Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión

Redirecciones para discusión ( RfD ) es el lugar donde se discuten las redirecciones potencialmente problemáticas . Los elementos suelen permanecer en la lista durante una semana aproximadamente, después de lo cual se eliminan, se conservan o se redirigen.

Si desea reemplazar una redirección no protegida con un artículo, no lo incluya aquí. Se recomienda encarecidamente convertir las redirecciones en artículos. ¡ Sea valiente !
Si desea mover una página pero hay una redirección que lo impide, no la incluya aquí. En casos que no generen controversias, presente una solicitud técnica ; si se requiere una discusión, inicie un movimiento solicitado .
Si cree que una redirección apunta al artículo de destino incorrecto, este es un buen lugar para analizar el destino adecuado.
No se deben eliminar las redirecciones solo porque no tienen enlaces entrantes. No utilice este motivo como única razón para eliminar una redirección. Sin embargo, las redirecciones que sí tienen enlaces entrantes a veces se eliminan, por lo que no es una condición suficiente para conservarlas. (Consulte § ¿Cuándo debemos eliminar una redirección? para obtener más información).

No cambie unilateralmente el nombre ni el destino de una redirección mientras se está discutiendo. Esto agrega complicaciones innecesarias a la discusión para los participantes y los que cierran el tema.

Antes de incluir una redirección para su discusión

Tenga en cuenta estas políticas generales, que se aplican aquí y en otros lugares:

Wikipedia:Redireccionamiento : qué son los redireccionamientos, por qué existen y cómo se utilizan.
Wikipedia: Criterios para una eliminación rápida : qué páginas pueden eliminarse sin discusión; en particular las secciones " General " y " Redirecciones ".
Wikipedia:Política de eliminación : cómo eliminamos cosas por consenso.
Wikipedia:Guía para la eliminación : pautas sobre el formato de discusión y abreviaturas.

Los principios rectores de la RfD

Atajo

Guía WP:R

El objetivo de una buena redirección es eliminar la posibilidad de que los lectores se queden mirando fijamente "Resultados de búsqueda 1 a 10 de 378" en lugar del artículo que estaban buscando. Si alguien pudiera introducir de forma plausible el nombre de la redirección al buscar el artículo de destino, se trata de una buena redirección.
Las redirecciones son económicas . Ocupan poco espacio de almacenamiento y utilizan muy poco ancho de banda. No es perjudicial si hay algunas de ellas dispersas por todas partes. Por otro lado, eliminar las redirecciones también es económico porque registrar la eliminación ocupa poco espacio de almacenamiento y utiliza muy poco ancho de banda. No hay ningún problema en eliminar las redirecciones problemáticas.
Si una nominación de RfD de buena fe propone eliminar una redirección y no hay discusión después de al menos 7 días, el resultado predeterminado es eliminar .
Las redirecciones nominadas en contravención de Wikipedia: la redirección se mantendrá rápidamente .
RfD también puede servir como un foro de discusión central para debatir sobre a qué página debe dirigirse un redireccionamiento. En los casos en que la reorientación del redireccionamiento pueda considerarse controvertida, es recomendable dejar un aviso en la página de discusión de la página de destino actual del redireccionamiento o de la página de destino propuesta para remitir a los lectores a la propuesta del redireccionamiento y permitir la participación y ayudar a formar un consenso sobre el destino del redireccionamiento.
No es necesario incluir aquí las solicitudes de eliminación de redirecciones desde la página de discusión de una página a la de otra. Cualquiera puede eliminar la redirección borrando la página. El criterio G6 para la eliminación rápida puede ser adecuado.
En las discusiones, pregúntese siempre si una redirección sería útil o no para el lector.

¿Cuándo debemos eliminar una redirección?

Atajos

WP:RFD#DAÑINO
¿Qué es RFD?

Las principales razones por las que la eliminación de redirecciones es perjudicial son:

una redirección puede contener un historial de edición no trivial;
Si una redirección es razonablemente antigua (o es el resultado de mover una página que ha estado allí durante bastante tiempo), entonces es posible que su eliminación rompa los enlaces entrantes (tales enlaces que provienen de revisiones anteriores de páginas de Wikipedia, de resúmenes de ediciones, de otros proyectos de Wikimedia o de otros lugares de Internet , no aparecen en "Lo que enlaza aquí" ).

Por lo tanto, considere eliminar únicamente las redirecciones dañinas o las recientes.

Razones para eliminar

Atajo

WP:RFD#BORRAR

Es posible que desee eliminar una redirección si se cumple una o más de las siguientes condiciones ( pero tenga en cuenta también las excepciones que se enumeran debajo de esta lista ):

La página de redireccionamiento dificulta excesivamente a los usuarios la búsqueda de artículos con nombres similares a través del motor de búsqueda. Por ejemplo, si el usuario busca "Artículos nuevos" y es redirigido a una página de desambiguación para "Artículos", tardará mucho más tiempo en llegar a los artículos recién añadidos en Wikipedia.
La redirección podría causar confusión. Por ejemplo, si "Adam B. Smith" fue redirigido a "Andrew B. Smith", porque Andrew fue llamado Adam por accidente en una fuente, esto podría causar confusión con el artículo sobre Adam Smith , por lo que la redirección debería eliminarse.
La redirección es ofensiva o abusiva, como por ejemplo redirigir "Joe Bloggs es un perdedor" a "Joe Bloggs" (a menos que "Joe Bloggs es un perdedor" se mencione legítimamente en el artículo), o "Joe Bloggs" a "Perdedor". ( Pueden aplicarse los criterios de eliminación rápida G10 y G3 ). Véase también § Neutralidad de las redirecciones.
La redirección constituye autopromoción o spam. ( Puede aplicarse el criterio de eliminación rápida G11 ).
La redirección no tiene sentido, por ejemplo, redirigir "Apple" a "Orange". ( Puede aplicarse el criterio de eliminación rápida G1 ).
Se trata de una redirección entre espacios de nombres que sale del espacio de artículos, como una que apunta al espacio de nombres User o Wikipedia. La principal excepción a esta regla son las redirecciones de acceso directo a pseudoespacios de nombres , que técnicamente están en el espacio de artículos principal. Algunas redirecciones entre espacios de nombres de larga data también se mantienen debido a su larga historia y su posible utilidad. Las redirecciones " MOS: ", por ejemplo, fueron una excepción a esta regla hasta que se convirtieron en su propio espacio de nombres en 2024. (Tenga en cuenta también la existencia de alias de espacios de nombres como WP: . El criterio de eliminación rápida R2 puede aplicarse si el espacio de nombres de destino es algo distinto de Category: , Template: , Wikipedia: , Help: o Portal: ).
Si la redirección está rota, es decir, redirige a un artículo que no existe, se puede eliminar inmediatamente según el criterio de eliminación rápida G8 . Debe comprobar que no haya otro lugar al que se pueda redirigir adecuadamente en primer lugar y que no se haya dañado por vandalismo.
Si la redirección es un sinónimo nuevo o muy poco conocido de un nombre de artículo que no se menciona en el destino, es poco probable que sea útil. En particular, las redirecciones en un idioma distinto del inglés a una página cuyo tema no esté relacionado con ese idioma (o una cultura que hable ese idioma) generalmente no deben crearse. (Los errores tipográficos o los nombres incorrectos inverosímiles son candidatos para el criterio de eliminación rápida R3 , si se crearon recientemente).
Si el artículo de destino debe ser movido al título de redirección, pero la redirección ha sido editada antes y tiene su propio historial, entonces el título debe ser liberado para dejar lugar para el movimiento. Si el movimiento no es controversial, etiquete la redirección para eliminación rápida de G6 , o alternativamente (con el suppressredirectderecho del usuario; disponible para los que mueven páginas y los administradores), realice un movimiento por turnos . Si no, lleve el artículo a Movimientos solicitados .
Atajo
- WP:RETORNADO
Si la redirección pudiera ampliarse de manera plausible a un artículo, y el artículo de destino prácticamente no contiene información sobre el tema.

Razones para no eliminar

Atajo

WP:RFD#MANTENER

Sin embargo, evite eliminar dichas redirecciones si:

Tienen un historial de páginas potencialmente útil, o un historial de edición que se debe mantener para cumplir con los requisitos de licencia para una fusión (ver Wikipedia:Fusionar y eliminar ). Por otro lado, si la redirección se creó al cambiar el nombre de una página con ese nombre, y el historial de la página solo menciona el cambio de nombre, y por una de las razones anteriores desea eliminar la página, copie el historial de la página a la página de Discusión del artículo al que redirige. El acto de cambiar el nombre es un historial de páginas útil, y más aún si ha habido una discusión sobre el nombre de la página.
Estos enlaces facilitarían la creación de enlaces accidentales y harían menos probable la creación de artículos duplicados , ya sea redirigiendo un plural a un singular, redirigiendo un error ortográfico frecuente a uno correcto, redirigiendo un nombre erróneo a un término correcto, redirigiendo a un sinónimo, etc. En otras palabras, los redireccionamientos sin enlaces entrantes no son candidatos para la eliminación por esos motivos porque son beneficiosos para el usuario que navega. Se requerirá una vigilancia adicional por parte de los editores para minimizar la aparición de esos errores ortográficos frecuentes en el texto del artículo porque los errores ortográficos enlazados no aparecerán como enlaces rotos; considere etiquetar el redireccionamiento con la plantilla {{ R from misspelling }} para ayudar a los editores a monitorear estos errores ortográficos.
Facilitan las búsquedas de determinados términos. Por ejemplo, los usuarios que vean que se menciona " Keystone State " en algún lugar pero no sepan a qué se refiere, podrán averiguarlo en el artículo sobre Pensilvania (objetivo).
Eliminar redirecciones conlleva el riesgo de romper enlaces entrantes o internos. Por ejemplo, las redirecciones resultantes de cambios de página normalmente no deberían eliminarse sin una buena razón. Los enlaces que han existido durante un tiempo significativo, incluidos los enlaces CamelCase (por ejemplo, WolVes ) y los enlaces de subpáginas antiguas , deberían dejarse intactos en caso de que existan enlaces en páginas externas que apunten a ellos. Véase también Wikipedia:Rotura de enlaces § Rotura de enlaces en sitios que no son de Wikimedia .
Alguien los encuentra útiles. Sugerencia: si alguien dice que le resulta útil una redirección, probablemente sea así. Es posible que a usted no le resulte útil, no porque la otra persona esté mintiendo, sino porque navega por Wikipedia de diferentes maneras. La evidencia del uso se puede medir utilizando la herramienta Wikishark o PageViews en la redirección para ver la cantidad de visitas que recibe.
La redirección se realiza a una forma de palabra estrechamente relacionada, como una forma plural a una forma singular .

Neutralidad de las redirecciones

Atajo

WP:RNEUTRAL

Así como los títulos de artículos que utilizan un lenguaje no neutral están permitidos en algunas circunstancias , también lo están dichas redirecciones. Debido a que las redirecciones son menos visibles para los lectores, se permite más libertad en sus nombres, por lo tanto, la falta percibida de neutralidad en los nombres de las redirecciones no es una razón suficiente para su eliminación. En la mayoría de los casos, las redirecciones no neutrales pero verificables deben apuntar a artículos con títulos neutrales sobre el tema del término. Las redirecciones no neutrales pueden estar etiquetadas con .{{R from non-neutral name}}

Las redirecciones no neutrales se crean comúnmente por tres razones:

Los artículos que se crean utilizando títulos no neutrales se mueven rutinariamente a un nuevo título neutral, lo que deja atrás el antiguo título no neutral como una redirección funcional (por ejemplo, Climategate → Controversia por correo electrónico de la Unidad de Investigación Climática ).
Los artículos creados como bifurcaciones de POV pueden eliminarse y reemplazarse por una redirección que apunte al artículo del cual se originó la bifurcación (por ejemplo, rumor musulmán de Barack Obama → eliminado y ahora redirigido a teorías conspirativas sobre la religión de Barack Obama ).
El tema de los artículos puede estar representado por algunas fuentes externas a Wikipedia en términos no neutrales. Dichos términos generalmente se evitan en los títulos de los artículos de Wikipedia, de acuerdo con las pautas de palabras que se deben evitar y la política general de punto de vista neutral . Por ejemplo, la expresión no neutral " Attorneygate " se utiliza para redirigir al artículo de título neutral Dismissal of US attorneys controversial . El artículo en cuestión nunca ha utilizado ese título, pero la redirección se creó para proporcionar un medio alternativo para llegar a él porque varios informes de prensa utilizan el término.

Las excepciones a esta regla serían las redirecciones que no son términos establecidos y que es poco probable que sean útiles, y por lo tanto pueden ser nominadas para su eliminación, tal vez bajo la razón de eliminación n.° 3. Sin embargo, si una redirección representa un término establecido que se utiliza en múltiples fuentes confiables , se debe mantener incluso si no es neutral, ya que facilitará las búsquedas de dichos términos. Tenga en cuenta que RfD no es el lugar para resolver la mayoría de las disputas editoriales.

Notas de cierre

Detalles en Instrucciones del administrador para RfD

Las nominaciones deben permanecer abiertas, según la política , aproximadamente una semana antes de que se cierren, a menos que cumplan con los criterios generales para la eliminación rápida , los criterios para la eliminación rápida de una redirección o no sean solicitudes de discusión de redirección válidas (por ejemplo, en realidad son solicitudes de movimiento ).

Cómo incluir una redirección para su discusión

Atajo

WP:RFDCOMO

Considere utilizar la opción ¿Qué enlaces hay aquí? para localizar otras redirecciones que puedan estar relacionadas con la que está nominando. Después de ir a la página de destino de la redirección y seleccionar "Qué enlaces hay aquí" en la caja de herramientas del lado izquierdo de la pantalla de su computadora, seleccione los filtros "Ocultar inclusiones" y "Ocultar enlaces" para mostrar las redirecciones a la página de destino de la redirección.

Lista actual

Atajos

WP:RFD#ACTUAL
Página de inicio: RFDCD
Página de inicio: RFDCL

25 de octubre

Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa

Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa → Asamblea Legislativa de Goa (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Gujarat → Asamblea Legislativa de Gujarat (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Haryana → Asamblea Legislativa de Haryana (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Jammu y Cachemira → Asamblea Legislativa de Jammu y Cachemira (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Jharkhand → Asamblea Legislativa de Jharkhand (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Madhya Pradesh → Asamblea Legislativa de Madhya Pradesh (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Manipur → Asamblea Legislativa de Manipur (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Nagaland → Asamblea Legislativa de Nagaland (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Puducherry → Asamblea Legislativa de Puducherry (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Rajastán → Asamblea Legislativa de Rajastán (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Uttar Pradesh → Asamblea Legislativa de Uttar Pradesh (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

No hay lista de vicepresidentes en ninguno de los objetivos. RfD abierta similar: Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión#Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 14:51 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar todo : Por nombre. Son redirecciones engañosas si en realidad no hay una lista en el destino. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 16:14, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Hoppy la rana

Hoppy la Rana → Pepe la Rana ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Parece ser un meme similar pero no relacionado con el objetivo. Tampoco se menciona allí. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 14:33, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Campeonato Mundial de Atletismo en Pista Cubierta 2028

Campeonato Mundial de Atletismo en Pista Cubierta 2028 → Campeonato Mundial de Atletismo en Pista Cubierta (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay información relevante ni mención del evento de 2028 en el objetivo, engañoso y WP:TOOSOON . Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 13:39, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Futuros campeonatos mundiales de Fórmula 1

Campeonato Mundial de Fórmula Uno 2028 → Fórmula Uno#Grandes Premios Contratados (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Campeonato Mundial de Fórmula Uno 2029 → Fórmula Uno#Grandes Premios Contratados (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Campeonato Mundial de Fórmula Uno 2030 → Fórmula Uno#Grandes Premios Contratados (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Campeonato Mundial de Fórmula Uno 2031 → Fórmula Uno#Grandes Premios Contratados (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Campeonato Mundial de Fórmula Uno 2032 → Fórmula Uno#Grandes Premios Contratados (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Campeonato Mundial de Fórmula Uno 2033 → Fórmula Uno#Grandes Premios Contratados (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Campeonato Mundial de Fórmula Uno 2034 → Fórmula Uno#Grandes Premios Contratados (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La única información relevante en el objetivo es que algunos de los grandes premios están contratados hasta el año x en Fórmula Uno#Grandes premios contratados . Tal como están las cosas, cualquiera que busque esto encontrará una falta de información relevante sobre el campeonato de esa temporada, por lo tanto, las redirecciones son engañosas y WP:TOOSOON . Hola, soy josh ( discusión ) 13:27, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sin duda, creaciones de artículos sin sentido. Quizá también sea una advertencia para el creador, ya que supongo que era la misma persona, para evitar que se vuelva a perder el tiempo con este ejercicio. Seasider53 ( discusión ) 13:35 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Seasider53 : No creo que sea necesaria una advertencia en este momento. Creo que el editor tiene la experiencia suficiente para no recrear innecesariamente las redirecciones si esta nominación resulta en una eliminación. A veces, una eliminación es suficiente y no creo que sea necesario ir más allá en este momento. Además, para que quede claro, ¿estás haciendo un comentario general o votando por la eliminación en este caso? Hola, soy josh ( discusión ) 13:41, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apoyo su eliminación. Seasider53 ( discusión ) 13:42 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar todas las redirecciones que no sean de ayuda y que sean francamente inútiles. SSSB ( discusión ) 15:51 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Futuras temporadas de la Premier League india

Liga Premier de la India 2026 → Liga Premier de la India (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Liga Premier de la India 2027 → Liga Premier de la India (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
2028 Indian Premier League → Indian Premier League (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
2029 Indian Premier League → Indian Premier League (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Liga Premier de la India 2030 → Liga Premier de la India (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay información relevante en el destino, elimínela por ser engañosa y WP:TOOSOON . Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 13:17, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Débil, solo se mantendrá en 2026 : la próxima temporada siguiente y eliminará todas las demás como WP:TOOSOON . Vestrian24Bio ( DISCURSO ) 14:41 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ceddin Deden

Ceddin Deden → Banda militar otomana#"Ceddin Deden" (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El artículo ya no menciona a Ceddin Deden en ningún sentido. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 contribs 11:25, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

