnish. Re-target to Danish phonology. There is not mention of a "soft D" on the Finnish page. There is, however, a relatively well-known concept in Danish called "blødt d" which is even talked about on the new target page. Furthermore, if you Google "soft d," all the results will be for the Danish concept in question, indicating its relevance to the new tarket, and not to the current target. Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Category:University of Maryland alumni
[edit]- Category:University of Maryland alumni → Category:University System of Maryland alumni (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Is this the right place to discuss cat redirects? In any case, University of Maryland redirects to University of Maryland, College Park, not University System of Maryland, so retarget to Category:University of Maryland, College Park alumni. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
No relation
[edit]- No relation → wiktionary:Special:Search/no relation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
WP:SSRT: "only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Mild keep; created because I thought it might be the kind of thing that would have an article, and when it didn't, a redirect seemed useful. But I'm not dying on the hill of it and I don't care to argue about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Either Delete or maybe weak retarget to No Relations as a plausible error. Otherwise too vague to have a specific target, and soft redirects to Wikitionary only get in the way of normal searches (which always include links to WIktionary for existing entries anyway) 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
F-duction
[edit]Not mentioned at target. Appears in the Index of genetics articles (despite being a redirect, though the page also contains a bunch of redlinks), and is mentioned in the article about Edward A. Adelberg, who apparently discovered this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- This a synonym to sexduction and, as far as I can tell, just an outdated way of referring to bacterial conjugation. Sexduction itself is a redirect to bacterial conjugation and is also not mentioned in that article. Maybe retarget to Bacterial conjugation and tag with {{R from alternative name}} ― Synpath 15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wiktionary defines sexduction as "A form of bacterial conjugation involving the F-plasmid." – wbm1058 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
List of characters in Suikoden
[edit]- List of Suikoden I characters → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- List of characters in Suikoden → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- List of recurring characters in Suikoden → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Target contains no such list. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The closing admin should take note of some of the comments at #Unmentioned Suikoden characters that may also apply here. If the goal is to preserve history I would be fine with moving to titles without "List of" (i.e Characters in Suikoden ) without leaving a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but my arguments are in the other "Unmentioned Suikoden characters". Just seemed inefficient to rewrite this in several places and these used to all be on the same page, but I guess one was relisted without the other. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add link to the #Unmentioned Suikoden characters discussion which is mentioned twice in this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The article contains no list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history? Also notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- delete per nom. list(s) not present. list of characters in suikoden had one (1) source and nothing else, and was written almost entirely in an in-universe style. won't debate the reliability of the source in question because it's down and so is the internet archive :c, and the thing it would be about (that being the hero's name) is not present in the target anyway cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Tellurane
[edit]Tellurane is not hydrogen telluride, but a heterocyclic compound 109.52.57.238 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note The redirect was not tagged until just now. I also restored the target mentioned above (Hydrogen telluride), pending this discussion, it had been retargetted to Telluride (chemistry) and then to itself. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment in 2020 Kupirijo removed the redirect and left a note on the talk page saying
Tellurane refers to the saturated six-membered heterocyclic hydride https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Tellurane and tellane to the mononuclear hydrides H2Te.