4 de abril de 1974

4 de abril de 1974 → Super Brote de 1974 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Voy a volver a incluir esto en redirecciones para discusión porque creé esta redirección por error. La fecha correcta se suponía que era el 3 de abril de 1974. ¡El huracán Clyde ! 🌀 ^{¡Mi página de discusión!} 05:59, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Anteriormente se había cerrado por falta de consenso. Probablemente cumplía los criterios de eliminación rápida, pero lo había enviado con anticipación y lo había modificado porque en ese momento se estaba llevando a cabo una discusión similar. ¡ El huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 06:00, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Propongo eliminar la redirección de error. ¡El huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 06:01, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Como alternativa, yo preferiría reorientar el tiempo a abril de 1974. Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{¡Mi página de discusión!} 00:40, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tenga en cuenta que la solicitud de modificación anterior fue Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/2024 3 de octubre#31 de marzo de 2023 , que se cerró por falta de consenso. Por lo tanto, la redirección no se puede eliminar rápidamente según los criterios G6 o G7. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 07:50 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nota 2 : esto sería una eliminación técnica sin que se elimine ningún contenido real, lo que es una excepción a la regla mencionada anteriormente. La redirección se puede eliminar rápidamente ya que se creó por error. Además, nadie estaba a favor de mantener esta redirección en particular en la discusión anterior; la nota del creador, mencionada al menos tres veces durante esa discusión, en el sentido de que era un error que debía eliminarse, pareció pasar completamente desapercibida. Así que elimínenla . P Aculeius ( discusión ) 12:51 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cualquier redirección que haya sobrevivido a una discusión previa sobre eliminación, independientemente del motivo, es explícitamente inelegible para la mayoría de los criterios de eliminación rápida, incluidos G7 y casi todos los G6. Los comentarios en la RfD anterior favorecían la redirección, no la eliminación. El contenido se eliminaría aquí, por lo que no es una excepción. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 13:57, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto está claramente cubierto como "una excepción a la norma de que una página sobreviva a su discusión de eliminación más reciente". Y debido a que esto se creó como una redirección, nunca hubo ningún contenido para guardar . Se creó por error ; el autor lo ha dicho explícitamente varias veces. Esta es una eliminación técnica de una redirección que no tiene ningún propósito útil, por lo que no hay razón para retrasarla. P Aculeius ( discusión ) 16:34 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sabemos que se creó por error, eso es irrelevante ahora que otros editores recomendaron algo distinto a la eliminación. Las redirecciones no cumplen con la exención de G6 ya que se perderán. Si no está de acuerdo con esto, inicie una discusión en WT:CSD para cambiar la política, pero a menos que y hasta que se logre un consenso, esto no se puede eliminar rápidamente. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 17:33, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lee la política. Dice claramente que las eliminaciones técnicas en las que no se perderá ningún contenido son excepciones . La razón es que no hay ninguna razón concebible para retrasar la eliminación. No necesito cambiar nada; eso es lo que dice, como ya he explicado dos veces. La idea de que la excepción no se puede eliminar rápidamente porque "se perderá la redirección" es una tontería absoluta, porque según esa lectura nada podría eliminarse rápidamente, ¡y el lenguaje sobre las excepciones no se aplicaría a nada! ¿Por qué estamos retrasando la eliminación de un error que nunca debería haber existido? P Aculeius ( discusión ) 21:17 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He leído la política varias veces y establece claramente que la excepción no se aplica cuando se pierde contenido. El contenido del que se habla aquí es una redirección que se perderá. La excepción se aplica a eliminaciones temporales y cosas como movimientos por turnos.
¿Por qué estamos retrasando la eliminación de un error que nunca debió haber existido? Porque el consenso de la discusión anterior fue que no debería eliminarse. Un editor no puede anular el consenso. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 01:50 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una redirección no es contenido, es un título sin contenido, y esto nunca ha sido nada más que una redirección. El concepto de excepciones no tendría sentido si la mera existencia de un título fuera contenido que necesita ser protegido de ser eliminado. No hubo consenso sobre si esta redirección debería mantenerse; aparte de que el autor solicitó que se eliminara por error, no hubo discusión alguna sobre esta redirección. Fue completamente ignorada en esa discusión, y la falta de discusión muestra que no hubo consenso entre todos. Por favor, dejen de obstruir una mera eliminación técnica de un error que nunca ha tenido ninguna justificación para existir. P Aculeius ( discusión ) 03:32 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me niego a seguir hablando contigo porque claramente no escuchas nada de lo que digo. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 04:24 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, aun así; había creado esta redirección por error; y debido a que sobrevivió a la RfD anterior; eso tiró por la ventana la eliminación rápida; así que la volví a incluir aquí. La redirección correcta para el brote de superpoblación es el 3 de abril de 1974. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 16:35, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo . No entiendo por qué la redirección es un error, el artículo dice que el brote fue el 3 y 4 de abril de 1974. La lista de tornados en el evento del Súper Brote de 1974 del 4 de abril parecería confirmarlo, ¿no? (Nota: esto explícitamente no es un respaldo a la interpretación de Thryduulf de CSD). -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 17:43 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Porque la parte del 4 de abril se trasladó principalmente a la noche del 3 de abril (que era la fecha que tenía pensado utilizar). La mayoría, si no todos, de los tornados del 4 de abril se produjeron en las primeras horas de la mañana. ¡El huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 18:10, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hubo algunos casos atípicos, pero la gran mayoría de los tornados del 4 de abril se produjeron en las primeras horas de la mañana. ¿Ves por qué dije que la redirección era un error? Tenía la intención de utilizar la fecha de los tornados violentos F5 (por ejemplo, el tornado de Xenia ); en lugar de la fecha en la que el brote estaba disminuyendo. ¡El huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 18:12, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, todavía no entiendo por qué dijiste que la redirección fue un error. Incluso si la mayoría de los tornados del 4 de abril ocurrieron en las "primeras horas de la mañana", aún es el 4 de abril... La lista incluye un par de tornados F3 mortales, así que no es como si no fueran violentos. Dicho esto, si realmente quieres que se elimine la redirección, no me interpondré en tu camino porque respeto los deseos del autor. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 19:01 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mi razonamiento es que el 3 de abril fue el día principal del brote y tenía la intención de crear la redirección para el día principal. Si realmente vale la pena tener una redirección, entonces estoy a favor de mantenerla o cambiar el objetivo. Pero probablemente solo sea cuestión de tiempo antes de que GeorgeMemulous o alguien más la vuelva a modificar. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 19:22, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Tavix , si estás decidido a conservar esto, en un segundo lugar distante, tal vez prefiera reorientarlo a abril de 1974. ¡ El huracán Clyde ! 🌀 ¡ ^{Mi página de discusión!} 00:41, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redireccionar a abril de 1974. No deberíamos redirigir fechas a eventos excepto en casos excepcionales como el 6 de enero de 2021. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 07:29, 19 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redireccionamiento débil ; el brote tiene importancia a largo plazo y podría ser el tema principal. Sin embargo, sigo siendo receloso de redireccionar a un solo evento. Mi preferencia es redireccionar a la sección correcta de abril de 1974. Definitivamente no debería eliminarse. Vea los argumentos expuestos en WP:RDATE . Cremastra ( u — c )
Retarget por [[ Usuario:LaundryPizza03 - No deberíamos apuntar a fechas que posiblemente sucedieron ese día en un mundo en el que muchas cosas habrán sucedido ese día, a menos que haya una razón plausible para creer que las personas que buscan esa fecha querrán ver ese evento específico. FOARP ( discusión ) 09:56 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ^{¡Lee! ¡Habla!} 03:38, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Voluntad (sociología)

Voluntad (sociología) → Gemeinschaft y Gesellschaft ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La palabra "voluntad" ni siquiera aparece en la página y no resulta obvio a qué se refiere. Batrachoseps ( discusión ) 15:27 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Retarget a Ferdinand Tönnies#Gemeinschaft y Gesellschaft , donde se explica. - Charla del presidente · contribuciones ( Talkback ) 16:37, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Sigue así . Tönnies se centraba en el voluntarismo; eso lo explica todo. Cf. También: Voluntarismo (filosofía) , aunque creo que este no es, de hecho, el objetivo ideal. Biohistorian15 ( discusión ) 13:31 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir a Will (página de desambiguación) ya que el desambiguador me hace creer que esta redirección se refiere a Will and testament , pero la discusión anterior sugiere que existen múltiples posibilidades. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 16:17 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Mantener o reorientar?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Redirigido por el usuario: Steel1943 . Múltiples significados potenciales, vayamos al nivel más alto. FOARP ( discusión ) 09:57 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ^{¡Lee! ¡Habla!} 03:37, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Plantillas de la Copa Asiática Sub-20 de la AFC 2025

Plantillas de la Copa Asiática Sub-20 de la AFC 2025 → Copa Asiática Sub-20 de la AFC 2025 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay escuadrones en la lista de destino, redirección engañosa. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 03:13, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Plantillas de la Copa Mundial de Beach Soccer de la FIFA 2025

Plantillas de la Copa Mundial de Beach Soccer de la FIFA 2025 → Copa Mundial de Beach Soccer de la FIFA 2025 (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay escuadrones en la lista de destino, redirección engañosa. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 03:13, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Plantillas de la Copa Africana de Naciones 2025

Plantillas de la Copa Africana de Naciones 2025 → Copa Africana de Naciones 2025 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Escuadrones no incluidos en el objetivo, redirección engañosa. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 03:12, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

3 de junio de 2007

3 de junio de 2007 → 3 de junio (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No es de mucha ayuda. Redirigir a Portal:Actualidad/3 de junio de 2007 según los argumentos en WP:RDATE . Cremastra ( u — c ) 00:23, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Parece que lo creé hace mucho tiempo, no estoy seguro de por qué. No tengo objeciones a ninguna decisión al respecto. Jeepday ( discusión ) 13:33 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eirik Suhrke

Eirik Suhrke → Ridiculous Fishing ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Actualmente, los enlaces al nombre del compositor Eirik Suhrke llevan al artículo del juego Ridiculous Fishing. Esto ha creado confusión en algunas páginas de discusión, ya que se le atribuye haber trabajado en varios juegos y su mención en el artículo de Ridiculous Fishing se limita a una oración que dice que fue el compositor del juego. Dada la falta de cobertura sobre el propio hombre y la extensa lista de trabajos notables en los que ha estado involucrado, parece que sería mejor eliminar la redirección, ya que apunta a un artículo que contiene tanta información sobre él como sobre cualquier otro juego en el que haya trabajado. XeCyranium ( discusión ) 04:36, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Cuartel General de CSSH

CSSHQ → Nave espacial experimental china reutilizable (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Eliminación, por favor, consulte aquí las razones. En resumen, la abreviatura es una investigación original y no se utiliza en fuentes oficiales. He limpiado todos los enlaces a esta redirección, pero debería eliminarse para evitar que se trate como un nombre alternativo válido. 103.66.132.62 (discusión) 11:58, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

24 de octubre

Investigación: Reclutamiento, retención y deserción de administradores de Wikipedia

Investigación: Reclutamiento, retención y deserción de administradores de Wikipedia → meta:Investigación: Reclutamiento, retención y deserción de administradores de Wikipedia (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Extraño espacio no relacionado con nombres; es muy probable que deba eliminarse. Dejando eso de lado: la plantilla simple {{ soft redirect }} no se usa en el espacio principal (en la línea del sentimiento expresado en WP:SOFTSP ). Por lo tanto, consulte esta discusión sobre eliminación ; si se considera que esto es digno de existir tal como está, _entonces será necesario restaurar esa plantilla. — Godsy^{( CONVERSACIÓN}₎ 21:58, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo como una redirección cruzada wiki útil y no ambigua. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 23:19, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar No es nuestra responsabilidad limpiar la desprolijidad de la WMF. *Pppery* _{ya ha comenzado...} 05:15, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténganse . ¿Qué diablos les pasa a ustedes, borradores desenfrenados? Creé esa redirección porque alguien publicó en mi página de discusión un enlace a ella, así que imagino que publicaron el mismo enlace incorrecto en muchas otras páginas de discusión. En otras palabras, la redirección es útil y soluciona un problema para varias personas. ( Ataque personal eliminado ) Si quieren ser útiles, revisen todas esas páginas de discusión y arreglen los enlaces, aunque en este punto es probable que muchas personas ya hayan hecho clic en el enlace incorrecto y hayan sido redirigidas correctamente debido a mi intervención. — Timwi ( discusión ) 05:45, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si imaginabas que publicaron el mismo enlace erróneo en muchas otras páginas de discusión , ¿verificaste si lo hicieron ? Veo cuatro enlaces de discusión de usuarios en su whatlinkshere . Uno de ellos es al suyo, uno de ellos es al tuyo (aviso de RFD), uno de ellos es a una dirección IP que editó la página de manera disruptiva y el último... No tengo idea, supongo que es un enlace accidental a Wikipedia en lugar de a Meta. mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 12:01, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
De hecho, lo hicieron. Usaron enlaces a Special:MyLanguage que no son rastreados por WhatLinksHere. Y sí, lo sé. Y soy un "borrador desenfrenado" y estoy orgulloso de ello. Pero aún no es nuestro trabajo comprometer el espacio principal para limpiar la dejadez de WMF. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 17:12, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

eliminar . resultó de un enlace mal formado en una plantilla ( Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, probablemente opuesto a meta:Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, ya que el segundo enlace era wmf:Special:MyLanguage/Legal:Administrator Experiences 2024 Survey Privacy Statement), por lo que es más fácil simplemente arreglarlo y dar por terminado el asunto. También recomendaría notificar a bgerdemann cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 14:36, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Copa Mundial de Rugby 2035

Copa Mundial de Rugby 2035 → Copa Mundial de Rugby ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El objetivo no contiene información ni mención del evento de 2035, lo que lo convierte en una redirección engañosa e inútil. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 21:12 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar : parece un intento de impedir la creación de artículos en el futuro. No es útil según el nombre. FOARP ( discusión ) 21:23 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre y WP:REDYES . Cremastra ( u — c ) 01:39, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 05:21 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por WP:TOOSOON . ¡La Iglesia de Inglaterra, Dios salve al rey! ( discusión ) 06:13 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Índice de democracia

Índice de democracia → Índice de democracia de The Economist ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Índice de democracia → Índices de democracia (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No estoy seguro de qué tan importante es el índice de The Economist para el nombre con mayúscula inicial, pero estos deberían apuntar al mismo objetivo. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:42, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

(1) Índice de la democracia : Yo tampoco estoy seguro de hasta qué punto es primario el índice de The Economist. Por un lado, se podría decir que un término genérico debería apuntar al artículo general en lugar de a un artículo sobre un índice en particular (aunque, para ser pedante, el término genérico sería "Índice de la democracia", no "Índice de la democracia"). Por otro lado, se me ocurren razones por las que sería mejor mantener la redirección actual. El artículo Índices de la democracia menciona varios índices, pero el Índice de la democracia de The Economist es el único que contiene la expresión "Índice de la democracia", lo que podría interpretarse como una indicación de que se trata de un significado primario, ya que es probablemente el que se busca con más frecuencia bajo esas palabras. También está el hecho de que la redirección Índice de la democracia se creó moviendo el artículo que ahora se titula Índice de la democracia de The Economist , pero que había estado en Índice de la democracia durante 16 años (aparte de un período de 32 minutos cuando un editor disruptivo lo movió a otro título, y volvió a moverse rápidamente) por lo que cambiar el título de la redirección podría romper los enlaces. Actualmente hay 588 enlaces internos a él, y puede haber enlaces externos, o enlaces en las computadoras de los usuarios individuales o lo que sea. Teniendo en cuenta todas esas consideraciones, estoy a favor de mantener la redirección Índice de la democracia → Índice de la democracia de The Economist.

(2) Índice de la democracia : esta es una redirección casi sin sentido. Ha tenido 2 visitas en los últimos 30 días (en comparación con las 9.892 de Índice de la democracia ). Por lo tanto, no creo que importe mucho lo que le pase. Sin embargo, "Índice de la democracia", a diferencia de "Índice de la democracia", no está contenido en el título de ningún índice en particular, por lo que no hay ningún índice en particular con ninguna pretensión de ser un significado primario. También hay un caso para decir que en ausencia de una razón de peso para hacer lo contrario es mejor dejarlo donde está, porque alguien en algún lugar puede esperar que esté allí, aunque en este caso ese es un caso extremadamente débil. Mi conclusión es que, como dije anteriormente, no importa mucho lo que le pase a esta redirección, pero en general prefiero dejarla donde está.

(3) No me parece convincente el argumento de que ambas redirecciones deberían apuntar al mismo destino. No hay ninguna razón por la que lo que sucede si alguien busca un título deba verse influenciado por lo que hubiera sucedido si hubiera buscado el otro.

WP:TLDR versión abreviada: Mantenlos como están. JBW ( discusión ) 21:44 27 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a Índice de democracia de The Economist . – Closed Limelike Curves ( discusión ) 22:12 27 septiembre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantenga Democracy Index como está. Prácticamente todos los que buscan o enlazan a Democracy Index esperan este tema. De hecho, el artículo debería tener un título más conciso. La redirección tiene un promedio de 312 visitas por día (una cifra enorme para una redirección), casi el 15% del total de su objetivo y el doble de lo que recibe Democracy Indices .[1] Elimine Democracy Index por ser un error ortográfico poco probable. No tiene enlaces entrantes y casi no tiene visitas. Nadie lo echará de menos. De lo contrario, déjelo como está o apunte a The Economist Index; no tiene ninguna importancia. Station1 ( discusión ) 03:45, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantengan el índice de la democracia apuntando a The Economist. Redireccionen el que está mal escrito aquí también. Si buscan un poco, parece que este obtiene el WP:PTOPIC y, si la gente busca otro índice, también hay una nota al pie del artículo más general. Fieari ( discusión ) 06:03 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 21:30 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 20:57, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Copa Mundial de Críquet 2035

Copa Mundial de Críquet 2035 → Copa Mundial de Críquet (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El objetivo no contiene información ni mención del evento de 2035, lo que lo convierte en una redirección engañosa e inútil. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 20:34, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar - No es necesario este redireccionamiento, no se menciona en la página de destino. FOARP ( discusión ) 21:21 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar: Demasiado pronto para esta redirección. Vestrian24Bio ( DISCURSO ) 08:44 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar , demasiado pronto . mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 12:08, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Aerolíneas del noroeste

Nortwest Airways → Northwest Airlines ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

RfD anteriores para esta redirección y redirecciones similares:

Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/11 de enero de 2012 § Nortwest Airways – mantener

Eliminar una redirección no plausible, solo tiene 12 resultados de Google después de eliminar los resultados duplicados y 2 de esos resultados son definitivamente de Wikipedia y algunos de los otros también podrían serlo. No hay razón para tener una redirección a partir de un error tipográfico tan oscuro según WP:COSTLY y, aunque se mantuvo en 2012, hay más consenso en 2024 de que las redirecciones inverosímiles deberían eliminarse como Georgia (estado de EE. UU. y Wikipedia). Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 20:07, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar . Improbable error ortográfico. Kablammo . — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por Kablammo ( discusión • contribs ) 09:47 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Hanningfield del Norte

North Hanningfield → Howe Green, Chelmsford (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Aunque esta redirección existe desde 2011, no parece que este término esté en uso. Los resultados de Google entre comillas devuelven solo 8 resultados después de eliminar los resultados duplicados. De ellos, 3 dicen que no hay "North Hanningfield" y uno dice "aproximadamente 4 km al norte. Embalse de Hanningfield", lo que significa que la palabra "Norte" no es para este término aparente. Tampoco puedo encontrar ninguna evidencia en mapas antiguos. Si bien hay East Hanningfield , South Hanningfield y West Hanningfield, no parece haber uno del Norte. Si solo hubiera un South Hanningfield, sería sorprendente que no hubiera un North Hanningfield o al menos un East o West Hanningfield, pero parece que el del Sur tiene ese nombre para distinguirse de los del Este y Oeste, no del Norte. A menos que aparezca alguna otra evidencia, sugeriría eliminarlo. El autor fue bloqueado en 2012 por "Vandalismo desagradable, mezclado con otras ediciones". Tenga en cuenta que creé el artículo de destino en 2010. Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 18:06 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

órgano(s) bucal(es)

Órgano bucal → Ventosa (zoología) ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Órganos bucales → Ventosa (zoología) ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Cerré antes con el consenso de que no somos biólogos. Lo estoy intentando de nuevo con el mismo razonamiento (que las bocas tienen otros órganos, como dientes y lenguas), así que espero que todos hayan estudiado a sus mordedores. Aunque todavía no estoy seguro de si volver a apuntar a la boca sería la mejor idea. cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 17:46, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario Viéndolo desde el punto de vista del idioma inglés, debería apuntar a la boca, o un tema de orificio generalizado para el punto de entrada al tracto digestivo -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 22:17 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Creo que la boca es la mejor opción para el órgano bucal : es el órgano bucal, solo que contiene algunos otros más pequeños. La boca es, podríamos decir, la madre de todos los órganos bucales. Cremastra ( discusión ) 00:14 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No deberíamos reorientar esto a "boca". Nadie escribe "órgano bucal" en Wikipedia y espera encontrar "boca", ya que solo tenemos la palabra "boca" para eso. La razón por la que existe "órgano bucal" es para describir diferentes tipos de cosas similares a la boca. Como lo que tienen los anélidos . No describe los dientes ni la lengua. -- asilvering ( discusión ) 00:57, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por definición, sí. Los dientes, al ser huesos, son un poco dudosos (¡algunos podrían decir que estaba... equivocado!), pero las lenguas , como se señala en el artículo, son órganos explícitos que están en la boca (y, por lo tanto, bucales), y también lo son los labios ahora que lo pienso de nuevo. Este artículo que encontré a los 20 minutos de buscar se refiere a los "órganos bucales" como órganos en la boca de los humanos, y este artículo hace lo mismo con las aves (y con menos sutileza). Si hay especies de aves y humanos que tienen ventosas, probablemente las pasé por alto, en cuyo caso mi mal cogsan _{(regámeme) (acechame)} 01:46, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
...y por supuesto, en el momento exacto en que decido hacer clic en responder, recuerdo que hay una lista de órganos del cuerpo humano aquí, y resulta que enumera los dientes como órganos que están en la boca. ¿Cuáles son las probabilidades~? sí, sé que otras especies también tienen bocas que pueden no tener lenguas, labios o dientes, solo estoy usando a los humanos como ejemplo cogsan _{(regañame) (acechame)} 01:49, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir en la lista para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:Notificado de esta discusión en el objetivo propuestoBoca.
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 17:29, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Sinceramente, entonces, eliminémoslo . Cualquier objetivo será imperfecto o al menos controvertido, por lo que creo que, lamentablemente, la eliminación es la mejor opción en este caso. Cremastra ( u — c ) 01:41, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Exclusión (película)

Exclusión (película) → Deepa Mehta ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Redirección sin ninguna razón importante para existir. Esta redirección se produjo como resultado de Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/exclusión (película) (segunda nominación) , en la que una persona sugirió una redirección mientras que dos personas votaron por la eliminación directa, pero representa una película que nunca se hizo ni se estrenó, y "existe" solo como un proyecto de desarrollo de guión que anunció hace 20 años pero que luego abandonó debido a problemas de casting antes de filmar siquiera un fotograma. Lo que significa que no se menciona en absoluto en el artículo de Mehta para proporcionar al lector algún contexto de por qué se redirige allí, y el artículo de Mehta ya es lo suficientemente largo y detallado como para ahondar en trivialidades indebidas sobre proyectos no realizados, por lo que no tendría ningún valor agregar ninguna mención al respecto en su artículo; e incluso si agregáramos una mención al respecto a su artículo, como es una película que nunca sucedió, hay muy pocas posibilidades de que alguien la busque por el título de todos modos. Por lo tanto, no tiene sentido mantenerlo como una redirección si el artículo de destino no tiene ningún contenido al respecto. Bearcat ( discusión ) 17:17 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Strong Keep . Añadí un párrafo para que ahora esté presente en el artículo de destino. Recibió mucha atención y, aunque no se haya realizado, es un momento significativo en su carrera (2005-2010 o más tarde) como muestran muchas fuentes confiables en varios idiomas a lo largo de los años, por lo que las posibilidades de que los lectores lo busquen son bastante altas, diría yo. - ¡Dios mío! (Mushy Yank) 10:45, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
(Me tomé la libertad de agregar la sección específica #Carrera al objetivo de redireccionamiento actual]. - ¡Dios mío! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tesoneta

Tesonet → Tom Okman (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Eliminar para fomentar la creación del artículo. Redirección de alto tráfico con el único dato presente siendo el año de creación. Respublik ( discusión ) 16:50 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantener Alguien puede simplemente expandir la página a un artículo completo, eso está permitido y se ha hecho en miles de artículos. Podrías hacerlo ahora si te sientes muy seguro de la situación y te felicitarían por ello. ¿Por qué eliminar la siguiente mejor opción que es una redirección al fundador? "La redirección de alto tráfico" sugiere que la página está haciendo algo útil, redirigiendo al fundador de la organización hasta que exista una página sobre la organización. No veo por qué esa es una razón para eliminar la página. "El único hecho presente es el año de creación" Lo siento, pero no entiendo esto en absoluto. ¿En qué parte de la página decía el año de creación? Una redirección del nombre de una empresa a un fundador podría categorizarse con un año de creación, pero eso es solo para facilitar la navegación en categorías. Esta no tenía categorías. Unknown Temptation ( discusión ) 17:19, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario Incluso las direcciones IP, por lo que las personas sin cuenta en Wikipedia, pueden convertir una redirección en un artículo completo. El 20 de septiembre creé 2023 Taça da Liga final , redirigiendo a 2022–23 Taça da Liga#Final . Cinco días después, una IP lo convirtió en un artículo de 11K. [2] ¿Cómo es que esta situación impide que la gente haga una página, algo que nadie en la historia del mundo ha querido hacer todavía? Unknown Temptation ( discusión ) 17:25 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen → Waldemar Hansteen (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Borrar . No se menciona en el objetivo. (El objetivo es su padre.) Geschichte ( discusión ) 06:33 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Agregué una mención. El hijo parece notable, ¿deberíamos eliminar la redirección o simplemente etiquetarlo como {{R con posibilidades}}? Jähmefyysikko ( discusión ) 07:47, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿O quizás convertirlo en un artículo? Geschichte ( discusión ) 08:13, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 14:13, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Manténgalo así, ya que el nombre del hijo ahora se ha mencionado en la página de destino con una referencia de la Gran Enciclopedia Noruega . - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 14:50 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Arunachal Pradesh

Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Arunachal Pradesh → Asamblea Legislativa de Arunachal Pradesh (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Jammu y Cachemira → Asamblea Legislativa de Jammu y Cachemira (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Manipur → Asamblea Legislativa de Manipur (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Meghalaya → Asamblea Legislativa de Meghalaya (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]
Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Sikkim → Asamblea Legislativa de Sikkim (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

No hay lista de líderes de la oposición en los objetivos. RfD abierta similar: Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión#Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 13:15 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar todo : Son engañosos, teniendo en cuenta que no hay información sobre los objetivos. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 20:38, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mongoloide americano

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: retarget

Sabiduría india

Saberes indígenas → Pueblos indígenas de las Américas (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Probablemente sea una broma, pero definitivamente no es una redirección que valga la pena. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 03:35 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario hay Mitologías de los pueblos indígenas de las Américas ... pero esta debería ser una página de desambiguación si se mantiene, ya que también existe el sur de Asia -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:30 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

eliminar . Ambas palabras son vagas como h*ck en este contexto. Podría referirse al folclore o la mitología con la misma facilidad con la que podría referirse a cualquier otra cosa. cogsan _{(regañame) (acechame)} 12:10, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Pueblo norteamericano

Pueblos de América del Norte → Pueblos indígenas de las Américas (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Esta redirección es demasiado vaga como para referirse a los nativos de NA y mucho menos a todos los nativos de NA y SA. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 03:32 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar sin oposición a una pincelada si se considera necesario. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 03:33 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientación a América del Norte#Demografía . -- Tamzin^{[ cetáceo necesario ]} ( they|xe ) 03:38, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a América del Norte#Demografía sin prejuicios contra un mejor objetivo. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:11, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^Talk! 07:23, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Reorientar a América del Norte#Demografía , probablemente el mejor objetivo que tenemos para esto. mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 12:13, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Los verdaderos G se mueven en silencio como lasaña

Los verdaderos G se mueven en silencio como lasaña → 6 Foot 7 Foot (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Esta es la letra número 29 del segundo verso. Y "lasaña" no se menciona en el artículo de destino. No parece ser necesario tener esto como redirección cuando la forma natural de llegar al título de un artículo enciclopédico es escribiendo el título de un artículo enciclopédico, porque para la mayoría de los lectores habituales, no hay forma de saber qué letra tiene y qué no tiene una redirección existente, por lo que la jugada más segura el 100% del tiempo es identificar el título de la canción y proceder en función de eso, no navegar a través de una línea en particular para una canción en particular, una hazaña que es imposible para esencialmente todos los demás artículos de canciones en Wikipedia (ya que no conozco muchas redirecciones de la línea 2 del verso 2 que existan hacia canciones). Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 00:26, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar el término de búsqueda de Wikipedia que no es plausible, como lo demuestran las pocas visitas a la página. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 00:57 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminación débil : personalmente, considero que elegir una línea al azar de la mitad de una canción es poco plausible como término de búsqueda, pero ha obtenido 18 resultados en el último año, por lo que se le da algún uso (de ahí su voto débil). Aún no se le da mucho uso. Fieari ( discusión ) 02:18, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Débil. Esta línea es bastante conocida entre los fanáticos del hip hop como un ejemplo infame de un símil forzado, y puedo imaginar a alguien buscando la línea para averiguar dónde se originó. Ciertamente, hay lugar para debatir si Wikipedia debería ser el lugar para facilitar esas búsquedas, por lo que mi voto de ! es simplemente débil, pero aun así puedo entender por qué se creó la redirección. ModernDayTrilobite ( discusión • contribuciones ) 13:47, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Eliminar o conservar?
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:22, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Eliminar - Wikipedia no es Rap Genius (que, por cierto, es un sitio web genial). La página de destino no responde realmente a la pregunta de dónde proviene esta letra, ya que no se menciona allí, porque Wikipedia no es un repositorio de letras y nunca la incluiremos allí por la misma razón. FOARP ( discusión ) 21:19 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

11ss-hidroxiesteroide deshidrogenasa

11ss-hidroxiesteroide deshidrogenasa → 11β-hidroxiesteroide deshidrogenasa (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

El objetivo utiliza β (beta griega), no ß ( eszett ), por lo que se debe eliminar según el precedente de RfD . Mdewman6 ( discusión ) 02:54, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar Creado automáticamente por Eubot, solo 110 visitas (en su mayoría probablemente bots/scrapers) en la última década. Estoy dispuesto a aceptar la sustitución de eszett, ya que se ven similares y están en más teclados que la versión beta griega, pero reemplazar eszett con su grafema correspondiente " ss " es ir demasiado lejos. ^¡háblame!04:20 24 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar según Ca. Eszette que se utiliza aquí es un método para reemplazar el carácter beta; usar SS en su lugar es... si no tienes acceso a Beta O Eszette, me imagino que buscarías B y escribirías 11b-hidroxiesteroide deshidrogenasa . 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 06:31 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Además de lo anterior, la "S" tiene su propio significado en la nomenclatura química, lo que añade una capa adicional de confusión a esta redirección. Aunque los 11β-hidroxiesteroides tienen la configuración S en el carbono 11, es solo por casualidad que coincidan. De todos modos, la doble "S" no tiene sentido y genera confusión. ― Syn path 13:57, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

23 de octubre

El diddler y el diddler

Diddler → Hacer trampa (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
El Diddler → Sean Combs (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ] La primera redirección fue creada por un nuevo usuario en 2015. Como era de esperar, el tema no está cubierto en cheating . El segundo término es un término informal para Sean Combs. Por lo tanto, estoy pidiendo que los eliminen. Tavantius ( discusión ) 22:55, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgase , clásico {{ r de evitar la doble redirección }} . Diddler => tramposo => tramposo . Cremastra ( u — c ) 00:32, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

El término "eliminar" tiene implicaciones muy desafortunadas y conocidas para los niños y nadie usa este término para referirse a alguien mayor de edad en el lenguaje coloquial general. Este es un candidato SALT con seguridad. Nate • ( charla ) 00:43, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quiero decir. También podría simplemente... redirigirlos a la pedofilia . La mayoría de las personas que usan el término se refieren a eso, de todos modos, también podrían llevarlos a donde esperan ir. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 01:23 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
desambiguar según los dos usos descritos anteriormente, y véase también Diddle (desambiguación) ; y también los usos Diddler (trolebús) operado por London United Tramways , Didier Casnati (nombre artístico "The Diddler"), Jeremy Diddler , P Diddler de P Diddler And The Fearsome Foursome , The Diddler de Bluntman and Chronic , The Diddler de Megamaths , Diddler de Pirates (película de 1986) , Diddler de Most Extreme Elimination Challenge , Diddler de Bloodfist III: Forced to Fight , la canción "The Diddler" de Ideas+drafts+loops , "Diddler on the Roof" en los personajes y sketches recurrentes de Saturday Night Live presentados entre 2017 y 2018 , "Diddler" como se muestra en Riddler en otros medios , "The Diddler", novela de PG O'Dea -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:27 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- NOTA: Se redactó un borrador de desambiguación para su evaluación debajo del encabezado RfD en la redirección -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:16 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario La redirección de Diddler debería añadirse a esta RfD -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:38 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- @65.92.246.77: Listo. Tavantius ( discusión ) 19:14 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tapices MUCK

Tapices MUCK → Furry fandom#Juegos de rol ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en la página de destino, por lo que no resulta útil para los usuarios. Parece ser un videojuego furry aleatorio (?). Schützenpanzer (discusión) 21:03 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : Decidí hacer una inmersión histórica.
-Esto es un remanente de un artículo de la era de 2015 sobre el juego, al que se vinculaba tanto desde Furry fandom#Role-playing (circa septiembre de 2015) como desde TinyMUCK
. -El 6 de octubre de 2015, este artículo fue incluido en la lista de eliminación de AfD. El resultado, el 11 de octubre, fue Redirigir a lo que, en ese momento, era su mención en Furry fandom#Role-playing (ver arriba). Sin embargo, me gustaría señalar que, si bien el nominador abogó por la redirección, los votos positivos fueron en cambio un voto por la redirección/fusión y un voto por la fusión, por lo que no estoy completamente seguro de por qué el que cerró hizo una simple redirección en su lugar.
-UN DÍA después de que se cerrara la AfD, el usuario: Chaos5023 (a quien me gustaría señalar que participó en la discusión) vio que el enlace a Tapestries MUCK en la página del fandom furry era ahora una redirección circular y que la declaración en sí no tenía fuentes, y decidió que la mejor medida era eliminar la declaración completa. Por sí sola, estoy de acuerdo con Chaos5023, pero en cierto modo hace que la discusión sobre la AfD sea irrelevante...
-...porque ahora estamos aquí, 9 años después

En realidad, no estoy seguro de qué hacer aquí. Mi primer instinto es redirigir a TinyMUCK , pero tiene el mismo problema que Furry fandom#Role-playing : elimine la redirección ahora circular y no queda ninguna razón para mencionar Tapestries MUCK, la mención existente no tiene ninguna fuente. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 01:49, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Intenté buscar fuentes que mencionaran Tapestries, ya que sentí que esa podría ser la forma más fácil de desenredar este nudo, pero no tuve éxito con mis esfuerzos (ciertamente un tanto superficiales). A menos que redirija a TinyMUCK, tal vez sea hora de eliminar esta redirección. DonIago ( discusión ) 13:29 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : ¿Alguien podría incluir Tapestries (MUCK) en este paquete? Gracias -- Schützenpanzer (discusión) 03:22 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Naoki Tanisaki

Naoki Tanisaki → T-Hawk (luchador) ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Esta redirección es innecesaria y engañosa, ya que este nombre alternativo surge de un malentendido sobre la ortografía japonesa. Cuando Onodera se hizo pasar por Naoki Tanizaki, utilizó una ortografía kanji diferente para su nombre; no cambió la forma en que se leía el nombre y no debería cambiar la forma en que se transcribe. MordecaiXLII ( discusión ) 21:40 27 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Vota para redirigir a Naoki Tanisaki → Naoki Tanizaki , según los errores ortográficos comunes en WP:POFR , que incluye "Probables errores ortográficos" como motivos para crear redirecciones. De todos modos, los kanji 崎 y 嵜 se leen como "さき" (saki), por lo que debería clasificarse como un posible error ortográfico para Tanizaki.

Estoy de acuerdo con el nombre en que no hay ninguna razón para que se redirija a T-Hawk (luchador) . MetropolitanIC ( 💬 | 📝 ) 03:51, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 20:43, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Retarget por MetropolitanIC -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:39 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Rey Rolando

King Roland → Spaceballs ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

O desambiguar o redirigir a Lista de personajes de Sofia the First y apuntar a Roland I y Roland II allí, y es probable que se mencione a Minimus en la página de destino nominada. Además, redacté Minimus (desambiguación) , pero necesita una mejora para el personaje del caballo. 88.235.230.49 ( discusión ) 07:30, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apunta a Roland (desambiguación) y agrega usos allí -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 07:09 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario El único rey mencionado en esa página es un personaje de Might and Magic que no tiene su propia página. Roland de Galloway no se menciona en esa página, sino que aparece en Roland (nombre) . Thryduulf ( discusión ) 14:24 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:los participantes propusieron cuatro objetivos. ¿Se debe volver a incluir alguno de ellos o eliminar la ambigüedad?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Davidgoodheart añadió el personaje de Spaceballs a Roland (desambiguación) después de la nueva publicación. Jay 💬 14:14, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC ) [ responder ]

He redactado una página de desambiguación en la redirección. Cremastra ( u — c ) 20:43, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apoya la creación de nuevos dabs. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 00:01 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrador: Software espía chino

Borrador: Software espía chino → Opera (navegador web) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Redirección no neutral desde un espacio de borrador creado por una cuenta con un único propósito. Nunca fue un borrador real. No se menciona que Opera sea un software espía en el objetivo. Schützenpanzer (discusión) 20:42 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar redirección de ataque (una observación común de los YouTubers más polémicos es que Opera GX es un software espía, lo que no ha sido totalmente probado). Nate • ( charla ) 00:46, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar Inútil, creado como un ataque de redirección Nueva redirección para Opera Ca ^¡háblame!01:38, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar un tema amplio para una elección extremadamente singular; muy incorrecto ya que no es un artículo de tema amplio -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:40, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar como ataque. ¿Se aplicaría G10 ? mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 11:04, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminación rápida , no tiene nada que ver con el navegador. Cuenta alternativa de Myrealnamm ( discusión ) 18:02 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Juan átomos

John Atoms → John Adams ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No es un error ortográfico común ni probable, prácticamente no hay objetivos entrantes. Si por alguna razón se mantiene, diría que se redirija a la página de John Adams. De lo contrario, mi voto es Eliminar . TNstingray ( discusión ) 13:06 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Él es el inventor de los átomos, ¿cómo es posible que no lo conozcas? Borrar por nombre. Error ortográfico inverosímil, error de audición y juego de palabras cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 13:13, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo así para reconocer que la educación actual carece de un conocimiento amplio y definitivo. Puede que sea una ortografía poco probable, pero no imposible, y no perjudica a la enciclopedia dejarla para quienes deambulan por la maleza (suena como un nombre de universo alternativo para un cómic sobre la fundación de Estados Unidos) . Randy Kryn ( discusión ) 13:17 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener: según Randy. También cabe señalar que los objetivos entrantes son un _pbp de prueba deficiente 14:33, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar la pronunciación sustitutiva a la página de desambiguación y etiquetarla como {{ R de error ortográfico }} -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 16:33 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar como error inverosímil. Una búsqueda rápida en Google no arroja resultados de personas que hayan cometido ese error, pero sí encuentra que se usa como al menos un par de nombres artísticos o alias y, posiblemente, uno o dos nombres reales. ~~Tenga en cuenta también que nuestra función de búsqueda es lo suficientemente buena como para sugerir "John Adams" como posible nombre, lo que hace que esta redirección sea aún más innecesaria.~~ 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 22:25 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tenga en cuenta que la función de búsqueda que sugiere "John Adams" probablemente se deba a que existe esta redirección. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 11:16 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Golpeado, por si acaso, pero eso no cambia mi evaluación general. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 12:38 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por cogsan y usuario IP 35.139.154.158. ¿Por qué "Atoms" también es un nombre mal escrito de "Adams"? En mi opinión, solo se supone que debe eliminarse WP:COSTLY . ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 13:28, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Srishti

Srishti → Unidades de tiempo hindúes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el objetivo (no ahora, y no cuando se agregó una nota de sombrero ). Mirando Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti , hay un nombre ( Srishti Kaur , Srishti Rana , Srishti Jain ), Srishti (film) , Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology , y las coincidencias parciales de los títulos de Srishti Madurai y Srishtidnyan . Mirando las visitas a la página, no estoy seguro de si el nombre es el tema principal o si no hay un tema principal ; creo que podría depender de si los otros usos se derivan todos del nombre. También ayudaría si tuviera alguna idea de por qué se redirigió a unidades de tiempo hindúes ; le haré ping a Vinay Jha en caso de que lo recuerden. jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 02:11, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario: El término sánscrito significa "creación".[3] Las unidades de tiempo hindúes no hablan realmente de la creación como lo haría la cosmología hindú , sino de unidades de tiempo que pueden asociarse a personalidades ( Brahma ) involucradas en la creación. Jroberson108 ( discusión ) 02:29 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Hay un tema principal?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 19:58, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Proteger a Scarlet

Proteger a Scarlet → Xbox Series X y Series S (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

un error ortográfico plausible y un tpyo cogsan no tan plausible _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 18:15, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Oh, esto fue mi error jajaja. Creé esta redirección aparentemente sin darme cuenta de que escribí "Proteger" en lugar de "Proyecto". Voto para eliminarlo . Loytra ( discusión ) 00:50 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar nombre y creador. Parece ser un error honesto. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 02:55 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ansem

Ansem → Xehanort ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

caso extraño, que raya en lo absurdo. léelo bajo tu propio riesgo, esta es la forma más simple y clara que puedo decirlo. "ansem" se refiere a dos personajes de kingdom hearts. uno es un nerd al que le gusta disfrazarse de momia, que aparece en la lista aquí , y el otro es un xehanort que robó el nombre porque los chicos son chicos, supongo. el xehanort parece ser el tema principal (aunque solo sea porque apareció primero ~~y es más atractivo~~ ), pero no por mucho, y kh speech a menudo desambigua las cosas al referirse al último como "ansem, (el) buscador de la oscuridad" (o sod) y al primero como "ansem el sabio". este título se ha utilizado anteriormente para redirecciones tanto para ansems como para un dab para... ambos ansems (más dos personas que fueron confundidas con un ansem durante unos segundos cada una). opiniones sobre... en serio, ¿cualquier cosa? cogsan _{(χ-BLADE!) (ouchie ouch)} 17:00, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Mantén y luego agrega Hatnote a los personajes de Kingdom Hearts #Ansem el Sabio . Xenahort es probablemente el tema principal ya que es un antagonista principal. Ansem el Sabio parece ser más un personaje secundario/giro de la trama. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 00:09 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La evaluación de Ansem (Ansem, no Ansem) no es... incorrecta, y no sé si me encanta o me molesta ese hecho. cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 11:17, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantén y añade una nota a los personajes de Kingdom Hearts #Ansem el Sabio - según Lenticel, también Ansem, Buscador de la Oscuridad fue creado primero, precediendo a la introducción de Ansem el Sabio por 2 años (y al nombre por casi 4 años). (Oinkers42) ( discusión ) 15:39 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
REdirigido a Personajes de Kingdom Hearts donde se mencionan ambos; agregue una nota para Ansem Smart (アンセム・スマート) que aparece en ¡Que esta alma afligida se retire! -- 65.92.246.77 ( charla ) 18:17, 4 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva publicación:¿Mantener y agregar hatnote o redirigir a la lista de personajes de KH?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 20:57 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:La misma pregunta que en la publicación anterior. También se notificó esta discusión en el objetivo propuesto.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 07:41, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Mantén y añade una nota de sombrero. Sinceramente, no tengo nada que añadir que otros no hayan dicho ya, considerando que la solución a esto parece bastante autoexplicativa. Sin embargo, si hubiera un objetivo de redirección específico, probablemente mantendría la redirección a Xenahort, ya que evidentemente es el antagonista principal y el personaje con el que Ansem se asocia comúnmente. SuperSkaterDude45 ( discusión ) 04:59, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Trastorno de personalidad adaptativa