. This was reverted by GB fan with a note to take it to RfD, but that didn't happen. The only place this is mentioned on en.wp that I can find is Heterocyclic compound#6-membered rings but that is just a table entry with a link that clearly anticipates the reader being taken to somewhere that gives more information, so I'm leaning towards deletion per WP:REDLINK but want to see some comments from those with subject knowledge first. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Yes, delete. I am biochemist and tellurane is a saturated six-membered heterocyclic compound. 109.54.233.14 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete. Thank you Thryduulf for bringing it up. Also "tellurane" should be removed from the chembox of Hydrogen telluride. kupirijo (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete to encourage article creation. Oddly we have an article for the aromatic cation Telluropyrylium but not for the neutral non-aromatic heterocyclic. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete of course this is a incorrect redirect. 109.54.250.137 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Cincinnati Bengals (AFL)
[edit]- Cincinnati Bengals (AFL) → Cincinnati Bengals (1937–1941) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Should probably point to the modern Cincinnati Bengals, who also played in an American Football League. O.N.R. (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- WhatLinksHere and pageviews point towards most of this redirect's views being from links rather than searches, so if a retarget is made it's best to fix those links. J947 ‡ edits 05:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Carrotion
[edit]Not really a plausible phonetic misspelling, nor a plausible typo. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Google hits are a mix of things I can't work out (most prominent is a reference to a model of Volvo car, but I can't work out which one), misspellings of "corrosion" or OCR errors for words like "correction" and "collection". I did find one hit where I think it means "Carotene" (it's a comment about sun tan lotion that does have carotene in it) but it's presently inaccessible due to a server error so I can't verify that. Either way, one hit does not make a plausible misspelling error, especially when it's far more commonly (and plausibly) a spelling error for an entirely different word (corrosion). Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is an OCR error for carotene -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Could be, but like all misspellings, if it's a plausible misspelling or OCR error for multiple words, then it doesn't make a useful redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- There can be exceptions to that, e.g. if one use is very significantly more common in practice than any other, but that isn't the case here. I didn't find any examples of this being an OCR error for "Carotene", indeed it would be an unlikely OCR error (based on my experience) in a couple of ways: while "o" ↔ "n" is quite common, "e" → "n" is uncommon and "r" → "rr" is very unusual. Unlike human misspellings, where substituting single for double letters and vice versa is very common (it's probably the most common type of misspelling I make) OCR errors rarely change the number of vertical strokes, especially in the middle of words, even if they sometimes distribute them wrongly (e.g. "rn" ↔ "m" ↔ "in"). Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Could be, but like all misspellings, if it's a plausible misspelling or OCR error for multiple words, then it doesn't make a useful redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- delete per "what is this even a typo of?" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Cogsan try reading other people's comments. This doesn't seem to be a typo of anything, but it is a plausible but not overly common misspelling of "corrosion". Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I extracted this name from a 1954 chemical dictionary. This claims it is the same as carotin and carotine. In these dictionary carotene was not even given as a spelling. So it is not supposed to be a typo, but an alternative old spelling. But in my 1940 dictionary carotene is listed as the only form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Symbolism (arts)
[edit]- Symbolism (arts) → Symbolism (movement) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Symbolism (art) → Symbolism (movement) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Symbolism in art → Symbolism (movement) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The most common use of symbolism in association with the arts is when a concrete element within a visual, literary, or other work of art is used to represent an abstract idea. Currently, the landing place for that type of symbolism seems to simply be Symbol. "Symbolism" as a specific 19th-century social movement is a much more narrow and obscure usage. Similarly worded redirects (namely Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art) also ought to be redirected accordingly. Wolfdog (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolfdog I'm not certain I understand your nomination. Are you saying that Symbolism (arts) is targetting the correct place, but Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art should be retargetted to match? Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is my first time using RFD, so excuse my inexperience but, no, I'm saying it's targeting the wrong place. It's currently targeting Symbolism (movement). Wolfdog (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, the target should be the current target of the redirect. I'll fix it and add the other redirects you mentioned to the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh. Ok duh, haha, thanks. Should I clear out our above discussion? Wolfdog (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- No it's useful context. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh. Ok duh, haha, thanks. Should I clear out our above discussion? Wolfdog (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, the target should be the current target of the redirect. I'll fix it and add the other redirects you mentioned to the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is my first time using RFD, so excuse my inexperience but, no, I'm saying it's targeting the wrong place. It's currently targeting Symbolism (movement). Wolfdog (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete As an incorrect disambiguation for where it's currently pointing. For the record, I agree with the move (though I believe (art movement) would have been a superior disambiguation to avoid confusion with Movement (music)) and believe that the concept of symbolism within art is notable, but should be at artistic symbolism. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