Trastorno de personalidad adaptativa → Trastorno de adaptación ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Eliminar. Es un nombre engañoso porque "trastorno de adaptación" no pertenece a los "trastornos de personalidad" en ningún sistema de clasificación psiquiátrica. Un usuario intentó agregarlo al cuadro lateral Trastorno de personalidad. También podría sugerir que era un nombre histórico para el trastorno de adaptación, pero eso tampoco es cierto. (Tenga en cuenta que, cuando realice búsquedas del término en Google, Google Scholar o Google Books, utilice "s para buscar el término exacto y seguirá obteniendo numerosos resultados en los que los finales y comienzos de oraciones o los encabezados de tablas colisionan. Además, las apariciones de "trastorno de adaptación / personalidad" se interpretan como "trastorno de adaptación / trastorno de personalidad" en la literatura. Aparte de eso, hay un par de usos incorrectos y discusiones en foros sobre la existencia de los términos). 89.132.72.63 (discusión) 06:22, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar . Rechacé una solicitud rápida porque (creí haber) encontrado alguna evidencia de que el término estaba en uso. Ahora estoy convencido por los argumentos del autor original. Justlettersandnumbers ( discusión ) 08:45, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@Justlettersandnumbers seguramente la razón para rechazar la eliminación rápida sería que no se aplica ninguna CSD a esto, independientemente de cualquier evidencia de que el término esté en uso. A7V2 ( discusión ) 06:24, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

De hecho, ¡A7V2 ! – si no hubiera encontrado evidencia de que estaba en uso, mi siguiente paso habría sido mirar el historial, donde habría descubierto que no era elegible según WP:R3 ya que fue creado en 2017. Justlettersandnumbers ( discusión ) 11:27, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sustituido

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: retarget

22 de octubre

Bonnie Pointer (álbum) (desambiguación)

Bonnie Pointer (álbum) (desambiguación) → Bonnie Pointer#Álbumes (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: conservar/reorientar /eliminar ]

No creo que esta "doble desambiguación" sea una redirección útil. jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 23:03 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Keep - Por el contrario, hay dos álbumes llamados Bonnie Pointer que necesitan ser desambiguados, y se desambiguan aquí. Fieari ( discusión ) 01:14 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por inútil, improbable como término de búsqueda y no necesario para crear enlaces. Hay formas estándar de desambiguar esto, como (álbum de 1978) vs (álbum de 1979). Y las redirecciones (de desambiguación) están ahí para respaldar los enlaces intencionales a páginas de desambiguación, pero no existe una página de ese tipo aquí, solo una sección en el artículo de la biografía. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 03:30, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un poco débil, según Fieari, WP:CHEAP y mis argumentos en una determinada nominación masiva que tuvo lugar el año pasado . El objetivo puede no ser exactamente una página de desambiguación, pero ofrece esencialmente la misma función prometida por el título de la redirección (mostrar los dos álbumes diferentes a los que podría referirse "Bonnie Pointer (álbum)"). En cuanto a la doble desambiguación, en realidad no perjudica las cosas y es potencialmente útil para quienes realizan búsquedas. Saludos, SONIC 678 06:14, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar después de crear Bonnie Pointer (desambiguación) como una página de desambiguación para realizar la misma función y volver a dirigir Bonnie Pointer (álbum) allí como una {{ R de desambiguación incompleta }} . Steel1943 ( discusión ) 13:17 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Ah, aún mejor! 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 15:58 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borralo existe desde enero y siempre ha sido una redirección, se creó porque Bonnie Pointer (álbum) era un DAB pero ya no lo es. Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 17:48 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por nom. - Charla del presidente · contribuciones ( Talkback ) 20:40, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

cisne

Swancore → Will Swan (músico)#Blue Swan Records (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El artículo no menciona el Swancore. Sin embargo, me gustaría explicar por qué existe esta redirección, ya que es probable que exista un microgénero extremadamente pequeño conocido como "Swancore", que básicamente es post punk progresivo al estilo de Will Swan. Pero, de cualquier manera, no se menciona el swancore en el artículo y no puedo encontrar muchas fuentes buenas sobre el género, por lo que convertirlo en un artículo o hacer una mención de él en el artículo de Will Swan no es una buena idea. Gaismagorm (discusión) 21:57 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Disney

Disney → The Walt Disney Company ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Varios candidatos potenciales ( la empresa , el hombre y varios destinos potenciales para las subsidiarias de la empresa), todos ellos frecuentemente referidos simplemente como Disney. Honestamente, probablemente me estoy olvidando de algunos. No sé necesariamente cuál es el tema principal de esta redirección, pero si los argumentos de la gente en esta discusión en The Walt Disney Company son una indicación, los editores allí seguramente creen que no es ese artículo. De todos modos, esta redirección debe ser redireccionada a un mejor destino. Ladtrack ( discusión ) 18:02, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo como está y coméntelo en Talk:The Walt Disney Company : Este ha sido un tema de debate durante bastante tiempo en cuanto a qué se refiere el WP:PRIMARYTOPIC del término "Disney". Además de la discusión mencionada anteriormente, también hubo este debate en el DAB de Disney desde principios de este año que generó inquietudes sobre cuál es el tema principal. Si bien no ha habido consenso en esas discusiones, la mayoría de las fuentes se refieren a "Disney" como la compañía o una de sus unidades. Sigo creyendo que la compañía es el WP:PRIMARYTOPIC de "Disney", aunque si eso todavía está en disputa o no se puede validar, entonces sería adecuado redirigir esto a la página del DAB en Disney (desambiguación) . No estoy seguro de si el consenso ha cambiado desde esas discusiones, aunque señalaré que esas discusiones generalmente no han tenido consenso para reorientar esta redirección o mover los títulos de los artículos. Hay notas de desambiguación apropiadas en el artículo de la Compañía y en otros artículos donde sea relevante, y creo que esto puede beneficiarse de una discusión más exhaustiva en el artículo de la Compañía. Trailblazer101 ( discusión ) 18:25 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Dudé un tiempo en traer esto aquí, y si te fijaste, esta propuesta está escrita de manera que no sugiera que alguno de los objetivos potenciales sea o no el correcto, incluido el objetivo actual. Si lo estuviera haciendo yo mismo, probablemente también habría seleccionado a la empresa, aunque creo que está cerca. Sin embargo, según la discusión a la que hice referencia, estoy casi seguro de que hay consenso en The Walt Disney Company de que ese artículo no es el tema principal para el término Disney. Es cierto que esta es mi prueba visual porque la propuesta pedía algo más, pero de las doce personas que votaron sobre esa propuesta, diez de ellas sintieron que el tema principal no era ese artículo. Se supone que Wikipedia se basa en el consenso y, dejando de lado mis propios sentimientos, simplemente no puedo ver cómo un término debería redirigirse allí cuando la gente de ese artículo piensa que no debería hacerlo. Ladtrack ( discusión ) 17:58, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Movimiento débil de DAB a nombre base ya que no hay un tema principal claro. Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 18:32 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Muy débil simplemente porque el uso del desambiguador "(Disney)" en Wikipedia tiende a referirse a creaciones del objetivo actual. Aparte de eso, entiendo completamente lo que el nominador está transmitiendo aquí, y si no fuera por este desambiguador en los títulos existentes, estaría apoyando la propuesta de cambio de objetivo/cambio de DAB. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 19:27 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto es bastante interesante, no sabía que se podían buscar desambiguadores de esta manera. Lamentablemente, no creo que sea una indicación particularmente buena del tema principal. Este es un desambiguador aceptable porque la empresa se conoce como Disney, pero no necesariamente porque sea el tema principal de ese término. Por ejemplo, vea los resultados para el desambiguador "(Apple)". Como puede ver, está dominado por la empresa de tecnología a pesar de que no es el tema principal del término Apple . Ladtrack ( discusión ) 17:43, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener (1.ª opción) o Desambiguar (2.ª opción). La empresa me parece similar a WP:PTOPIC , a juzgar por los artículos de noticias y los resultados de Google. Fieari ( discusión ) 01:12 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mueva la página de desambiguación al nombre base porque no hay un tema principal claro. Me opuse a cambiar el nombre de Walt Disney Company al título más corto Disney por esa misma razón, así que seré coherente en ese tema. -- Coolcaesar ( discusión ) 04:12 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo como se menciona en la discusión de Disney (desambiguación) vinculada anteriormente: el artículo de la compañía constituye un buen concepto amplio PRIMARYREDIRECT . - B RAINULATOR 9 ( DISCUSIÓN ) 23:56, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En primer lugar

Primero → 1 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
En segundo lugar → 2 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
En tercer lugar → 3 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No creo que sea buena idea una redirección relacionada con el adverbio a una página que trata específicamente sobre el número. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 04:02 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar No es un término que deba incluirse en un wikilink. Si los lectores quisieran un artículo sobre 1, buscarían uno, no una derivación de él. Tiene pocas visitas a la página, por lo que no apoyo una redirección suave, ya que Wikipedia no es un diccionario . ^¡háblame!15:35, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Neutral sobre la redirección a DAB según 65.92 Estos son términos relacionados, pero ninguno de los usos (no estoy familiarizado con todos los elementos enumerados) se puede llamar "en primer lugar", "en segundo lugar", "en tercer lugar" . ^¡háblame!14:37 22 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Agrupado en segundo lugar, en tercer lugar. Experto en separación de palabras ( discusión ) 11:55 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a Primero (desambiguación) / Segundo (desambiguación) / Tercero (desambiguación) -- respectivamente ; como {{ R de adverbio }} -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 13:02 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar (todo) . La página de DAB no es apropiada, ya que no hay coincidencias específicas allí. Y, por lo demás, es demasiado vaga como para volver a apuntar a otro sitio. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 19:39, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 14:18, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Eliminar . Término de búsqueda poco probable; rara vez (o nunca) ayudaría a navegar por el sitio. Drdr150 ( discusión ) 18:07, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir a wikt:firstly, wikt:secondly, wikt:thirdly. Estas redirecciones tienen décadas de antigüedad y han tenido miles de visitas a la página cada una; no deberíamos eliminarlas mientras tengan objetivos razonables. jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 23:16 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tenorite (tipo de letra)

Tenorite (tipo de letra) → Microsoft (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en Target, lo que significa que es una redirección algo engañosa para alguien que busca el término y espera encontrar información al respecto. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 23:25, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Potencialmente, se podría redirigir a Aptos (tipografía)#History , que SÍ tiene información sobre Tenorite: qué es, de dónde proviene y su destino final (en el sentido de que se la pasó por alto para el papel de sucesora de Calibri a favor de la fuente Bierstadt/Aptos). También podría, para que conste, ver una eliminación según WP:REDLINK ; dicho esto, no estoy seguro de que Tenorite sea notable por sí sola en cualquier contexto que no sea el hecho de que era una sucesora potencial de Calibri y perdió ante Aptos.
(Editado según 14:58, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC): se afinó la ubicación de retargeting para que coincida con la sugerencia para las otras tres fuentes) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 23:36, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar . Enwiki no hay nada sustancial sobre esta tipografía. He nominado por separado a Grandview (tipografía) , Seaford (tipografía) y Skeena (tipografía) , que también se mencionan en Aptos (tipografía) . Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 13:19 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- ...ver Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/13 de octubre de 2024#Grandview (tipografía) y otros . Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 13:23 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario Me gustaría señalar que Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión#Grandview (tipografía) y otras cerraron con una redirección inequívoca. Esta redirección, que probablemente debería haber estado incluida con ellas, debería ser redirigida para que coincida. Notaré que, de hecho, ya voté en esta discusión, por lo que este comentario no debería contar como un voto. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 11:45, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Thryduulf(discusión) 13:08 22 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Retarget según Lunamann y discusión previa. No estoy de acuerdo con la evaluación de que la información que tenemos no es "nada sustancial". Tenemos información sobre el tema de esta búsqueda. Puede que no sea mucha, pero la tenemos. Deberíamos dársela al usuario cuando la solicite. Fieari ( discusión ) 06:56 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Campeonato de Futsal de la CONCACAF 2028

Campeonato de Futsal de CONCACAF 2028 → Campeonato de Futsal de CONCACAF (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El objetivo no contiene información ni mención sobre el evento de 2028. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 12:20, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar nombre. Dado que el torneo se celebra cada cuatro años y la edición de 2024 ya se ha celebrado, me sorprende no ver ninguna mención de 2028, aunque el artículo no tiene ninguna. Tampoco pude encontrar nada en Google que confirmara siquiera que sucederá; literalmente, lo único que encontré que lo mencionaba fue una publicación de DeviantArt que se describe explícitamente como hipotética. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 13:36, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por Thryduulf. mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 17:05, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por Thryduulf. A7V2 ( discusión ) 06:08 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar lo anterior -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 02:35 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por Thryduulf y otros seguidores mencionados anteriormente como WP:TOOSOON y WP:CRYSTAL . ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 13:18, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ópera cómica específica del sitio

Ópera cómica específica del sitio → Improv Everywhere#Fake U2 Concert (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Según Internet, "el teatro específico del lugar se refiere a una representación teatral que se lleva a cabo en un espacio no tradicional". Esto debe reorientarse, pero no estoy seguro de dónde. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 11:17 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

QSO J0100-2708

QSO J0100-2708 → Quasar ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Se han descubierto más de un millón de cuásares. Este en particular no aparece mencionado en ninguna página wiki. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 11:10 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nom. - Un assiolo ( discusión ) 16:26, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Eliminar nombre; término de búsqueda poco probable. 〜 Askarion ✉ 12:46, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminación rápida del autor: el artículo se ha borrado y se ha convertido en una redirección por no ser destacable; eliminación rápida porque el autor ha borrado la página -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:44 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Rechacé la propuesta por vandalismo. No tengo opinión sobre el fondo. BusterD ( discusión ) 03:55 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué como vandalismo? El autor [4] convirtió la página en una redirección [5] con el comentario de que no era destacable. Todas las demás ediciones de la página parecen ser realizadas por bots o para corregir el estilo. Esto parecería ser viable como criterio de eliminación implícito del autor de la base de datos aplicable. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 15:52, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Restaurar y enviar a afd según WP:BLAR . Parece que es un artículo anterior. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 02:37, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- El autor [6] del artículo lo ha publicado en BLAR [7]. Por lo tanto, parece que el autor no cree que sea notable, según el comentario de edición en BLAR. No parece haber otras ediciones, excepto bots y compilaciones. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 15:47 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Félix Trinidad vs.Ray Lovato

Félix Trinidad vs. Ray Lovato → Bruce Seldon vs. Mike Tyson ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en la página de destino. Parece un engaño, pero se revirtió la incorporación de la plantilla CSD. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 10:03, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Speedly Keep the redirect es el título de un combate de boxeo que se disputó en la cartelera preliminar de la página de destino. Planeo agregar una sección sobre esa pelea similar a Bernard Hopkins vs. Robert Allen y Roy Jones Jr. vs. Bernard Hopkins . Sam11333 ( discusión ) 10:10 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

El objetivo se ha actualizado para incluir la información sobre el asunto de la redirección. Sam11333 ( discusión ) 18:52 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar a menos que se agregue contenido . El contenido debe aparecer antes de la redirección. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 13:39 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Refinar la sección recién agregada Bruce Seldon vs. Mike Tyson#Trinidad vs. Lovato , pero por favor Sam11333 en el futuro crea este tipo de redirecciones después de agregar contenido relevante, no antes. A7V2 ( discusión ) 06:15 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Paquete 0451-28

PKS 0451-28 → Catálogo de fuentes de radio de Parkes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Esta es una parte de la lista de objetivos, pero es una de las 8000 y no se menciona como una de las más notables allí. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 09:10, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nom. - Un assiolo ( discusión ) 16:27, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Eliminación rápida del autor: el artículo se ha borrado y se ha convertido en una redirección por no ser destacable; eliminación rápida porque el autor ha borrado la página -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:45, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El declive es tan rápido como el vandalismo. BusterD ( discusión ) 03:58 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué como vandalismo? El autor [8] convirtió la página en una redirección [9] con el comentario de que no era destacable. Todas las demás ediciones de la página parecen ser realizadas por bots o para corregir el estilo. Esto parecería ser viable como criterio de eliminación implícito del autor de la base de datos aplicable. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 15:51, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entonces, ¿se aplicará el criterio de eliminación rápida de CSD: G7? Sugiera si desea mejorar la eliminación de RfD. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 16:42, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Restaurar artículo y enviar a AfD según WP:BLAR . Es un artículo anterior. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 02:39, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- El autor [10] del artículo lo ha publicado en BLAR [11]. Por lo tanto, parece que el autor no cree que sea notable, según el comentario de edición en BLAR. No parece haber otras ediciones, excepto bots y compilaciones. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 15:51 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Bussy Anand

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . Resultado: retirada

Cuando el horizonte está abajo, es interesante. Cuando el horizonte está arriba, es interesante. Cuando el horizonte está en el medio, ¡es aburrido como la mierda!

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: eliminar

No hay fiesta como una fiesta de Diddy

No hay fiesta como una fiesta de Diddy → Sean Combs (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
No hay fiesta como la de Diddy → Sean Combs (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Fiestas Diddy → Sean Combs (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Fiesta de Diddy → Acusaciones de mala conducta sexual contra Sean Combs ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No aparece en la lista de destino. Si se conserva, también tengo curiosidad por redirigir a las acusaciones de mala conducta sexual de Sean Combs , dado que la cita está relacionada con los medios populares. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( discusión ) 01:00, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borra las dos primeras porque son redirecciones inverosímiles. Sin embargo, me inclino por mantener las fiestas de Diddy ; el término se usa con bastante frecuencia en conversaciones recientes sobre Diddy y las acusaciones en su contra, lo suficiente como para que pueda imaginar que la gente lo busque. Es posible que el término no siga siendo relevante a largo plazo, pero creo que es probable que sea útil en la actualidad. Neutral sobre si el objetivo debería ser Sean Combs o las acusaciones de mala conducta sexual de Sean Combs . ModernDayTrilobite ( discusión • contribuciones ) 13:54, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ^{¡Lee! ¡Habla!} 07:58, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Tenga en cuenta que el partido Diddy existe y tiene como objetivo las acusaciones de mala conducta sexual de Sean Combs . Tampoco se menciona en el objetivo. Siento que se podría agregar el término, pero me mantendré lo más alejado posible de encontrar fuentes para ello. ¿Debería incluirse con esto? mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 17:20, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Acabo de enterarme de White Party (Sean Combs) . ¿Alguna opinión sobre el retargeting? mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 18:03, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : He añadido al partido Diddy a la nominación. (Haciendo ping a Mwwv para que me avisen de esto). Steel1943 ( discusión ) 21:29 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir todo a White Party (Sean Combs) como los "partidos" reales a los que se hace referencia {{ The Sharpest Lives | 💬 | ✏️ |ℹ️}} 16:03, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿Cuántos de nosotros los tenemos?

¿Cuántos de nosotros los tenemos? → Amigos (canción de Whodini) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La frase redirecciona a la canción Whodini como letra clave. La frase se indica en el artículo donde indica que Bone Thugs-n-Harmony sampleó la canción en su canción "Friends", que aparentemente ha sido retitulada "How Many of Us Have Them" en algún lanzamiento (según la página. Esa canción está en el álbum The Art of War (álbum de Bone Thugs-n-Harmony) . Además, "¿cuántos de nosotros los tenemos?" es un poema de Danez Smith . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( discusión ) 00:55, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Hice esto después de una búsqueda, elimínelo si está mal GeorgeMemulous ( discusión ) 01:32, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Weak Keep - La redirección realizada recientemente no causará problemas ni interrupciones en ningún lugar con enlaces rotos si se elimina, pero parece ser útil para alguien (arriba), y no tengo objeción a las redirecciones de letras notables como ayuda de búsqueda, incluso cuando esas letras no aparecen en el artículo. Sería bueno dejar la redirección así por un tiempo para ver si comienza a recolectar visitas regulares y constantes. Se aplica WP:CHEAP . Fieari ( discusión ) 01:38, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar , no es un buen objetivo, por lo que es mejor dejar que los lectores averigüen qué quieren para sí mismos en esta situación, dado que la letra no recibe ninguna cobertura en ninguna de las páginas enumeradas. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 02:07, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminación débil. En principio, no tengo objeciones a las redirecciones desde letras destacadas, pero, si bien la letra en cuestión es probablemente la letra individual más destacada de esta canción, no me convence que sea lo suficientemente reconocible como para que la redirección sea útil. ModernDayTrilobite ( discusión • contribuciones ) 13:42, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, la frase "cuántos de nosotros los tenemos" no solo aparece en la canción de Bone Thugs mencionada en la nominación, sino también en la canción de MF Doom "Deep Fried Frenz" (en el álbum Mm..Food ). La existencia de esta frase no afectó realmente mi propio voto, pero pensé que podría ser útil mencionarla como contexto adicional sobre el uso de la frase. ModernDayTrilobite ( discusión • contribuciones ) 13:42 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ^{¡Lee! ¡Habla!} 07:57, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Cacao

Kahako → Macron (diacrítico) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kahakos → Macron (diacrítico) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kahakō → Macron (diacrítico) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Tohutō → Macron (diacrítico) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Pōtae → Macron (diacrítico) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Por WP:RFOR

También nominó a Kahakos , Kahakō , Tohutō y Pōtae . Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 00:54, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Todos estos términos se mencionan en el artículo. Manténgalos o ajústelos para incluirlos en los párrafos pertinentes. Cree también Tohuto y Potae como {{ a2r }} / {{ r from ASCII }} . -- Tamzin^{[ cetáceo necesario ]} ( they|xe ) 21:18, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener a menos que haya ambigüedad: afinidad clara y fuerte. Se inclinaría en contra del refinamiento. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:18, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No veo cómo otra lengua que no sea el latín puede reivindicar una fuerte afinidad con el macrón, que se utiliza en docenas de idiomas. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 20:24 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ^{¡Lee! ¡Habla!} 07:56, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Refinar todas las variantes de Kahakō a Macron (diacrítico)#Kahakō . Refinar todas las variantes de Tohutō y Pōtae (con más variantes creadas según Tamzin) a Macron (diacrítico)#Tohutō . (La sección define Pōtae como un nombre alternativo para Tohutō en maorí).

WP:RLANG (citado anteriormente como WP:RFOR ) no se aplica aquí; los términos redirigidos desde están definidos y explicados explícitamente en relación con el idioma del que provienen (hawaiano y maorí respectivamente), lo que significa que, de hecho, tienen una fuerte afinidad. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 11:42 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Refinar por Lunamann. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 13:51 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Refinar a anclas. YodaYogaYogurt154 ( discusión ) 14:21 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Refinar exactamente como lo sugiere Lunamann. A7V2 ( discusión ) 06:18 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

21 de octubre

El mundo (arma)

El mundo (arma) → Dio Brando ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Los stands no son inherentemente "armas". Los stands como Emperor (una pistola) y Anubis (una katana) son armas bastante literales, y Heritage for the Future tiene "stands de armas" (que es una mecánica de juego, no una categoría literal), pero World (un fantasma potenciador) no es ninguna de las dos cosas. No puedo nombrar ningún caso notable de alguien que use un mundo como arma literal, además de quizás Amid Evil 's Celestial Garra, que dispara planetas. Cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 19:21, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantén . "¿Los Stands no son armas"? Eh, no lo sabía. Supongo que hay que aprender algo nuevo. De todos modos, esperar que todos los lectores estén al tanto de la historia de JoJo para poder usar una redirección de Wikipedia no es realista. Los buscadores no tienen ninguna necesidad de comprender ya la definición de Stand y si los Stands son armas o no. Esas escenas de lucha son una exageración, ¿qué otra cosa serían "esas cosas" si no armas? En cualquier caso, ninguna otra arma se llama "The World" en World (desambiguación) , así que no hay problemas aquí. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 05:17, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
no son armas inherentemente . no golpearías a alguien con khnum (una cara), love love deluxe (pubertad como se ve en boca grande ), super fly ( no puedo irme sin mi amigo superfly ) o the world (chico musculoso, ¿preferirías que golpeara cosas o usarlo como una herramienta de contundencia poco práctica?), pero podrías considerar ratt (pistola de dardos), sex pistols (balas) y weather report (clima) como armas lo suficientemente parecidas. también nota stand (arma), que se eliminó no hace mucho tiempo , y the world (stand) , que fue creado por algún empollón justo después de este nombre de rfd cogsan _{(regañame) (acechame)} 12:29, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 23:38, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

~~Este Rfd debe ser obra de un stand enemigo .~~ Eliminar por vago. En realidad, hay varias interpretaciones armadas de The World Raging, como Yugioh, House of the Dead y Persona. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 02:40, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

AN/ALQ-128

AN/ALQ-128 → McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle#Especificaciones (F-15C) ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El tema de esta redirección, el AN/ALQ-128, apenas se menciona en la página de destino sobre un avión, el McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle . El destino es una subsección que enumera múltiples especificaciones para el avión. El lector debe buscar muy a fondo para encontrar el ALQ-128 mencionado. Esta redirección no tiene ningún propósito real y debería eliminarse. — TadgStirkland ⁴⁰¹ (Tadg ^Talk ) 21:26, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

~~Borrar.~~ Parece que se trata de un módulo instalado en el F-15, pero presumiblemente también lo está en otros aviones militares estadounidenses. Borrar para permitir la creación de artículos sobre este módulo EW, si es importante. Natg 19 ( discusión ) 02:07 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En realidad, parece que este era un artículo hasta 2022, cuando fue nominado como PROD, pero luego fue desproducido y redirigido a su objetivo actual. Tal vez deberíamos anular el BLAR original y enviarlo a AFD. Natg 19 ( discusión ) 02:10 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

eliminar . no es que sea un experto en artilugios militares, pero la segunda y tercera fuentes en la diferencia previa a Blar no parecen tan confiables , significativas , no generadas por el usuario, no obsoletas por raspado y plagio ... honestamente, tampoco estoy poniendo demasiada fe en la primera (que actualmente está inactiva, ya que el archivo de Internet también está inactivo), ya que la redacción allí implica que se trata más del AN/ALR-56. Encontré un artículo aparentemente confiable que lo menciona, pero es de pasada, ni siquiera sobre el F-15, y parece que solo lo menciona por accidente (mezclándolo con el AN/ALQ-218, probablemente) cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 16:46, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 23:37, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Nuestro dinero

Nuestro Dinero → Casino (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

ver historial para la explicación. vago, no mencionado en el objetivo, no mencionado en artículos sobre juegos de azar y terminología de juegos de azar, sin entrada en wikcionario, etc. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:27, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nominación como WP:COSTLY , demasiado vago e inverosímil. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 22:08, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar. No se menciona en el objetivo, pero ¿nos invitan a ver la historia para obtener una explicación? ¡Muy bien, es hora de profundizar en la historia! Bien, entonces.
-El artículo original "Nuestro dinero" era una frase breve sin fuentes de la era de 2005, que definía "Nuestro dinero" como un estado en el que un jugador ya ganó dinero y está usando las ganancias ya obtenidas para apostar más.
-De hecho, se fusionó con el artículo del Casino a principios de 2006, originalmente se puso como una oración sin fuentes en el párrafo inicial.
-Dicho párrafo inicial luego se dividió a la mitad dos días después para crear la sección Apuestas en casinos , que, varios meses después, se movió debajo de la sección Historial.
-Esto dura hasta septiembre de 2006, cuando una dirección IP cambia el término mencionado, de "Nuestro dinero", a "Jugar con dinero de la casa", presumiblemente significando lo mismo (si tomamos "nuestro" en este caso para referirnos al casino/casa en sí), y dando exactamente la misma definición, pero todavía sin fuente.
-Al revisar el artículo moderno, este dato todavía está presente, como se ve en Casino#Juegos de azar en casinos ; aunque en algún momento se reescribió como "jugar con el dinero de la casa", todavía está presente y todavía no se ha citado ninguna fuente.
Me gustaría señalar que la versión "corregida" del término, como se ve en la versión actual del artículo, está en Wikcionario y se encuentra establecida en varios lugares en otros lugares. Sin embargo, es mucho más difícil encontrar "Nuestro dinero" como sinónimo de "jugar con el dinero de la casa" y, como ya se señaló, es mucho más vago debido a que deja en el aire a quién se refiere el "nosotros" en "nuestro": ¿la Casa? ¿el jugador? ¿Alguien completamente ajeno al juego? Dada la vaguedad presente y lo mínimo que es el impacto en la historia real (es... una oración, y una oración sin fuentes, además), diría que es seguro eliminar esta. Sin embargo, si se determina que se debe conservar este historial, ¿puedo sugerir mover el historial y redirigirlo a " Jugar con el dinero de la casa "? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 02:31 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
eh, no creo que haya mucho que valga la pena trasladar en esa historia. En cualquier caso, voy a ser imprudente, quiero decir atrevido, y crearé esa redirección (y también jugaré con el dinero de la casa ) alrededor de 7 segundos después de publicar esta respuesta, ¡y nadie puede detenerme! cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 19:54, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, dicen que jugar con el dinero de la casa es una licencia para ser imprudente :3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 22:32 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Jugo de fruta real

Jugo de fruta real → Jugo (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

¿A diferencia de jugo de fruta falso? ¿Se refiere a jugo real o fruta real? Creado por un editor que fue bloqueado por trollear con redirecciones , el término no se menciona en el objetivo y no creo que haya ningún objetivo potencialmente utilizable. cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 20:18, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Refinar a Jugo#100% jugo de fruta que es un sinónimo bastante cercano. Según mi experiencia, "jugo de fruta real" se utiliza para comercializar productos que contienen jugo real en lugar de aquellos con sabor artificial. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:23, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Refinar según Presidentman. Una simple búsqueda en Google me arroja decenas de productos diferentes solo en la primera página de resultados que afirman ser o contener "jugo de fruta real". Este es un término de búsqueda muy plausible. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 22:03 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar . "Real" no es sinónimo de "100%" (también conocido como "puro"). Y no sólo eso, sino que sospecho que la sección de destino propuesta probablemente debería ser eliminada debido a que es... bueno... de alcance incomprensible y con fuentes aparentemente no compatibles con WP:MEDRS . 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 22:18, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Refinar según el Presidente. No estoy de acuerdo con la afirmación del IP de que "real" no es lo mismo que "puro". Si compro "jugo de naranja real" y descubro que el jugo que estoy comprando es agua con saborizantes, endulzada y colorante artificiales, querré que me devuelvan mi dinero, porque espero un jugo de naranja 100 % elaborado con naranjas reales.
El argumento de WP:MEDRS /scope es una cuestión completamente distinta; sin embargo, en última instancia está fuera de nuestro alcance en RfD. Tal como están las cosas, en este momento, estamos hablando de la redirección y, tal como están las cosas, este es el mejor objetivo. Si desea obtener algún cambio en el artículo en sí, le recomiendo que se dirija a su página de discusión para comenzar a trabajar, o mejor aún, consiga mejores fuentes sobre qué es el jugo 100% natural y qué puede hacer en comparación con el jugo no puro, y escriba una edición usted mismo. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 00:11 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Refinar por Presidentman -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 03:40 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Refinar según lo indicado anteriormente. Búsqueda muy plausible, dada la frecuencia con la que se utiliza el término en publicidad y etiquetado. Fieari ( discusión ) 05:29 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Conservar (no refinar): la sección propuesta trata específicamente de los efectos del jugo de fruta 100 % sobre la salud, no sobre el jugo de fruta en general. Sin embargo, creo que esta es una forma perfectamente plausible de buscar jugo, ya que el artículo trata sobre jugo de fruta "real" en lugar de, por ejemplo, refresco . A7V2 ( discusión ) 23:12, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Dialecto del Ulster

Idioma del Ulster → Dialecto escocés del Ulster (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Dialecto del Ulster → Dialecto escocés del Ulster (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Después de crearlo, me di cuenta de que el inglés del Ulster y el irlandés del Ulster también podrían incluirse en esta frase, por lo que no estoy seguro de si es ambiguo. Web-julio ( discusión ) 18:04 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Desambiguar Mi búsqueda muestra que "idioma/dialecto del Ulster" se utiliza para referirse a todos los idiomas de la región del Ulster. [12][13] Ca ^¡háblame!22:20 21 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

dabify usando los artículos sugeridos por nom. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 03:41 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Hiperión (Helsinki)

Hyperion (Helsinki) → Vuosaari ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Parece ser un edificio futuro, pero no se menciona en el objetivo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 18:03, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre A7V2 ( discusión ) 23:15 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Dios (obra de arte)

Dios (obra de arte) → Universo (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Aunque se menciona a "Dios" en el objetivo, no veo nada sobre una obra de arte. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 18:00, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar : no tiene sentido. ¿Se da a entender que el dios en el que cree el creador es una obra de arte del universo? ¿O que el universo es la obra de arte de dicha deidad? Cremastra ( u — c ) 19:35, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

eliminar . incluso el término "dios" es vago aquí. podría referirse a un fanart de arceus por lo que sabemos cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 20:35, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reorientar a Dios (desambiguación)#Artes, entretenimiento y medios (si crees que las canciones y los álbumes musicales son plausibles para este término de búsqueda), Dios (desambiguación)#Otras artes, entretenimiento y medios (si crees que las obras musicales no lo son pero una obra de teatro sí) o Dios (escultura) (si crees que ni las obras musicales ni una obra de teatro son plausibles). Mi primera idea fue un artículo general sobre representaciones de dios(es) en el arte, mientras que tenemos Categoría:Dios en el arte y Categoría:Dioses en el arte pero no puedo encontrar un artículo general, solo los que tratan sobre uno o más dioses específicos ( Dios se trata del concepto de dios en las religiones monoteístas, no de ninguna deidad individual, por lo que no podemos asumir uno específico). Thryduulf ( discusión ) 22:28 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a Dios (desambiguación)#Artes, entretenimiento y medios por Thryduulf. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 03:42 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a Dios (desambiguación)#Artes, entretenimiento y medios por Thryduulf. A7V2 ( discusión ) 23:17 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Rayshelle Peyton

Rayshelle Peyton → Lista de personajes recurrentes de Los Simpsons ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Personaje que no se menciona en el objetivo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 17:22, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar . Editar resumen cuando se crea indica que se podría agregar una sección sobre este personaje, pero sin dicha sección, se debe eliminar (siempre se puede volver a crear más adelante si corresponde). Dada la gran cantidad de menciones en varios artículos de episodios, probablemente sería apropiado incluir al personaje. A7V2 ( discusión ) 23:19 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa

Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa → Asamblea Legislativa de Goa (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay lista de líderes de la oposición en el objetivo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 16:59, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar . No parece que tengamos contenido relevante en ningún lado. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 17:13 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar lo anterior -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 03:42 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de China Taipei

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de China Taipei → Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de China Taipei (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El equipo sub-17 no se menciona en ningún caso en el objetivo. Según las edades en la lista incluida, este es el equipo femenino regular. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 16:27, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre A7V2 ( discusión ) 23:20 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

ZarNok

CzarNok → Capitol Records (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en ninguna parte del artículo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 16:22, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Copa Mundial de Baloncesto FIBA 2031

Copa del Mundo de Baloncesto FIBA 2031 → Copa del Mundo de Baloncesto FIBA ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay información relevante en el destino y ni una sola mención del evento. WP:TOOSOON . Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 15:49, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nominación. Achmad Rachmani ( discusión ) 15:50 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por nombre. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 17:15 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por nombre A7V2 ( discusión ) 23:20 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por nombre -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 05:10 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Meghalaya

Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Meghalaya → Asamblea Legislativa de Meghalaya (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

No hay una lista de vicepresidentes en el objetivo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 15:44, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Palestina

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Palestina → Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Palestina (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

En el objetivo no se menciona ni se habla de la selección sub-17. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 15:41, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre. Existe una selección nacional femenina de fútbol de Palestina sub-20 que también analiza equipos sub-19 y sub-18, pero no el equipo sub-17. También potencialmente WP:REDYES / WP:RFD#D10 . A7V2 ( discusión ) 00:40 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Tayikistán

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Tayikistán → Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Tayikistán (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

En el objetivo no se menciona ni se habla de la selección sub-17. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 15:41, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre y potencialmente WP:REDYES / WP:RFD#D10 . A7V2 ( discusión ) 00:40 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Crapulinsky

Crapulinsky → Napoleon III (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Consulte Wikipedia:Redirecciones_para_discusión/Log/2024_October_20#Crapulinksy para conocer el razonamiento detrás de esta RFD. Al principio, no me di cuenta de que la otra redirección estaba mal escrita. Para abreviar, redirija a El dieciocho brumario de Luis Bonaparte . Nickps ( discusión ) 13:07 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar , no se menciona ni en el objetivo actual ni en el propuesto. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 16:59 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir según la justificación del nominador en Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/20 de octubre de 2024#Crapulinksy . Por lo que he podido entender, esta palabra se utiliza una vez en el 18 de Brumario y en ningún otro lugar. Celia Homeford ( discusión ) 09:32 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Artista desconocido - Haciendo su cama

Artista desconocido - Haciendo su cama → Mi cama#Reacciones (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en la página de destino y las palabras genéricas hacen que las búsquedas en Google sean bastante difíciles de realizar. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 07:59, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ley de Wheaton

Ley de Wheaton → meta:No seas imbécil ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

A menos que exista un objetivo local apropiado para esta página, se debería contemplar su eliminación. La plantilla simple {{ soft redirect }} no se utiliza en el espacio principal (en la línea del sentimiento expresado en WP:SOFTSP ). Por lo tanto, consulte esta discusión sobre eliminación ; si se considera que esto es digno de existir tal como está, _entonces será necesario restaurar esa plantilla. — Godsy^{( CONVERSACIÓN}₎ 04:46, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

El comentario de la Ley de Wheaton apunta a Wil Wheaton , que ya no menciona la Ley de Wheaton ( eliminada en julio de 2023 ). A día de hoy, la única mención en la Wikipedia en inglés es una WP:PTM de un libro de derecho internacional no relacionado de Henry Wheaton . 59.149.117.119 ( discusión ) 09:28 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso debería realmente incluirse en esto, ya que no hay razón para tratarlos de manera diferente. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 17:13, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar (ambos, suponiendo que el otro se incluya después de que escriba esto) . No se menciona en WP, y una redirección suave a meta para algo como esto es altamente inapropiado. Por otro lado, si alguien quiere agregarlo nuevamente al artículo de la biografía principal, entonces también estaría bien volver a apuntar allí (o incluso recrearlo si es mucho más tarde). 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 17:13, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar : para contextualizar, "Ley de Wheaton" es un meme (ver aquí) de una ocasión en la que Will Weathon pidió comportarse en los juegos en línea, acortándolo a "No seas un idiota". Eso se convirtió en un meme, pero también "Ley de Wheaton" como nombre seguro para el trabajo. Por lo tanto, a menos que se considere relevante para el artículo de Wheaton (hoy en día no lo es), debería eliminarse. El meme en sí no es digno de un artículo, por supuesto. Cambalachero ( discusión ) 20:02 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Khilafat Majlis de Bangladesh

Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis → Khelafat Majlish (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: he creado un artículo separado . – 𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 06:05, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

20 de octubre

Cosas de mierda

Crapulinksy → Napoleon III (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el destino ni en ningún lugar de Wikipedia. Como nos dice el comentario HTML en la redirección, el término proviene de El dieciocho brumario de Luis Bonaparte , que a su vez hacía referencia a Los dos caballeros de Heinrich Heine . Dado que, hasta donde yo sé, el término no se usa para referirse a Napoleón III fuera del Dieciocho brumario, creo que la redirección debería redirigirse a El dieciocho brumario de Luis Bonaparte y agregar una referencia allí. Nickps ( discusión ) 22:29 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar . Este tipo de error tipográfico trivial no es útil como término de búsqueda. Incluso el término Crapulinsky escrito correctamente solo se ve 6 veces al año[14]. Celia Homeford ( discusión ) 12:58 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vaya, ni siquiera me había dado cuenta. Supongo que tendré que abrir un RFD aparte para la redirección escrita correctamente. Nickps ( discusión ) 13:06 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ahora abrí Wikipedia:Redirecciones_para_discusión/Registro/2024_21_de_octubre#Crapulinsky . Nickps ( discusión ) 13:08 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar - No es un término de búsqueda plausible. FOARP ( discusión ) 08:16 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Invertir 90L