It's never lupus
[edit]- It's never lupus → House season 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Its never lupus → House season 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- It's not lupus → House season 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Seems as though these redirect formerly targeted You Don't Want to Know prior to that article being WP:BLARed last year. As it stands, the target article does not mention these phrases, and these phrases seem to be a quote, which may not be too helpful if it's targeting a episode page for a season of a television show. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Even I, who never watch the program, know that's a reference to House. There should be a season page which is relevant, if the episode page has been deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
- They currently redirect to the most relevant season page, given their previous target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've defended quotations as acceptable {{R without mention}}s before, figuring they can at least answer a reader wondering, "What was that from again?" Without an article on the specific episode that defied the trend, though, redirecting to the season seems more trouble than it's worth, especially given that the only mention of lupus on that page is the instance where it was lupus. Gregory House and House (TV series) seem equally likely targets, and I'd prefer either one over the current target. I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion, though. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Deletion as plausible, and I feel we do have some information... at least on the level of "Where was that quote from/what does that meme refer to?" I'm ambiguous on the target. I actually feel that Restoring the specific episode article that was BLAR'd would be the best target... we have articles on episodes from other shows, and this episode seems particularly notable (I don't even watch the show, never seen even a single episode, and yet even I have heard of this particular episode!). (I do agree that the article, when it was BLAR'd, was overly detailed on the episode summary, but I wish they hadn't resorted to WP:TNT!) Barring that, I'm fine with the current target for now, but would not object to sending it to the character or the series page either. My only strong feeling is that we should keep the redirects and point them to one of these pages, even if I don't mind which as much. Fieari (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
!(*$
[edit]Can only be accomplished by holding the shift key during the entirety of typing as it will not occur with caps lock. Unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this is a fairly common problem with sticky keys. And of course sticky keys. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
- Comment Caps lock is disabled on my keyboard, so this could happen. And before you ask, I disabled caps lock because I hit it accidentally far more often than actually using it. Paradoctor (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a mind-bogglingly WP:UNNATURAL redirect. If someone has sticky keys turned on and botches a search, they can turn it off. There's no apparent reason why this particular string of digits (or any keyboard symbols for that matter) should be singled out to have such a redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as implausible. Depending on the layout, it can happen with caps lock, but we don't need to help readers with search queries they would probably not expect themselves to work. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to Grawlix (replacement of profanity by typographical symbols), similar to $@!%. That's what I expected when I saw this in the TOC and had to hunt for the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I specifically oppose such a retarget. I was even going to nominate the existing redirect for deletion, but just hadn't gotten to it yet. This is even more unlikely a string of punctuation symbols than the existing grawlix redirect, and would be inappropriate to redirect there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Grawlix is hard enough to find currently when you don't know what it is called. Searching for it using examples of it is extremely plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This redirect won't make it any easier to find. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Really? By providing another example of it that may be closer to someone's search term and thus more likely to be found by search engines, etc. this will make that target easier to find for many people. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, really, and I find your insistence to the contrary bordering on bad-faith stubbornness. This specific sequence is just one of 5,040 such sequences containing 4 of the 10 symbols over the number keys without repeats. There are another 30,240 more if you use 5. And this is only on US keyboard layouts; considering others will add more. It's also one that's especially unlikely to be found due to the distances between consecutive symbols. Please, no cute little puppies will be harmed if this redirect is deleted. Just let this one go; it'll be okay. I promise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, # cannot occur in titles, and I don't think parentheses that commonly occur in grawlix (though web search results sometimes show them, as well as ? or + as well). I agree that the distances between the symbols make this unlikely. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- The question is not whether puppies will die as a result of deleting this redirect, but whether deleting this redirect will improve the encyclopaedia for our readers. Neither you or anyone else has given a plausible reason why deletion is better than retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retargeting is misleading, and hence worse than deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
- How would retargetting an example of grawlix to the article on grawlix be misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- How would retargetting an example of grawlix to the article on grawlix be misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retargeting is misleading, and hence worse than deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
- Yes, really, and I find your insistence to the contrary bordering on bad-faith stubbornness. This specific sequence is just one of 5,040 such sequences containing 4 of the 10 symbols over the number keys without repeats. There are another 30,240 more if you use 5. And this is only on US keyboard layouts; considering others will add more. It's also one that's especially unlikely to be found due to the distances between consecutive symbols. Please, no cute little puppies will be harmed if this redirect is deleted. Just let this one go; it'll be okay. I promise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Really? By providing another example of it that may be closer to someone's search term and thus more likely to be found by search engines, etc. this will make that target easier to find for many people. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- This redirect won't make it any easier to find. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Grawlix is hard enough to find currently when you don't know what it is called. Searching for it using examples of it is extremely plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I specifically oppose such a retarget. I was even going to nominate the existing redirect for deletion, but just hadn't gotten to it yet. This is even more unlikely a string of punctuation symbols than the existing grawlix redirect, and would be inappropriate to redirect there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete it requires QWERTY to work, and not some other configuration -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to delete (especially given that QWERTY is by the most common keyboard layout used by English speakers) and also completely irrelevant to the retargetting suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect. It works with AZERTY etc, and even with Dvorjak. If you find this string standing alone it is almost certainly a mis-shift of 1984. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
- Delete as implausible. I understand the point Thryduulf makes about possibly retargeting, but it seems unhelpful to me to have a redirect to grawlix for every possible combination of four symbols. There's no evidence that this specific combination is commonly used. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to Grawlix. Alas, both google and nGrams can't search for punctuation, but I don't find this set of punctuation implausible for a profanity substitution. No, we don't need every single possible combination, but neither is there a reason to get rid of ones we already have, and we might as well make use of what's here. I agree that the more ways to find Grawlix, the better, as it is extremely plausible that someone might be trying to find it but have no !(*$ing clue what it's actually called. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed we don't need every possbible combination, but search results are more likely to include the target if there is a redirect similar to your search term than if there isn't, so a variety will significantly increase the likelihood of someone finding what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
- Good point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
- Indeed we don't need every possbible combination, but search results are more likely to include the target if there is a redirect similar to your search term than if there isn't, so a variety will significantly increase the likelihood of someone finding what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Either delete or retarget to Grawlix. The redirect exists now, bots will have indexed it, and it certainly shouldn't point to 1984 any more. — The Anome (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator comment/update: For the record, I prefer "delete" over "retarget to Grawlix" since strings that represent "Grawlix" can basically be any set of random punctuation marks, so it doesn't make sense that we should redirect a sequence there that is 1) no mentioned in the article, 2) not a notable sequence and 3) could potentially encourage the creation of similar randomized redirects (which I don't think we want to do.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- For the reasons explained above, a limited number of distinct sequences of Grawlix is something that we do want given the clear benefit to those searching for similar strings. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- And I don't agree for the reasons I already stated. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Other than you don't thinking we want to do it, you haven't given any reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. 🤣 Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously, the only reason you have given that is relevant in any way to the reasons given for titles of this nature to redirect to Grawlix is "could potentially encourage the creation of similar randomized redirects (which I don't think we want to do.)" which is almost literally "I don't like it" (but with an arguable side-helping of WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you don't want to give any additional reasons, that's fine, but don't gaslight that you have given reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- ...Ain't no "gaslighting" ... just "stick dropping". Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously, the only reason you have given that is relevant in any way to the reasons given for titles of this nature to redirect to Grawlix is "could potentially encourage the creation of similar randomized redirects (which I don't think we want to do.)" which is almost literally "I don't like it" (but with an arguable side-helping of WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you don't want to give any additional reasons, that's fine, but don't gaslight that you have given reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. 🤣 Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Other than you don't thinking we want to do it, you haven't given any reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- And I don't agree for the reasons I already stated. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- For the reasons explained above, a limited number of distinct sequences of Grawlix is something that we do want given the clear benefit to those searching for similar strings. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Implausible redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Lightlike separation