Invertir 90L → Inundaciones en el sur de Florida en junio de 2024 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Los números de inversión son reutilizados frecuentemente por el NHC y otros; y a menudo varias veces durante el mismo año. Es por esto que no es factible tener una redirección como esta dada la certeza de que otra tormenta recibirá la designación 90L en el futuro cercano. ¡ Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 22:20, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Si tuviera que dar una sugerencia, diría que eliminen esta entrada y agreguen sal a TODAS las designaciones de inversión posibles (años 90 con las letras de sufijo A, B, C, E, L, M, P, Q, S y W) de esa manera, algo como esto no puede volver a suceder. No van a retirar las designaciones de inversión y las van a usar varias veces. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 22:27, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Estoy de acuerdo contigo. Siento que hemos tenido esta discusión unas cuantas docenas de veces. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:48, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar Existen demasiados huracanes de 90 L como para que este sea el objetivo. En todo caso, se debería dar prioridad a otros huracanes. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:47, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Quxyz , ¿quieres decir que alguien ha usado números de inversión como redireccionamientos antes? ¡Hurricane Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 23:32, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a Invest (meteorología)#Designación para que coincida con Invest 91-L , Invest 93L , Invest 98L e Invest 99-L . Tenemos contenido relevante y no ambiguo para este término de búsqueda altamente plausible, por lo que su eliminación no tiene sentido. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 23:40 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar como Thryduulf; también puede ser un buen esfuerzo que valga la pena tomar tantas designaciones de inversión como sea posible (como en el caso del huracán Clyde) y, en lugar de salar, apuntar a Invertir (meteorología)#Designación para que coincida con esta. Probablemente, al mismo tiempo que se protegen a todos para que un editor de WP:GOODFAITH no pueda reorientarlos a otra página de desastres. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 04:22, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con la creación de redirecciones para las otras variantes (tanto con guiones como sin ellos), a menos que alguna sea ambigua (no lo he comprobado). Sin embargo, no apoyo la protección preventiva. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 14:49, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Retargeting según Thryduulf. También apoyo la sugerencia de Lunamann de hacer un retargeting masivo, aunque no estoy seguro de la necesidad de proteger. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:10, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Obispo Decco

Decco Bishop → Lista de personajes de Fair City ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay ninguna entrada en la página de destino, solo aparece dentro de una referencia. No hay nada realmente enciclopédico sobre esta persona. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 23:36 19 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Es incorrecto que el personaje solo aparezca dentro de una referencia. Se menciona a Decco como el padre de Samantha Bishop y tiene cierta relación con Xavier Bishop. Sin embargo, un objetivo mejor sería Fair City#Realismo social , relacionado con la vida en prisión. Jay 💬 16:00, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Legoktm(discusión) 00:56 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

@ Jay : Gracias por el consejo sobre la mención; en mi opinión, sigue siendo WP:SURPRISEing (en la subsección Fair City ), especialmente si el material cambia y la mención desaparece, entonces nos quedaremos con una redirección inútil mientras eso ocurre. Si la gente está buscando un personaje, creo que esperarían terminar en una lista de personajes. Esto todavía parece lo suficientemente específico como para eliminarlo, ya que el personaje parece ser extremadamente menor por lo que estoy viendo. Siempre se puede recrear si hay una entrada que se crea más tarde. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 20:11, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Steel1943 (discusión) 21:24 20 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Eliminar por Utopos. A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:15, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Presa de Vaca

Presa Vaca → Presa Chalillo (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Al igual que la presa #Mollejon que se muestra a continuación, se trata de una presa independiente que no se aborda en el artículo de destino más allá de una sola mención pasajera. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 21:20 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:17 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nom. Tavantius ( charla ) 11:47, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Presa de Mollejón

Presa Mollejon → Presa Chalillo (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Esta redirección es a una presa independiente, no a un nombre alternativo para la presa Chalillo en sí, por lo tanto, creo que debería eliminarse. Tavantius ( discusión ) 21:03 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre. Esta sería una redirección aceptable si se hiciera mención de esta presa en el artículo, pero solo se la menciona de pasada. Thryduulf ( discusión )
Eliminar por nombre y Thryduulf. A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:18 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Keep - @ Thryduulf , A7V2 y Tavantius : Mollejon Dam es una pequeña represa secundaria en un pequeño país en desarrollo. Nunca cumplirá con los estándares de notabilidad de Wikipedia. Sin embargo, es posible que alguien en Wikipedia la busque. En ese caso, enviarlos al artículo sobre la presa Chalillo (la presa más grande aguas arriba) al menos les brinda información básica sobre la presa Mollejon (en qué río está ubicada, en qué país y que es una pequeña represa aguas abajo del Chalillo). ¿No es eso mejor que no ofrecerles nada? Nosferattus ( discusión ) 04:22, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La redirección tal como está es simplemente confusa para alguien que no sabe nada sobre la presa, llega a una página sobre una presa diferente a la que buscaba que solo tiene una mención pasajera del tema que le interesa y que tiene que buscar. Si el objetivo fuera una lista de represas en Belice o un artículo que incluyera una mención significativa de la represa Mollejon, esto sería diferente, pero el contenido debe venir antes de la redirección. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 09:12 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con Thryduulf. La lista de represas en Belice es un artículo sensato que se debe crear (y un buen objetivo para las dos represas pequeñas que se analizan aquí), por lo que el argumento de que nunca habrá un artículo en Wikipedia no funciona realmente. Renerpho ( discusión ) 23:28 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Thryduulf y Renerpho : Solo hay 3 represas en Belice: la de Chalillo y dos represas secundarias inmediatamente aguas abajo de ella. Todas son propiedad de la misma empresa y están operadas por ella y se las trata efectivamente como un solo sistema de represas.[15] Sería una tontería tener un artículo con la Lista de represas en Belice para 3 represas. Nosferattus ( discusión ) 14:32 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Fuerza opuesta)

Adrian Shephard (Half-Life, Opposing force) → Personajes de la serie Half-Life#Adrian Shephard ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La desambiguación se escribió incorrectamente. El nombre correcto es Half-Life: Opposing Force , no Half-life, Opposing force . QuicoleJR ( discusión ) 20:55 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Débil fortaleza : parece haber sido el título del artículo anterior de Adrian Shephard durante unos 3 años. Inofensivo, inequívoco. A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:20 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sigue excluyendo esta discusión, hay 17 páginas de Wikipedia que enlazan a esta redirección.[16] Renerpho ( discusión ) 23:21 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dichas páginas son o bien páginas que alertan de que esta redirección fue enviada a RFD, páginas que transcluyen las primeras, o RFD/páginas que la transcluyen. Además de esto, los enlaces entrantes no son una razón válida para mantener una redirección ya que simplemente pueden ser reemplazados. mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 11:37, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¡Lánzate a una nueva aventura!

¡Lánzate a una nueva aventura! → Super Mario Galaxy 2 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el objetivo, ha recibido menos de cien visitas a la página durante toda su existencia y una búsqueda en línea no arrojó nada relacionado con la franquicia de Mario. QuicoleJR ( discusión ) 20:37 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar . Si agregas "Mario" a tu término de búsqueda de Google, puedes encontrar que hay una conexión (por ejemplo, [17]), pero también es el lema de muchas otras cosas, en particular anuncios de contratación. Sin ningún indicio de contexto y sin mención en el objetivo, esto es demasiado vago para ser útil. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 21:27, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar . Me cuesta imaginar a alguien que recuerde esta frase promocional que no tiene nada de especial, pero que de alguna manera la relacione con el texto principal ( Super Mario Galaxy 2 ) en cuestión, especialmente porque es tan genérica. Andrzejbanas ( discusión ) 18:50 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar - No es plausible, no está especialmente relacionado con el tema. FOARP ( discusión ) 08:17 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

3.1415926535…

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664 709384 46095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 → Pi ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redirigir /eliminar ]

Eliminar. Esto se creó hace unos meses. Es simplemente el número máximo de dígitos que Wikipedia permite para el título de una página. No es un término de búsqueda razonable y yo diría que no cumple la regla n.° 8 de WP:RFD#DELETE : ser un sinónimo nuevo o poco conocido que es poco probable que sea útil. El resumen de la edición para su creación, que es "255 (el número máximo) de caracteres. Jajaja", también me hace preguntarme si se trata de una edición de broma (este usuario ha tenido una especie de "obsesión" con el límite de 255 caracteres, compare este ejemplo ). Renerpho ( discusión ) 04:47 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : No notifiqué al creador de esta redirección, porque fue baneado indefinidamente una semana después de crearla, por manipulación de medios. Notifiqué a 2003 LN6 como el único otro usuario que la ha editado. También lo mencioné en Wikipedia discusión:Wikipedia records#New longest redirect title , que es donde me enteré originalmente. Creo que debería cubrir a todos los que puedan tener interés en esta redirección. Renerpho ( discusión ) 04:52, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se puede encontrar una descripción general de las discusiones anteriores sobre esta pregunta (hasta 2018) en Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/10 de octubre de 2018#Redirecciones a pi . Desde entonces, también ha habido Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/22 de febrero de 2022#3.141592653589... . También se pueden encontrar argumentos relevantes allí. Renerpho ( discusión ) 01:08 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgase inofensivo, va exactamente donde debe apuntar. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 06:08, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar un término de búsqueda no razonable, creado por un calcetín. No es útil. Polyamorph ( discusión ) 08:44 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener . En Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/8 de febrero de 2022 § Las bandas de chicos han ganado, y todos los copistas y las bandas tributo y los productores de programas de talentos de televisión han ganado, argumenté que en un caso en el que el título completo superara los 255 caracteres, "creo que es razonable decir que cualquier truncamiento plausible del título completo es un término de búsqueda válido". Esto es un poco diferente porque la longitud total de la cadena en cuestión es, bueno, infinita, y no apoyaría mantener redirecciones para cada uno de los 251 truncamientos posibles después de 3.14. Pero parece razonable permitir una redirección para el truncamiento más largo posible admitido por MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[ cetáceo necesario ]} ( they|xe ) 08:57, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Plausible" es la palabra clave aquí, y no has explicado por qué es razonable mantener un número de 255 dígitos en particular. El hecho de que sea el máximo permitido por MediaWiki no lo convierte en un término de búsqueda plausible. Renerpho ( discusión ) 17:16 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar , no es un término de búsqueda plausible. Graham87 ( discusión ) 14:09 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar , ¿de verdad creen que sería plausible que alguien escriba toda esta cadena para buscar Pi cuando literalmente solo necesita escribir "Pi" o "3.14"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 15:07 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Voto de enmienda: Me gustaría señalar que la idea que se le planteó más tarde a Salt es buena. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 15:54 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Algunos lectores pueden tropezar con una serie muy larga de dígitos y no darse cuenta de que es pi, por lo que la buscarán, truncándola según sea necesario. ^¡háblame!15:35 13 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿Y dónde entra en juego el "truncamiento según sea necesario" exactamente en 255 dígitos? Si se trunca en 256, se producirá un error, y si se trunca en 254, se producirá una redirección que no existe. Renerpho ( discusión ) 17:18 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar : no es un título de redirección útil. Jay 💬 15:48, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Débil, manténgase inequívoco y barato. Charlotte ( Reina de corazones • discusión ) 19:55 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener por Tamzin. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 19:57 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar como secuencia de dígitos que nadie escribirá en ningún tipo de motor de búsqueda. -- Викидим ( discusión ) 22:00 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No es para escribir, es para copiar y pegar. Si pegas más de 255 dígitos de pi en Wikipedia, se truncará en esta redirección. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 01:40, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Por lo que sé, así no es como funcionan los motores de búsqueda. Si uno escribe más de esta cantidad exacta de dígitos, los motores de búsqueda no truncarán el token a nuestros 256 caracteres y no apuntarán a nuestro artículo (pruebe con Google). Si la búsqueda se realiza dentro de Wikipedia, el mensaje largo realmente funcionará y obtendrá una sugerencia de Pi sin esta redirección (la redirección en realidad será confusa ya que distraerá la atención del artículo real). Викидим ( discusión ) 06:50, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo según Tamzin. La versión técnicamente más larga posible de un número que es infinito. Esto es especialmente relevante porque es un número que no se repite y no es raro memorizar muchos dígitos en la cultura matemática popular. — Godsy^{( CONVERSACIÓN}_{) 22:31, 13 de} octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar durante demasiado tiempo para poder ver los dígitos. ¿Qué sentido tiene agregar esta enorme cantidad de dígitos y esperar que la audiencia busque el número Pi de una manera alternativa por los dígitos que memoriza? Si quisieran buscar esta constante matemática, ¿no podrían simplemente escribir "Pi" en su lugar? Dedhert.Jr ( discusión ) 00:16 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgase fiel a los argumentos de Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix y otros, y a los míos en una discusión similar que tuvo lugar en marzo de 2021. Es inequívoco, inofensivo y potencialmente útil para las personas que buscan pi, independientemente de la cantidad de dígitos que escriban. Como argumenta Tamzin antes que yo, se trata de un truncamiento plausible del número completo pi (que tiene miles, millones, posiblemente incluso miles de millones de dígitos), al igual que todas las demás redirecciones de dígitos pi que cité en esa discusión. Saludos, SONIC 678 01:20, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La única forma de utilizar esta redirección, que yo sepa, es memorizar cientos de dígitos de pi y escribir (o pegar) un número exacto de estos dígitos en el motor de búsqueda. Todos los motores modernos intentarían completar automáticamente el mensaje (el que aparece en Wikipedia después de escribir 3.141592 identificará solo el Pi y esta extraña redirección, por lo que sería genial escuchar una descripción del escenario, donde un genio que memorizó todos estos dígitos (1) no sabe que pertenecen a pi y (2) no se da cuenta de la sugerencia del motor de búsqueda. Викидим ( discusión ) 06:41, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo . Inofensivo, preciso. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 02:14 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener la redirección técnicamente correcta. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 05:08 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Pregunta del nominador : Para aquellos que argumentan a favor de mantener, ¿están diciendo que deberíamos tener una redirección de todas las otras longitudes posibles? ¿Reconocen que esto va en contra de la mayoría de las discusiones anteriores que involucran redirecciones a versiones truncadas de pi? Tenemos algunas, como todas hasta 3.14159265358979323846264338 , pero la mayoría de las demás, incluidas algunas como 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, que en realidad se menciona en otro artículo y podría ser un término de búsqueda útil, pero se ha eliminado por R3: Redirección inverosímil creada recientemente, faltan. Vea también esta antigua discusión de eliminación y esta . Estoy seguro de que hay otras; ambas han resultado en la eliminación de múltiples redirecciones similares por la misma razón y se dan como ejemplos.

Si ese argumento no se sostiene, entonces deberíamos tener 255 redirecciones diferentes, una por cada posible truncamiento, más una nota en la página de políticas que indique que dichas redirecciones se consideran útiles según la discusión de la comunidad. Renerpho ( discusión ) 13:55, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Corrección: En realidad todo depende de 3,1415926535897932384626433832795.

(También fue nominado para su eliminación , pero se mantuvo debido a que la versión de 32 dígitos era útil para la razón de punto flotante que mencionaste. Supongo que el 0 adicional fue demasiado.

No estoy seguro de si existe un caso de uso similar para 255 dígitos). ApexParagon ( discusión ) 16:18, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 no existe desde 2011, y 3.1415926535897932384626433832 fue eliminado en 2015. Renerpho ( discusión ) 16:37 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Este último, por supuesto, es diferente de los demás, porque era un artículo, no una redirección. Se eliminó bajo A7 ( Artículo sobre un sitio web, blog, foro web, webcomic, podcast, juego de navegador o contenido web similar, que no indica de manera creíble la importancia o el significado del tema ), que es una razón en la que no habría pensado. Se podría discutir si debería haberse convertido en una redirección en ese momento. Yo diría que no, por las mismas razones para eliminar el otro(s), pero se podría . Renerpho ( discusión ) 16:49, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

De esto no se sigue que, porque no eliminemos una redirección de un determinado personaje, debamos crear otras del mismo personaje, o incluso alentar, o incluso no desalentar, tales creaciones. En el caso de los artículos, estas tres líneas están tan cerca que, para la mayoría de las personas y la mayoría de los propósitos, se fusionan en una sola. Las redirecciones son diferentes porque pueden ser inofensivas, no anuncian su presencia como los artículos y son muy baratas en todos los recursos, especialmente en los recursos de editores (a menos que sean nominadas para su eliminación). Todo lo mejor: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC).[ responder ]