[edit]- Lightlike separation → Minkowski space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not mentioned at target; brief explanation exists at Lorentz transformation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- UPD: Searching for the adjective, Special relativity#Invariant interval appears to be a good target. (There should presumably be redirects from lightlike separated, timelike separated and spacelike separated as well.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: Why do you think this should have a different target from Lightlike? I don't see how they're distinct. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Causal structure only seems to talk about tangent vectors (and therefore does not mention "separation")... The redirects in the nomination below could point to Special relativity#Invariant interval as well, though that section could also be linking to the causal structure article. It's mostly an issue with how the content is organised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks for explaining. I think lightlike shouldn't redirect to a target that's too specific to discuss non-tangent vectors, then – but that's for the discussion below. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Causal structure only seems to talk about tangent vectors (and therefore does not mention "separation")... The redirects in the nomination below could point to Special relativity#Invariant interval as well, though that section could also be linking to the causal structure article. It's mostly an issue with how the content is organised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: Why do you think this should have a different target from Lightlike? I don't see how they're distinct. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Spacelike vector
[edit]- Spacelike vector → Minkowski space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Timelike vector → Minkowski space#Causal structure (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Lightlike → Minkowski space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Light-like → Spacetime#Spacetime interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Spacelike → Spacetime#Spacetime interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Space-like → Spacetime#Space-like interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Timelike → Spacetime#Spacetime interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Time-like → Spacetime#Time-like interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
These should point at the same target, but it seems like Causal structure is the most appropriate option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget all to causal structure. — The Anome (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget "Space-like"/etc "time-like"/etc "light-like"/etc to spacetime, where this is explained. These forms with "vector" attached should point to causal structure -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Missoes
[edit]i was going to retarget it back to missões and call it a day, but there's a non-zero chance that that could also apply to some plot points from the guaraní war, the seven peoples of the missions, or some other stuff i might be missing. kinda torn between just retargeting or considering dabifying at missões (in which case i'd probably take that to afd or something with the suggestion of retargeting it to missões, brazil) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)
[edit]- Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack) → Khaidi No. 150 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
I'm nominating this one separately because of its history—it apparently used to be an article about the movie's soundtrack until a deletion discussion in April 2017 (the participants of which that resulted in it being redirected to the current target. Aside from spikes in 2021 and 2022, it hasn't been getting very many pageviews since then, so I'm not 100% sure we need this lying around, plus I've also created the correctly spelled Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) (which should help readers find the intended target), so I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Also, the participants of the deletion discussion (TheLongTone, Jennica, Bovineboy2008, Serial Number 54129, and Jo-Jo Eumerus) might want to weigh in on the matter, so I'm pinging them in case they have anything they might want to add. Regards, SONIC678 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Restore the four revisions that were deleted at AFD (as I do not see a policy-baaed reason that justified their deletion in accordance with the WP:ATD !votes at the debate), merge the page history up to Onel5969's revision into Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), move the talk page to Talk:Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), then delete the remaining 2024 revision. ✗plicit 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
John Atoms
[edit]- John Atoms → John Adams (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Not a common or likely misspelling, virtually no incoming targets. If for some reason it is kept, I would say retarget to the John Adams dab page. Otherwise, my vote is Delete. TNstingray (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- he's the inventor of atoms, how can you not know him? delete per nom. implausible misspelling, mishearing, and pun cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the sake of recognizing current education as lacking in definitive broad-based knowledge. It may be an unlikely spelling but not impossible, and doesn't harm the encyclopedia to leave it for those who wander through the weeds (sounds like an alternate-universe name for a comic book about America's founding). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: per Randy. Would also note that incoming targets is a poor test pbp 14:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/
[edit]- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
subpage redirect that doesn't actually lead to a subpage. created by a blocked user, who seems to have created a lot of malformed redirects like this cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think there's even a need for a full discussion here, I see a reasonable case for WP:SPEEDY as per WP:DENY @Cogsan:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- deny is explicitly not a csd, and i don't think this is vandalism for that matter, so g3 is probably out of the equation. i'd rather bet my r$6,69 (it's actually all i have at the moment, catfishing has not been very profitable lately) on cir (also not csd) or g1 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this is harmless, has quite a few incomming links (those I spot checked all intended the current target) and gets plenty of pageviews so deletion would be disruptive for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- "intended" is a strong word here. it seems they all come from uses of template:rfd notice between 21 and 24 december 2021, while this diff was up cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that seems like an unintended error. If someone could go through and fix all those incoming links to point to the normal RfD page instead of this, that'd probably be extremely helpful. In any case, Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- "intended" is a strong word here. it seems they all come from uses of template:rfd notice between 21 and 24 december 2021, while this diff was up cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as WP:G6 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ exists and was kept back in 2011 but we should probably delet it as well, the title is simply an error suggesting people could be looking for the archives etc rather than the main RFD page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- ...weird. that one seems to have been accidentally used by multiple templates since its creation in 2005, and has an extremely strange edit history. it's a real glitch magnet, that's for sure. honestly, i'm considering nominating it just to be safe, but it gets steady views somehow cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for now - It does get a fair amount of hits. Now, I'm willing to believe that these hits come from a malformed internal link, so I propose that all incomming links to this redirect be corrected, we wait a few months, then check usage again. But as long as this gets steady hits, I can't support deletion for the sake of mere tidiness. Don't break things needlessly. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
R v R (Rape: marital exemption)
[edit]- R v R (Rape: marital exemption) → R v R (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Redundant redirect due to the existence of R v R. Previously redirected to Marital_rape#Ending_the_exemption but I would argue that its still not needed as the case confirmed the end of any exemption. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Technically under WP:G14 grounds too. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as a perfectly harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. "Redundant" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Usurper King
[edit]- Usurper King → List of The Legend of Zelda characters#Zant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
There have been plenty of real historical figures described as usurper kings, including in some Wikipedia articles. This redirect is therefore too ambiguous to target to this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Usurper King is unambiguously Zant or at the very least the main topic, as a quick search confirms. If you can find another case where someone is called Usurper King in running text in 20th or 21st century English, then maybe we need a disambiguation page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
- Delete per nom; many many real kings have been labeled as usurpers over the centuries. The existence of this redirect is actively harmful, as it impedes searching within Wikipedia, the result of which reveals the phrase in wide use, so wide and general that even a DAB page would probably be too unwieldy to be helpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (or disambig) per Rich Farmbrough. None of the other uses found by the search use this a name or title for anybody, simply a description, they would be appropriate to include on a list of people described as "usurper king" or similarly titled list but only that. Deletion of this redirect would hinder readers finding the content about the character specifically named "Usurper King". Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for now per above. GHits are mostly about Zelda. There's a book that calls Henry Bolingbroke the Usurper King but I think someone more knowledgeable about royalty to confirm if it's an actual notable nickname. --Lenticel (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- When I add "Henry" to the search term I do get a lot of hits for that English King, some of which use it as a sort of title, so I'd support adding a hatnote there as Zelda is the primary topic overall. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of usurpers, as lots of Kings have been called usurper in the history, and my feeling is that this list would take primacy outside of the internet (which is biased towards current culture). At the very least, I would suggest this list be hatnoted at whatever target is chosen. Yes, Henry Bolingbroke is on this list, but googling "kings who have been called usurpers" got me an instant results listing William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor immediately, so clearly historians have quite a few usurper kings in mind when they hear the term. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is a difference between describing a king as a usurper and calling someone "Usurper King". Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete When I think "Usurper King", my mind would never go to Zant and I'm even a big fan of Twilight Princess. This is simply too vague to be targeted here. The IP is correct that it will disrupt legitimate searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- delete. not even an old tiktok meme like great king of evil (though i'd nominate that one too, as the meme invariably includes his name). off the top of my head, the wasp king (as in the guy from bug fables) also fits the bill cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
S-compact space
[edit]- S-compact space → Σ-compact space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This seems to be a different concept that is not described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is not a concept at all. If you look at the history for the S-compact space page, it was created by a bot in 2008, presumably because this bot automatically created such redirects because Σ-compact space also redirects to σ-compact space, and the bot converted the Greek letter to a Latin letter. Note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/S-compact_space that there are no Wikipedia articles making use of this redirect. It would also be very confusing for anyone to use "S-compact space" with the meaning of "sigma-compact". No mathematician would understand what it means, as it has no meaning. Since "σ-compact space" already has a variety of redirects from many other names that make sense and without using Greek letters for those who have difficulty typing those (like "Sigma-compact space", etc), it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete the redirect "S-compact space". PatrickR2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
- I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