Manténgalo como Tamzin. No todos los truncamientos son términos de búsqueda plausibles, pero este lo es porque detectará a todos los que lo usen y a títulos más largos. También ayudará a los motores de búsqueda (internos y externos) a dirigir a las personas que usan truncamientos ligeramente más cortos al artículo que desean leer. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 14:38, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar y agregar sal por improbable y según Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/2022 22 de febrero n.º 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 . Está claro que nadie escribiría esto razonablemente por nada más que por novedad (no me convence el argumento de "copiar y pegar", más sobre eso a continuación) y este tipo de títulos causan más problemas y discusión de lo que valen, todo para llegar a un artículo de dos caracteres. No permitiríamos que e (número) o raíz cuadrada de 3 tuvieran este tipo de títulos, y ninguno de estos dígitos se analiza en Pi tampoco, lo que hace que la longitud completa de este título sea un tema no discutido en la página de destino. No tenemos ningún material en Wikipedia sobre 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrario espacio)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. Este número no aparece en ningún lugar de Wikipedia. Por el contrario, tenemos un artículo sobre la constante matemática, y esa constante tiene este valor en doscientos cincuenta y cinco cifras significativas. Por extensión, esta redirección es engañosa porque todos estos dígitos incluidos en el término de búsqueda no están enumerados en el destino, por lo que las personas que quieran leer sobre todos los dígitos que escribieron, no podrían hacerlo. Las pruebas de copiar y pegar en la barra de búsqueda no me funcionan, ya que la barra de búsqueda no acepta nada más largo que 255, da un error de MediaWiki y/o "no hay resultados que coincidan con la consulta". Pero Google acepta más de 255 caracteres y, de hecho, TIENE todos los dígitos que aparecen en varios sitios de Pi. Por lo tanto, si "alguien lo ve sin contexto", Google parece ser el camino a seguir. Una redirección de Wikipedia para no 254, ni 256, sino exactamente 255 dígitos de material no mencionado, no parece útil ni útil, ni realista para leer el artículo de Wikipedia sobre Pi . Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 15:00, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por Utopos. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:23, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Manténgalo : obviamente es el objetivo correcto y es una redirección plausible (alguien que ve pi escrito de esta manera y copia todo lo que Wikipedia permite en el cuadro de búsqueda). Deténgase y considere "de manera realista, si un usuario escribiera esto en un cuadro de búsqueda y presionara Enter, ¿a dónde debería ir?" ¿Los votantes de eliminación realmente piensan que una página de "0 resultados de búsqueda" es un mejor objetivo para esto que Pi ? BugGhost 🦗👻 23:45, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ese es un argumento falaz, porque un "0 resultados de búsqueda" no es lo que está en cuestión. ¿Lo has probado? Si un usuario copia y pega 254 dígitos, la redirección no le ayudará, pero el autocompletado le da Pi incluso si eliminamos la redirección (siempre se autocompletan con 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 , lo que no está en cuestión). Y si copian y pegan 256 o más (lo que pueden hacer sin duda ), también obtendrán un autocompletado para Pi, a menos que realmente presionen buscar, en cuyo caso recibirán un mensaje de error. En ninguno de esos casos, la redirección es de ninguna ayuda. Renerpho ( discusión ) 00:48, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Una corrección (admito que no fui lo suficientemente cuidadoso cuando lo probé yo mismo): si buscas entre 256 y 300 dígitos, no encontrarás nada (ni la redirección actual ni Pi). Solo cuando ingresas 301 o más dígitos obtienes el mensaje de error. Compara H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH . Renerpho ( discusión ) 11:05 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Keep - Esta redirección no es solo esta redirección, es esta Y TODO LO QUE ES MÁS LARGO. Es plausible, ya que podrían pegar cualquier cantidad mayor de dígitos y aún así obtener esta redirección. Objetivo inequívocamente preciso. Inofensivo. WP:CHEAP . Para que conste, no me importaría si literalmente cada cantidad de dígitos entre esto y 3.14 también fuera una redirección, pero esa es otra discusión. Fieari ( discusión ) 01:18, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Podrían pegar cualquier número mayor de dígitos y aún así obtener esta redirección", eso no es cierto. Si se pega cualquier número mayor y se hace clic en "Buscar", se genera un error, con o sin esta redirección. Renerpho ( discusión ) 01:24 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y para completar, esta redirección tampoco ayuda a utilizar un número menor de dígitos (por ejemplo, 254). Al hacer clic en "Buscar" no se encuentra el artículo, pero la función de autocompletado de Wikipedia sugerirá 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 , lo que los lleva al destino correcto. La redirección en cuestión solo es útil si los usuarios pegan ese número exacto de dígitos . Renerpho ( discusión ) 01:28 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Renerpho, esta redirección tiene un tamaño de unos pocos bytes y, obviamente, va al lugar correcto. El hecho de que "solo sea útil" si el usuario escribe algo no estándar está completamente bien, ese es el objetivo de una redirección. Según mis cálculos, has hecho 10 comentarios en 23 ediciones de esta RFD; puede ser beneficioso dar un paso atrás , el resultado de esto no es realmente un gran problema en el esquema más amplio de las cosas. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:24, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El comentario al que Renerpho estaba respondiendo dice que esta redirección funciona para 255 caracteres y "TODO LO QUE SEA MÁS LARGO [sic]"; la capitalización no es mía. La fuerza del !vote parece derivar de la funcionalidad (>255). Renerpho luego dice que en realidad no es así y que la redirección solo funciona con 255 dígitos exactamente, o (=255). (De hecho, he llegado a la misma conclusión a partir de mis pruebas). Luego dices que está "completamente bien", aparentemente de acuerdo con el estado (=255), un estado mental completamente diferente de lo que Fieari afirmó en su !keep. ¿Dónde está el objetivo? ¿Se está !kept para encapsular todo lo que esté más allá de >255, o exactamente =255? Porque me hicieron creer que lo primero era la única razón por la que podía considerarse excepcional y no encontrarse con un destino ardiente junto con el resto de las "coincidencias de dígitos exactos" demasiado largas, como esta (eliminada) (=28) y esta (eliminada) (=35) y esta (ejemplo de longitud razonable) (=12) y esta (eliminada rápidamente) (=208) y esta (eliminada rápidamente) (=29) y esta (eliminada) (=98) . Eliminamos estos porque los dígitos de pi no están enumerados en la página. Esto indicaba "consenso para limitarlos", pero no había ninguna regla más allá del valor atípico existente de 3,1415926535897932384626433832795 . No puede ser que "obviamente vaya al lugar correcto" si las redirecciones pi excesivamente largas se han discutido hasta la saciedad y se han eliminado históricamente con un 100 % de certeza @RfD todos los años desde 2011. {{cn}} Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 18:37, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Utopes : El consenso puede cambiar, por supuesto, y no hay nada malo en ello. En este momento, una pequeña mayoría de votos está a favor de mantenerlo, y afirmar que hay consenso para eliminarlo parece ilusorio en este momento. Sin embargo, siento que esto realmente abre la caja de Pandora . Si mantenemos este, entonces deberíamos pensar detenidamente cómo limitaremos las redirecciones como esta en el futuro. Hay algunos votos importantes aquí, que no han sido cuestionados por la mayoría de los demás votantes de Keep, para crear redirecciones a literalmente cada truncamiento posible. Eso sería un gran cambio de política. Pero incluso si solo permitimos la redirección con 255 dígitos como una excepción especial (porque se considera útil por alguna razón, incluso si se basa en una idea errónea de cómo funciona la función de búsqueda), ¿por qué solo para Pi? ¿Qué pasa con cualquier otro número real notable? Renerpho ( discusión ) 08:09, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Renerpho : No estoy seguro de lo que quieres decir si me estás respondiendo, ¡voy a votar por eliminar! Estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo. Crear una redirección para cada cantidad de dígitos, específicamente para Pi, no es razonable ni práctico, en mi opinión. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 08:16, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Utopes : Tenía la intención de responderte. El argumento de que esto se eliminó históricamente con un 100% de certeza no es realmente relevante si el consenso ha cambiado desde entonces. Estoy tratando de entender las consecuencias de lo que estamos haciendo aquí, y si Bugghost tiene razón en que estaba/estoy exagerando. Me alejé durante tres días, y lo que está sucediendo parece tan incorrecto ahora como cuando me fui. No planeo hacer muchos más comentarios en esta discusión. BugGhost tiene razón en que esto no vale la pena de ninguna manera. Aún así, estoy tratando de entender de dónde venimos con los argumentos serios a favor de mantenerlo (esa no es una pregunta para ti, Utopes, solo algo que me estoy preguntando a mí mismo). Renerpho ( discusión ) 08:41, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo en que el consenso puede cambiar. Fue interesante porque parece que las personas que mantienen el sistema no han intentado escribir más de 255 dígitos (no funciona). Por lo tanto, la única forma en que esto funciona es exactamente 255 dígitos. Pero eliminamos exactamente 98 dígitos y muchos otros, históricamente. Entonces, si la suposición es que mantenemos esto porque "exactamente 255 dígitos es plausible", mi pregunta para los que mantienen el sistema es "¿qué hace que exactamente 255 dígitos sean más plausibles que exactamente 98 dígitos", que fue eliminada. Porque el hecho de que MediaWiki impida cosas más de 255 es pura coincidencia y no algo que un lector casual podría considerar al comenzar su búsqueda de escribir 255 números y luego detenerse inmediatamente. ¿Y luego hacemos esto para cada número con decimales periódicas? ¿0,999 ? ¿1,00000 y 255 ceros? Porque 1,0 redirige a 1, y ese es un número entero. Durante los últimos 14 años, parece que cualquier cantidad de decimales por encima de 30 se considera absolutamente inverosímil. ¡Pero el consenso puede cambiar! Por eso tengo curiosidad por saber qué es exactamente lo que ha cambiado, mientras que hace dos años = 98 dígitos (ni más ni menos) era inimaginable, pero = 255 dígitos (ni más ni menos) está bien. Bueno. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 09:02 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por favor, hágame saber qué motor de búsqueda ha probado con un número mayor de dígitos. Probé varios y no obtuve los resultados que usted describe. Викидим ( discusión ) 01:25, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar por Utopes y otros. Vamos, gente, este es exactamente el tipo de cosas inútiles para las que sirve WP:PANDORA . Y para todos los que se quedan con el número Pi , ¿por qué no Cronología del cálculo de π o Aproximaciones de π en su lugar? ¿No estaría alguien que pegara tantos dígitos más interesado en los aspectos computacionales de la generación de esos dígitos y no en un artículo general sobre el número en sí? 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 05:21 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esos objetivos serían WP:ASTONISH . Si un usuario busca una versión decimal de pi (sin importar la cantidad de dígitos), entonces Pi debería ser el objetivo; no deberíamos suponer que preferiría un artículo más especializado. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:35, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, nada debería ser el objetivo, porque nadie va a buscar exactamente 255 dígitos, como ya han señalado otros. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 07:55 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con @Utopes y digo que eliminen y salten porque esta redirección es excesiva e irrazonablemente grande. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 16:07, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantenlo por las razones anteriores. Sería más costoso en términos de ancho de banda eliminar la redirección, ya que hay muy pocas posibilidades de que alguien la use. No es problemático, como oposición a WP:COSTLY . 2003 LN 6 17:06, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar . Si bien 255 caracteres pueden ser el límite, me parece improbable que alguien escriba los 255 caracteres (o incluso copie y pegue 255 caracteres; ¿de dónde sacaría 255 caracteres? Yo abogaría por mantener si el límite de la barra de búsqueda fuera de 255 caracteres, pero ese no es el caso). Procyon117 ( discusión ) 10:20 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿Cuál es el límite de la barra de búsqueda? (Son 300, no 255; creo que 255 es el límite para la longitud de los títulos de los artículos). Renerpho ( discusión ) 10:33 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No hay absolutamente ninguna razón política para eliminarlo. No es de ninguna manera novedoso ni desconocido. Es una forma muy barata de llevar a la gente al lugar correcto, en comparación con el costo de tener una discusión al respecto. Todo lo mejor: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC).[ responder ]

Elimine esa redirección demasiado inverosímil y los números son demasiado largos para los 255 dígitos que hasta ahora han establecido Utopes y otros partidarios. Por lo tanto, se aplicarían como WP:COSTLY , WP:PANDORA y WP:RFD#D8 .

✴️Ícaro El Astrólogo✴️ 02:20 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar . Las redirecciones son baratas, pero esto es totalmente inverosímil. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 20:48 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

~~¿Eliminar y agregar sal~~ es demasiado largo y poco plausible y puede confundir una cantidad infinita de 255 dígitos hasta ahora según los Utopes mencionados anteriormente? En mi opinión, esto se aplicaría para la eliminación como WP:COSTLY , WP:PANDORA y WP:RFD#D8 .
✴️Ícaro El Astrólogo✴️ 21:42 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además de la cuestión del voto doble, también me gustaría señalar que no se debe usar WP:PANDORA , como dice WP:GETBACKINTHERE . Esta redirección tiene muchos problemas de verosimilitud sin Pandora, créanme. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 15:56 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He seguido adelante y he votado por partida doble. Sin embargo, no le digan a la gente que no invoque PANDORA. Yo y muchos otros lo consideramos un ensayo bastante coherente y valioso. El hecho de que no te guste no significa que debas decirle a otras personas que no lo usen. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 22:14 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hay una marcada diferencia entre simplemente decirle a la gente que WP:IDONTLIKEIT y darle a alguien (lo que creo que es) una descripción bien escrita y detallada de lo que PANDORA hace mal y por qué debería evitarse en las discusiones de RfD. Recomiendo leer WP:GETBACKINTHERE para obtener dicha explicación detallada, le he dedicado bastante trabajo ^^ 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 22:38, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo he leído y, francamente, es bastante terrible. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 23:50 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
... Bueno, no puedo mejorarlo si no me dices qué es lo que no te gusta de él, jajaja. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 00:10 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Lunamann : ¿No sería mejor tener una discusión centralizada sobre esto (en la página de discusión del ensayo, o en Wikipedia discusión:Redirecciones para discusión ), en lugar de mencionarlo en cada RfD que menciona a WP:PANDORA?[18] Renerpho ( discusión ) 00:52, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quiero decir. Si te refieres a hablar sobre WP:GETBACKINTHERE y formas de mejorarlo, me parece perfecto que alguien vaya a Wikipedia_talk:Please,_put_Pandora_back_in_the_box y entable una conversación. Creo que la última vez que alguien lo hizo fue en una conversación extensa que tuve allí en marzo, y eso fue suficiente para hacerme eliminar una sección entera porque no podía encontrar otra manera de complacer a la gente en esa discusión jajaja
Si estás diciendo que debería dejar de mencionar WP:GETBACKINTHERE cuando la gente menciona WP:PANDORA ... quiero decir, la razón principal por la que escribí WP:GETBACKINTHERE fue para recopilar y condensar los argumentos en contra de Pandora, porque... bueno, antes de que escribiera el artículo, la gente discutía párrafos sobre el tema y se volvía agotador y repetitivo.
Si estás diciendo que deberíamos hablar sobre la posibilidad de hacer algunos cambios en WP:PANDORA para que los argumentos en WP:GETBACKINTHERE ya no se apliquen, ¿no? ¡Sí! ¡Por favor! ¡Me ENCANTARÍA tener esa conversación! Me gustaría señalar que ya existe una sección sobre Pandora en Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box , pero la última vez que alguien respondió a esa sección fue... en marzo pasado, cuando publiqué allí, antes de escribir WP:GETBACKINTHERE . 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 01:39 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Debería dejar de mencionar" suena mucho a "cállate". No es eso lo que quiero decir. Argumentas que WP:PANDORA contradice algunos principios básicos. Tal vez sea cierto. ¿Ha habido alguna vez una encuesta sobre si alguno de los dos ensayos es compatible con la política establecida? Siento que esa discusión podría ser más fructífera que seguir gritando al vacío. Renerpho ( discusión ) 02:28 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quiero decir, no creo que haya habido ninguno, aunque no sabría dónde colocar uno.
A menos que cuentes Wikipedia talk:Las redirecciones son costosas#La caja de Pandora , que... durante los CINCO AÑOS que se ha permitido que esa discusión se mantenga sin un cierre adecuado, ha acumulado cuatro votos a favor y seis en contra. ¿Se consideraría eso suficiente para tomar medidas...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 02:56 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Sí, lo contaría! Pero no veo consenso en esa discusión, a pesar de que ha estado en curso desde 2019 (si acaso, hay un consenso para reescribir WP:PANDORA , pero no hay acuerdo sobre cómo exactamente). Ese es el tipo de discusión que continúa y continúa, pero nunca sucede nada.
Ya sugerí Wikipedia:Solicitudes de comentarios/Políticas y pautas de Wikipedia por esa misma razón. ¿Quizás este sea un caso en el que sea necesario un RfC formal? Su ensayo puede servir como base para lo que se debe abordar. (Asegúrese de leer los ejemplos de buenas preguntas/malas preguntas en WP:RFCBRIEF ). Renerpho ( discusión ) 03:55, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Icarus58 ya has votado. Por favor, haz que uno de tus votos sea un comentario o elimínalo. Gracias, Cremastra ( u — c ) 22:02, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Icarus58 : Para que quede claro, ¿podrías aclarar si votas por la sal o no? Renerpho ( discusión ) 23:15 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Notaré que Ícaro no fue quien realizó ese voto, fue el editor de IP, 35.139.154.158 ( seguí adelante y lo marqué como un voto doble ). Dado que los dos votos de Ícaro fueron "Eliminar" y "Eliminar y salar", supongo que a menos que Ícaro se presente y diga lo contrario, querría que su voto cuente como "Eliminar y salar".
A menos que Ícaro y la IP sean lo mismo. Espero que no... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 00:45 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parece que se olvidaron de iniciar sesión. Renerpho ( discusión ) 00:54 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que el IP acaba de hacer una acción audaz. Cremastra ( u — c ) 12:35, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Lunamann , no tienes ninguna prueba del usuario sospechoso con IP 35.139.154.158 relacionado con mi cuenta. Parece que has violado WP:AGF y WP:BITE . Solo me quedé para iniciar sesión, pero después de todo lo que pasé durante mis días, mi cuenta se cerraba inmediatamente antes de que se recargara automáticamente. Lo siento por mi paciencia. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 11:38, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo siento mucho, tanto por ti como por el usuario de la IP. Mi "prueba" se limitó básicamente a ese único incidente en el que dicho usuario de la IP rechazó uno de tus votos; Cremastra tenía razón en que era casi seguro que el usuario de la IP estaba intentando ser audaz. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 15:16 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar y agregar sal ¿Quién diablos va a escribir 255 dígitos de pi? No veo cómo demonios es plausible la redirección. Para disuadir a la gente de probar los límites de caracteres, también puede ser necesaria la sal adicional. ABG ( Discusión/Reportar errores aquí ) 05:17 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como nominador, me gustaría modificar mi voto inicial de eliminación y decir que probablemente la sal sea una buena idea. Renerpho ( discusión ) 05:47 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario – Quiero reiterar mi apoyo a la eliminación y al uso de sal. Mi voto está arriba. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 16:11, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar - No es un término de búsqueda plausible y ya se descartó en discusiones anteriores. Nosferattus ( discusión ) 16:46 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo , inofensivo y preciso ‹ hamster717🐉 › ^{( ¡discuta cualquier cosa! 🐹✈️ • mis contribuciones 🌌🌠 )} 15:45, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Hamster717 , a la mayoría de los editores se les solicita que eliminen los números de dígitos largos en términos de aproximación equivalentes a pi. Pero, ¿puedes aclarar tu prueba? Parece que WP:CHEAP no es aconsejable por ser inofensivo. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 11:32, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar - Dudé un poco sobre esto, pero en última instancia no es plausible que alguien busque exactamente esta cantidad de dígitos de pi. Y sí, este es un ejemplo bastante sencillo de WP:Pandora . FOARP ( discusión ) 07:22, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Alfa Omega Mu

Alpha Omega Mu → Om (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Parece un término de búsqueda poco plausible. Parece que hay bastantes fraternidades y hermandades con este nombre, pero ninguna con un artículo en la wiki. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 15:36 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar Una frase que consta de tres letras griegas no parece un término de búsqueda plausible para un concepto hindú. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:22 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
Eliminar nombre como WP:COSTLY . ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 21:53, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Δελετε por nom. Cremastra ( u - c ) 22:04, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Omán

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Omán → Fútbol femenino en Omán (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona a este equipo en la página de destino. Ni siquiera hay resultados de búsqueda relevantes en Google - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 15:03 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre. No estoy seguro de que esto exista. Cremastra ( u — c ) 22:05, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre y Cremastra. A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:24 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Harshveer Sekhon

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . Resultado: discutible .

Soy fácil de encontrar

Soy fácil de encontrar → Clay Higgins (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Parece ser una cita de 2016 basada en una búsqueda en Google. Si no se menciona en el destino, no parece lo suficientemente relevante como para ser una redirección. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 14:02, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Retarget to I Am Easy to Find . Esta es una cita de un video que se volvió un poco viral y, si bien es lo más importante en los resultados de Google, está lejos de ser lo único y el uso del término no se verá ayudado por la falta de mención en el objetivo. Mientras tanto, es plausible que se recuerde mal el título del álbum, la canción o la película que figura en la página de DAB. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 14:19, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redireccionar a la página de desambiguación Soy fácil de encontrar . Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 19:42 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
' retarget ' por Thryduulf -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:16 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Equipo de la línea directa liberal democrática

Equipo de la línea directa de los liberaldemócratas → Demócratas liberales (Reino Unido) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No mencionado en la página de destino/ - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 13:43 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo , pero lo ideal sería agregar una mención. Esta es una designación alternativa que fue utilizada en algunas elecciones municipales en 1990 por algunos miembros del partido, junto con Liberal Democratic Focus Team y Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team (Focus Team al menos se usa/se usó en más elecciones y se menciona en el artículo) y, por lo tanto, aparece en las tablas de resultados electorales. Esos candidatos representaban a los liberales demócratas, por lo que deberían llevar a los lectores al artículo sobre ese partido, pero sí, una mención sería ideal. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 14:29, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Keep - Básicamente, según Thryduulf . Término de búsqueda plausible y algo que podría estar en una tabla de resultados de Wiki en algún lugar. Supongo que esto es similar a que los conservadores se presenten como "conservadores locales". FOARP ( discusión ) 21:10 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Un nuevo

A Novo → Composición del CAC Small#Index (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Eliminar : Ya no se menciona. Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 12:59 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

El asesinato de Bouba y Kiki

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: Eliminación rápida

Α-Metilmescalina

Α-Metilmescalina → Trimetoxianfetamina (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

El tema de la redirección nunca se menciona en el artículo de destino y solo se prohíbe el acceso a otros editores o creadores de páginas. Debería eliminarse. MimirIsSmart (discusión) 09:11 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mover . La ortografía correcta debería ser α-metilmescalina , α-Metilmescalina o Alfa-metilmescalina . Enix150 ( discusión ) 19:42 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo . Se menciona como α-metilmescalina, que es difícil de escribir en un teclado normal. Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 19:49 20 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sigue así Shhhnotsoloud. ~~Sustituir A por alfa es muy plausible.~~ A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:27 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- (Como la primera letra es alfa y no A, esto debería conservarse). A7V2 ( discusión ) 22:47 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario: la redirección propuesta es α-Metilmescalina ; es una Alfa mayúscula, no una A mayúscula -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:17 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantén . La α-metilmescalina se menciona en el artículo de destino. He creado redirecciones para los términos adicionales mencionados por Enix150. Marbletan ( discusión ) 12:08, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

IRA 13349+1428

IRAS 13349+1428 → IRAS 13349+2438 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en la página de destino y no se puede encontrar nada en Google. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 08:58, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

~~Eliminar por nombre.~~ También tenga en cuenta que cuando se creó el resumen de edición fue "Redireccionando IRAS 13349+1428 a IRAS 13349+2438 ya que la designación no existe en ninguna base de datos", lo que parece una razón para no haber creado esto. Si no existe, ¿por qué alguien lo buscaría y por qué apuntarlo aquí? A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:30 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ A7V2 : Supongo que alguien hizo clic en él en algún lugar de Wikipedia. Hay docenas de artículos de Wikipedia que enlazan a la redirección mal escrita. La plantilla:Lista de galaxias Seyfert , que se utiliza en todos los artículos sobre galaxias Seyfert, ha utilizado la designación mal escrita desde 2015 y siguió usándola hasta que corregí la plantilla hace dos minutos . Renerpho ( discusión ) 02:20 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oh, and keep. Even though the redirect is relatively new, this misspelling has existed on Wikipedia for almost 10 years. There's no telling if anyone saw (and used) the wrong name. Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Also, just to be sure: There's nothing at all near coordinates 13h34.9m +14°28' (B1950.0),[19] ruling out the possibility that someone might be looking for an actual object with that name. Renerpho (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah makes sense. Since it seems to be unambiguous, happy to keep in that case. A7V2 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

HandBrake 1.7.3 2024021000

HandBrake 1.7.3 2024021000 → HandBrake (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

WP:NOTCHANGELOG and this version of the software is not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is (and is even tagged as) a {{R from file metadata link}}. See the tag for why they are useful and kept. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: For reference, do you support all file versions of software being linked as redirects? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support all redirects for file metadata strings that are linked from one or more files here or at Commons when an article about the relevant software/hardware exists. The purpose of them is to take readers to encyclopaedic information about the camera/software/etc not necessarily the specific version (although we should link to that when we have content specifically about it). The only way to change this to link to e.g. HandBrake is to upload a new version of the file with the version number removed from the metadata. Doing so would remove information that may be important for other users for essentially no benefit to us. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf above. Useful. Fieari (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucca oil

Lucca oil → Province of Lucca (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Appears to be product based on some searches, one which isn't inherently associated with the province itself. It's also not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient city