- Keep [as a typing aid] [Maybe not significant but on the other hand, supporting dab] S-compact is used as a short form of strong locally compact, as if it is a standard notation, in Gompa, Raghu R. “What is ‘Locally Compact’?” Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 9, no. 6 (1992): 390–92. [7] It is used to describe certain bitopologial spaces in an apparently unconnected way here. It also seems to have a different use in fuzzy measure theory. However unless we cover these uses on Wikipedia (we don't as far as I can tell) this is a valid redirect. If we did at this page we should use a hatnote for sigma, otherwise a dab page might be in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
- Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that bringing up those other cases supports dab or retarget. However I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate the strength of that support. For example I found another case of "S-compact space" where S is merely a place-holder, which I could discard. I didn't want to repeat myself, but I have added my motivation for keep to my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
- @1234qwer1234qwer4 Maybe a little off topic here, but why did you create a redirect from strongly locally compact, just based on the existence of an article in an undergraduate journal using that terminology? It is not because a random person introduced that terminology in a random journal that it should belong in Wikipedia. Additions to Wikipedia, at least for mathematics, should be based on notable facts. How do you justify this terminology is "notable"? Leaving this in wikipedia is also encouraging people to start using this non-notable terminology :-( PatrickR2 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects
just based
on something singular). The article, in turn, cites Steen & Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, which is convincing enough to me to leave it there. I did not realise that article also cited the Pi Mu Epsilon article until now; it likely shouldn't, but it appears to be only used as a source for the logical relations and not any terminology. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)- You keep creating these links "just in case". This is a misguided approach. If and when someone needs to link to 'locally compact" from "strongly locally compact", they can create the redirect at that time. It helps no one to create all these redirects if no one is going to use them. This is just gnome work gone overboard. Sorry for the rant, but it's not the first time ... PatrickR2 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects
- (Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I've found at least two more, different "S-compact"s just looking through the arXiv, all fairly obscure, and none of which seem to have any existing coverage on Wikipedia (that I can find, at least). Thus any target would be misleading, including substituting "S" for sigma. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Tebasaki
[edit]japanese deep fried chicken wing. defined on wiktionary, only mentioned in passing in other articles, and unmentioned in the target cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- is this... a case of "thing, japan"? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to Nagoya cuisine All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Murgh
[edit]created as "urdu for 'chicken'", but apparently only sees use in the context of Indian curries, and doesn't seem to be mentioned outside of the page history, the previous discussion, and butter chicken. see also murg i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to Butter chicken (incidentally commonly known as "butter chikkin"). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC).- Delete per nom and WP:FORRED. Retargeting as suggested above would be inappropriate too, since there's no particular reason to target this dish as opposed to any other chicken dish. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget to Chicken, has passed into English usage, see Wiktionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
- "Murgh" has not passed into English, and even the Wikt entry lists it only in a sense associated with Indian cuisine. So WP:FORRED still applies. Redirecting to "chicken" would be WP:HARMFUL, as it obscures information from the user. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the Wiktionary entry does list it as an English word. That it is only used in one context doesn't negate that - plenty of unambiguously English terms are used only in one context. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Murgh" has not passed into English, and even the Wikt entry lists it only in a sense associated with Indian cuisine. So WP:FORRED still applies. Redirecting to "chicken" would be WP:HARMFUL, as it obscures information from the user. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep; the English loanword is specifically used in Indian cookery to refer to chicken prepared for consumption, and not the actual animal-- which is the same use that the far-more-widespread from-French loanwords beef, pork, and mutton have. Those words link to their own pages that talk about the meats' usage in food, rather than the pages for cow, pig, and sheep respectively. Given this, the equivalent chicken as food page is the correct target. A hatnote, though, may be appropriate-- "Murgh" redirects here. For the specific dish known as "Murgh makhani", see butter chicken. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- But it's not English, unlike the others, so this argument falls apart. And such a hatnote would be highly inappropriate for the same reason I gave above -- there are many many dishes whose name on Indian menus would include "murgh"; pointing to just one would make no sense. And before you bring it up, disambiguating would also be wrong as entries would be nothing but WP:PTMs. A reader who doesn't know what "murgh" is will be able to figure out what it is much more easily if the redirect didn't exist, both by the nature of the search results, and the prominent link to Wiktionary. Most people would be confused as to why searching for "murgh" took them to "Chicken as food", which would give them no information that this is a word used in Indian cuisine. A simple definition is much more likely to be useful than a whole-ass article on chicken as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)
[edit]- John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer) → John Mills (New Zealand cricketer) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
This repetitive redirect is a leftover from a 2015 move to the correctly formatted counterpart. I'm not sure someone would search "cricketer cricketer" rather than just "cricketer," further muddying this thing's plausibility. Regards, SONIC678 05:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think we can delete "John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)". It must have been set up as either a typo or a joke, and I don't see how it can serve any useful purpose.
- Sammyrice (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Basically unused over the course of a year, implausible search, implausible error. Fieari (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Alpha-chlornaltrexamine
[edit]- Alpha-chlornaltrexamine → Β-Chlornaltrexamine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Α-Chlornaltrexamine → Β-Chlornaltrexamine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
- Α-chlornaltrexamine → Β-Chlornaltrexamine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The target article is specifically about β-chlornaltrexamine; while there is a cited mention of its isomer α-Chlornaltrexamine at the target, it is generally potentially misleading and confusing to redirect names of different compounds to articles about other specific compounds. Delete these redirects to encourage article creation about the isomer and avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:REDYES and to avoid confusion per nom. TNstingray (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:JDELANOY
[edit]- Wikipedia:JDELANOY → User:J.delanoy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
We shouldn't open the WP:PANDORA's box of creating shortcuts to people's base user pages. I get that some subpages work as shortcuts (e.g. WP:LUPIN points to User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool), but this feels very different. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Wikipedia:JZG for deletion of a similar redirect (this one to the user's talk page). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete WP:XNRs should be discouraged as much as possible, with few exceptions. I don't think this merits being one of those exceptions. Fieari (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why is that so? Mainspace-to-[insert non-reader-facing namespace here] redirects should clearly be discouraged, but that logic does not apply to this sort of redirect. J947 ‡ edits 06:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as harmless. WP:PANDORA is harmful nonsense (WP:OTHERSTUFF + WP:CRYSTAL + WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and Wikipedia: to User: CNRs aren't intrinsically harmful and the nominator hasn't given any other valid reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per WP:CHEAP; nobody's going to run into any issues here-- the only ones using the WP namespace in the firstplace are us editors. As for the Pandora argument, see also WP:GETBACKINTHERE. I wasn't the one who made the shortcut but I will gladly use it to get to my own essay :3 Thank you Mwwv :3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why, you're welcome! ^w^ I too hate when people wax and ball their way into not liking it, and I felt your essay explained that the best, so of course I just had to create a redirect to it. Might as well create WP:GBIT too. mwwv converse∫edits 18:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and a WP:TROUT for the creator. Project space redirects are not for making shortcuts to random user pages. Such redirects are unneeded and further pollute the search box dropdown, rendering them harmful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per Fieari and IP. Actively harmful XNR redirect. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Disaster recovery
[edit]- Disaster recovery → IT disaster recovery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Should probably more appropriately target Emergency management#Recovery. Many, many links to due to it being from a page move and I don't know which tool to use to automate a fix. Tule-hog (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesty ping to Kvng for any thoughts on the retarget. Tule-hog (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should create Disaster recovery (disambiguation) and redirect there. Why are we at RfD with this? ~Kvng (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Only because I have no idea how to handle all the 'links to this page's, feel free to delete this! Disambiguation could be good, but I'm not sure of the guidelines of how many articles are needed to justify it. Tule-hog (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Disambiguation pages can be made with only two examples, but more commonly in that situation there's a WP:PTOPIC that we link to first, with a hatnote linking to the other article. If there's three pages to be disambiguated, a DAB page is much more likely, and four nearly assures we'll want a DAB. So it's not a binary black/white thing, but more a gradient.Fieari (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Only because I have no idea how to handle all the 'links to this page's, feel free to delete this! Disambiguation could be good, but I'm not sure of the guidelines of how many articles are needed to justify it. Tule-hog (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should create Disaster recovery (disambiguation) and redirect there. Why are we at RfD with this? ~Kvng (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Potential Disaster recovery topics:
- ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Started! Would it be possible to automate changing the 'links here' from Disaster recovery to point to IT disaster recovery? (Or maybe thats generally bad form on WP?) Tule-hog (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Move the new DAB page over redirect unless there is a consensus that the current target or the alternative target proposed by the nominator is a primary one. I don't see one at the moment, and WP:NOPRIMARY would govern then. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm far too IT-minded to make a meaningful call on WP:PTOPIC 😬 —Tule-hog (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)