The ancient city → King's Field IV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect is now in conflict with the article about the book "The Ancient City". I propose this redirect is removed and disambiguation is added to the article on the book. Nuclearelement (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget and add a hatnote per nom. Given the number of hatnotes at City#Ancient times (where Ancient city redirects) there is probably scope for a disambiguation page somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would converting the "City#Ancient times" redirect to a disambiguation article be a good option here? Nuclearelement (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the book or someplace else more suitable. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, Ancient City should probably be a DAB and was one so "The ancient city" can go there per WP:DABNAME. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to The Ancient City. Due to WP:SMALLDETAILS, no disambiguation page appears to be required unless it is decided the book is not the primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Wikipedia:IBP

Wikipedia:IBP → Wikipedia:Republishers#USA International Business Publications.2FInternational Business Publications (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Call me out if it reflects poorly on me, but I cite WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE constantly. It would be nice if we could appropriate this shortcut, unless the present destination is more worthwhile than I presently understand it to be. I couldn't figure out a more natural shortcut either. Remsense ‥ 论 11:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should always be very careful and conservative when retargetting shortcuts because the potential for causing confusion is high, especially when it is widely used as some people will use it to refer to the old target not knowing it has been retargetted (how often do you check the target of shortcuts you use?), others will use the new target not knowing it used to point somewhere else. In this case, there are very few links (old revisions and edit summaries are not recorded) and only a smattering of views so it is unlikely to be very disruptive. If it is retargetted a hatnote to the old target should be added. As for alternatives, perhaps WP:IBOXP? Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Really, I realized MOS:IBP was free, so I'm happy to take that and WP:IBOXP and be on my merry way. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the redirect. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Gecko

Back to Gecko → Mozilla (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Back to" not mentioned at target page or at Gecko (software). Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From Googling it seems this was the very first working name of what became Firefox OS, but as it's not mentioned there (or indeed anywhere) this isn't useful a redirect at present. If it is added to the article (I have no opinion about whether it should be) this can be recreated at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Arbeitsamt

Arbeitsamt → Economy of Germany (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The term is never mentioned in the target article. Perhaps it should be retargeted to Arbeitsamt in occupied Poland or be a disambig? It is also not mentioned in de version of the target article, de:Arbeitsamt does not have a wiki article yet (it seems related to the Public employment service) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. This just translates to "unemployment office" or "employment agency" and Wiktionary notes it as "historical, –2004". We don't have any content specifically about these topics in German-speaking countries. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Bundesagentur für Arbeit. "Arbeitsamt" is the name of the official German state employment agency, which doesn't have an article on English Wikipedia (cf Jobcentre, which does) - the closest we have is our article on the government department responsible for these agencies. Tevildo (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murgh

Murgh → Chicken as food (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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)[reply]

Retarget to Butter chicken (incidentally commonly known as "butter chikkin"). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
Retarget to Chicken, has passed into English usage, see Wiktionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You do realize how much of English is comprised of loanwords (that is, words pulled from other languages), right? How old does a loanword have to be, in your eyes, before it's an English word? Narrowing in on words related to food, Beef, Pork, and Mutton are all from French, as is Café. Spaghetti and Lasagna from Italian. What about Teriyaki, or Hibachi, both from Japanese? Jalapeño and Tortilla from Spanish? Ooh, Murgh is specifically from Indian, what about Chai?
My point is that people regularly use all of these words in English speech, and if you were to remove ALL the loanwords from English, it'd sound VASTLY different.
I'll grant you the idea that pointing to only butter chicken in the hatnote might be a bad call-- but only if you can bring up other 'murgh' dishes that have pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do have to point out that the argument runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL- we can't throw our hands in the air because someone MIGHT make a page on a second or third 'murgh' dish in the future. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Retarget to Wiktionary - The discussion above has convinced me that the search is plausible, but also that we don't have any information on what the user would be looking for... namely, what does murgh mean? For that, the wiktionary entry is, in fact, the best source of useful information to the user. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear above, I still specifically oppose a wiktionary redirect, again, because it hides in-site search results from the user....search results which contain a Wiktionary link right at the top already anyway! Let the search feature do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that search results are not guaranteed to include a Wiktionary link and can be several clicks/taps away depending on multiple factors (including how you navigated here, what device you are using and whether you have the ability to create a new article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search results DO include a Wiktionary link, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I actually wrote you will see there is nothing dishonest about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note your objection, but doing the search myself, it comes up with a number of WP:PTMs that don't really provide information on the word murgh by itself, which makes me still believe that wiktionary is better suited. If they really want the search results, soft retargets provide that option. (Example soft redirect for reference what it looks like: Kiss-in) Fieari (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann. The evidence shows that, contrary to the IP's assertions, this is an English word, but even if it weren't the extensive use in English language environments would make this a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence!? The existence of this redirect is downright misleading and WP:ASTONISHing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we... we get it, you don't think this word has actually passed into English yet, and you're getting increasingly angry that everyone else says it has. Please don't bludgeon us over it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of this term at the target, so we investigate FORRED considerations. If the word means "Chicken" in Urdu, then any target BESIDES chicken (equaling murgh) would be surprising. However, it apparently has a different definition in English, where it specifically relates to culinary purposes... but such purposes are nowhere to be found on the English Wikipedia, so there is no onwiki verification. There is no mention of "Murgh" or "Urdu" at either Chicken, or Chicken as food. Typically I would accept a soft redirect to wiktionary, but we have to remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This means that not only do we forbid articles from being simple dictionary definitions here, but ALSO it means that we don't create redirects for every single dictionary word on Wikipedia to send over to Wiktionary. If someone types in "Murgh" onto WikiPEDIA, it seems they'd be looking for an ENCYCLOPEDIC entry rather than a dictionary one. We have plenty of articles about murgh on Wikipedia, such as Murgh makhani and Murgh cholay. If someone wanted to look up the definition of "murgh", they'd use a dictionary, not rely on a redirect that can occasionally lie. Especially so without any verification at the target page, or any logical reason for going to a page where its not mentioned. I took a gander at the wiktionary, and the info we have at Wikt:murgh is quite subpar (i.e. a singular word). As it stands, it does not provide benefit to readers, who would receive the same benefit and more from a Wikipedia search result. A search result, which reveals what encyclopedic topics related to "murgh" that we DO have here. The partial-title matches are probably better than assuming people want to "use an encyclopedia to read a dictionary". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, retarget to Afghan cuisine#Chicken where it is discussed as an Afghan term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that anyone searching for the Indian cuisine would be WP:SURPRISEd by the Afghan cuisine target, so that might also be a bad target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas's 62th House of Representatives district

Texas's 62th House of Representatives district → Texas's 62nd House of Representatives district (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

IMO this meets the criteria for R3, but that was contested. This redirect was only created because of a bug in {{TXHouseSuccession box}} which has since been fixed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as implausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a plausible search term. FOARP (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

Snapseed 2.22.412829873 → Snapseed (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It would make sense to have a redirect for a particularly important software version, but that version (and its importance) would need to be mentioned in the target page. WP:NOTCHANGELOG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also would likely want to go to a section header / anchor, instead of simply Snapseed. In any case, delete as per WP:RETURNTORED; there may be important info on this topic, but it's not here, and a redlink is the best way to convey that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello nice people ;)... i made it probably when i saw EXIF and see Software used, so i click and reroute to what we had (the article) and probaly that is it. Of course i wont bother if this is changed. Normally i use reroute for cameras in EXIF (EXIF is "cameras fingerprint"). Reroute=redirect --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as {{R from EXIF}} per PetarM. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie-the-Pooh (TV series)

Winnie-the-Pooh (TV series) → Winnie-the-Pooh (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are multiple Winnie-the-Pooh television series, this should probably redirect to the disambiguation page. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That disambiguation page is very problematic, it should contain only works with that exact title. And no television series listed has the exact name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Even if they don't all have the exact name "Winnie-the-Pooh," the shows are still derivatives of the original character. The DAB page's title should align with the title of the main article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget ~~per nom~~ as the main article doesn't list all of the TV series. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly changing my !vote to align with the alternative target proposed by Lunamann. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Winnie the Pooh (franchise)#TV series. I heavily disagree with LaundryPizza03, mirroring Presidentman's concerns-- to the point where I reverted an edit he made on the page, where he had, in fact, removed works that were "partial title matches". I gave an more in-depth explanation as to why, on the talk page for Winnie-the-Pooh (disambiguation).
However, I disagree that this redirect should be taken to the disambig page, mainly because- as far as I can tell- all Pooh TV series that we have information on were made by Disney, and as such are linked to on Winnie the Pooh (franchise)#TV series. As such, that would be a better target than the main disambig page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Winnie the Pooh (franchise)#TV series per Lunamann. This will be the most useful outcome for readers searching for a TV series based on these characters. BD2412 T 14:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Winnie the Pooh (franchise)#TV series per Lunamann. A7V2 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Priol

Olaf Priol → April Fools' Day (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not in the notable side of anagrams. results gave me deviantart usernames and... frozen yaoi. why cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muddle, nineteen toe. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wait, where did the second d come from? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah dammit, i thought it was for "not notable", i got gamered on. should have realized it sooner, since there would also be a missing l cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India women's national futsal team

India women's national futsal team → India national futsal team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target is for the men's team with no mention of the women's team. Should be left as a redirect to encourage creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Futsal Association of India: seems more suitable. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not mentioned at current target or Futsal Association of India. Also per WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonam Maskar

Sonam Maskar → Shooting sports in India (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as an article - Looking online it looks like this could be the subject of an article since there appears to be SigCov of Maskar (e.g., 1, 2, 3), but someone decided to create this redirect in the place where someone else might have put that article. FOARP (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellated

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

"cancellated" means two different things, neither primarily associated with bones. "cancellous" is apparently more primarily associated with bones though, so that's neato cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between the relevant Wikipedia articles covering these meanings. BD2412 T 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt. The original intention of this redirect was to target what is now Bone#Trabeculae (to where Cancellous bone redirects), but the other use of the word (Marked with cross lines) is mentioned in very many more articles, with no obvious general target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kyle katarn

Kyle Katarn → List of Star Wars Legends characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kyle katarn → Star Wars: Dark Forces (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

different targets. was about to retarget to the list of characters, as opposed to dark forces, but that entry is kind of really undercooked. opinions on which target would be better? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, the first one has a history cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about retarget both to Star Wars: Jedi Knight (article we have about the series of games he's the primary main character in) (and tag Kyle katarn with {{R avoided double redirect}} to make them less likely to go out of sync). That was also the agreed upon target in the AFD discussion in Nov 2023 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Katarn). Not sure why the nominator changed the target of Kyle Katarn to the first game in the series with the edit summary of "changed redirect hehehe" earlier this year. Skynxnex (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i actually just forgot that jedi outcast and jedi academy existed
that seems good cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore original redirect to Jedi Knight. This seems like a waste of people's time TBH, there was already an agreed upon redirect that makes perfect sense. The lower-case one was missed, but the same thing applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Chalmers

Geoffrey Chalmers → Michael McConnohie (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Name not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25 § Geoffrey Chalmers – Keep

Comment the previous RfD noted that the McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers and that this was mentioned in the article. Mention was hidden by an IP editor in June 2021 with the comment "I'm hiding this source until verified". The information was sourced to [20] but the current version of that page doesn't include the name (I've not investigated whether it ever did). Googling "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers" finds a lot of hits making the same connection, but every site is either unreliable (IMDB, wikis) or one I have no idea of the reliability of. This needs attention from someone familiar with sourcing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to take a dive into the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers soliciting input. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is no reliable source. May be re-created when source is available. Jay 💬 15:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: semi-involved relist to close the 7 October log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if unambiguous per previous discussion. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned at target, plain and simple; there is no basis for this redirect to exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrek

Kerrek → Homestar Runner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. There is The Carracks, as well as multiple mentions at Critical Role campaign one. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to The Carracks since that is actually a dedicated page with a legit translation that is already in bold to satisfy MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Linking to a character from Critical Role could be done separately if we really wanted to Kerrek (Critical Role), but I don't recommend it. There are no incoming character redirects at the campaign or the list of characters, so it doesn't seem necessary. -2pou (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Cosmo

Uncle Cosmo → Columbo (character) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

still not the biggest columbohead out there, but from a couple days of looking around, i haven't found any relation between this name and columbo (or columbo). is this something from later episodes that just hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet, or...? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uncle Cosmo was a nickname sometimes used, as is correctly indicated by the "R from nickname" template used in the redirect. Please do your homework prior to making nominations, because this is easily destroying carefully created infrastructure and costs time which could be better spend on improving or adding contents. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could've been caught by simply plugging in "Uncle Cosmo" Columbo into Google. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i did that before, and got one result saying it used by his nephew in one episode (episode 60, to be specific), and never again by anyone else, and that result was in page 2 of 2, in a suspiciously old-wikipedia-mirror-shaped site, unsourced, mentioned in passing, and buried among unrelated uncles named cosmo seemingly related to people seemingly known as "colombo". looking again, it's the same case, but now there are also reports of some "rfd" thing started by someone named "cogsan". no idea who that is, but he sounds like he'd be a total wonk
i would withdraw based on this, but the fact that there are no sources, reliable or otherwise (google told me there was something around quora, but i didn't find it there) that even imply anything about this (nick)name's existence aside from up to this diff which another site seems to have yoinked by accident, while "frank" and "philip" have a citation each (yes, i know the latter is false), leads me to question if it's worth keeping, as the only mention i found outside of fancruft in the target's edit history was still circular
if you two found something i didn't, i would appreciate it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Checking myself, you're right-- I'd initially seen the first result being Quora and went, "Okay, this is a known answer.' In reality, it... was not. Whops. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
clearly, his first name is "lieutenant" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else able to find any sign of this anywhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget ~~to Ronnie Nyakale~~ I don't think a Quora answer is sufficient to provide evidence for this nickname, especially when it is unmentioned in the target. I couldn't find any other sources either. OTOH, "Uncle Cosmo" is listed as an alternative name for Nyakale in his infobox. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned, but it's unsourced. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some digging, it looks like it is the name of his character in the TV show Generations: The Legacy. I've added a sourced mention there, so I now propose targeting that page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism (arts)

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 (15 October UPDATE: I've now made a new landing page for this exact concept: Artistic 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh. Ok duh, haha, thanks. Should I clear out our above discussion? Wolfdog (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it's useful context. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retarget all to Symbol per nom. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, or set up a disam. (then) Just delete, per Ham. Retarget all to the new Artistic symbol. Symbol will be no use at all to the vast majority of readers - all about semiotics and map symbols. Yes, it would be nice to have artistic symbolism, but it seems that we don't (yet). Meanwhile this is going to be what many readers are looking for. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Symbolism is already a disambiguation page, and while these could be retargeted there, I don't see what that would achieve. The dab page and these redirects begin with the same word, so the redirects wouldn't help anyone typing "symbolism"/"Symbolism" into the search bar find the specific meaning of the term they're looking for (unlike, say, if we had that Artistic symbolism article, with Symbolism in art redirecting to it). The redirect Symbolism (arts) only exists as it was the previous title of the article Symbolism (movement), and that former title was far too ambiguous to be of any help – it could refer to either of the meanings noted in the nomination. Ham II (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Artistic symbol has been created, I still think Symbolism (arts) and Symbolism (art) should be deleted as they're too ambiguous. Symbolism in art, by contrast, is another way of saying "artistic symbolism" and would not really be used to refer to the 19th-century movement, so that should redirect to the new article. Ham II (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's note: I've taken into consideration the notion that others and myself have pondered that Wikipedia is perhaps simply lacking in an article on artistic symbols/symbolism, so I've started as stub here. I appreciate the ongoing discussion. Wolfdog (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all three to the newly created Artistic symbol, which already has a hatnote to Symbolism (movement). I certainly can't see any reason to delete any of these. A7V2 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Typhoon Katrina

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Turn Off the Lights extension

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nerubian

Nerubian → Gameplay of World of Warcraft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned once in passing at Mummy (undead) and at World of Warcraft: The War Within but neither of those have enough substance to support a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could probably be added to List of fictional arthropods if reasonable sourcing exists. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was mentioned at Races and factions of Warcraft, prior to the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and factions of Warcraft, and a 15 July 2020 edit "Beginning a purge of fancruft/gamecruft - mostly unsourced or irrelevant/non-notable races. Not every creature is important." – wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to World of Warcraft: The War Within. I believe ...army of nerubians, an ancient race of humanoid spiders previously thought to be near extinct, who begin kidnapping numerous civilians... is enough to establish what they are. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's better than any other proposed target so far, but I still feel like to gives the wrong conclusion that nerubians are exclusive to The War Within when they've in fact been around since at least Warcraft III. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More options came up after the 2nd relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Crazy doing a 4th relist for this, but ... there seems to not be consensus supporting the current status quo, and I don't see a WP:BARTENDER close fixing this since stances are all over the place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a plausible search term, not mentioned at target page. Having a redirect for every single unit in a game is a classic WP:PANDORA situation. FOARP (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of Monster Hunter monsters

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sound stag

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Clash of Clans Town Hall 10

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List over Swedens Municipalities

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cackala

Cackala → Kamala Harris (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

@Hyphenation Expert: nominated this for R3 because WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". I have declined this. The term is indeed attested on the internet (c.f. e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/the-biden-we-were-told-about-never-existed/ and https://moonbattery.com/biden-harris-regime-authorizes-military-to-kill-us/ ), which I think makes it a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to type in the search bar, even if they're not expecting a full article on this word. Duckmather (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is contentious information about a living person; if it is not notable enough to be described on Wikipedia with an inline citation to a reliable source, the redirect is WP:G10. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly childish nickname that I doubt very much will ever really be a search term. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". The National Review article doesn't say "Cackala"; it's a comment in the comment section (WP:NATIONALREVIEW is "no consensus" reliable anyway). Moonbattery is a WordPress blog. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep Very widely used to the extent it's plausible someone will see it out of context and look for information on who it refers to. "Childish" nicknames are definitely not G10 material. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G10. Ibadibam (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thryduulf, your declining of the speedy deletion nom and then also !voting here is an improper WP:INVOLVED action. Please revert one of them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this was inappropriate and neither action was in my capacity as an admin. Anybody can contest a speedy deletion nomination (other than the creator, in some circumstances) and it was already being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% not WP:INVOLVED. All speedy deletion requests (other than office actions and copyright violations) are negated if any user objects, and as there is already a non-unanimous deletion discussion underway (this discussion), the article is not eligible for G10 and any admin acting responsibly should have declined the request. The accountability policy deals specifically with admin actions, not all things an admin might do; some take the view that declining a speedy deletion request is an admin action regardless of the fact that any user can decline, but !voting in a straw poll is definitely not an admin action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I don't imagine Kamala Harris would be particularly worried about a redirect to the Wikipedia article on her, and so BLP worries aren't major. I'm amazed that WP:RNEUTRAL is being used as a rationale for deletion (and even speedy deletion!) when it says nothing other than "treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect" with only an implication of applying slightly more caution. The point is – it's a plausible search term as it's a nickname so divorced from Harris' actual name that readers would be liable to not immediately understand to whom it refers, and seek this site for an explanation. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it says nothing other than 'treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect'"
In fact, it says redirects that are not established terms – used in multiple mainstream reliable sources – may be nominated for deletion. And even: G10 and G3 may apply. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently in-use in the wild that someone may legitimately be confused by it and want to know who is being referred to. Redirects are generally non-user facing, so this should not introduce any WP:BLP issues. I might have suggested it be added to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, except to my astonishment he actually hasn't used it personally that I can tell, it's just in wide wide WIDESPREAD use by his fans. MAGAs are weird. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : A nonsensical derogatory name used a few times by Magas on social media and once by a partisan magazine should not be sufficient criterion for it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Nohorizonss (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is textbook WP:RCOM, without there being any prominent use of it as a reference to Harris. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9jeJbdVl2jI

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ebony Eyez

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Razah

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Grenada women's national under-17 football team

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Himanshi Gawande

Himanshi Gawande → India women's national under-21 field hockey team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Delhi SG Pipers. She is mentioned there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delhi SG Pipers is currently the only incoming link to this redirect. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Narbonne (1017)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meenakshi Rohilla

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Redirect replaced with an article

Tighten

Tighten → Megamind#Cast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

let's try this again... closed before with no consensus, with votes torn between... everything, really. opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, my vote will be to retarget to tight cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EurekaLott and Presidentman in the last discussion explained in detail why this is the best option and, unless something very significant has changed in the last 2 months (and I haven't spotted anything) then everything they said still applies. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging those who commented in the recent discussion: @Duckmather, Red-tailed hawk, Eureka Lott, Presidentman, BugGhost, Pppery, Godsy, BD2412, and Steel1943:. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bugghost: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirecting a dictionary word to the misspelling of a film character's name is downright wrong and astonishing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you'd be surprised to know that that's not actually a misspelling. i mean, it is a mishearing of "titan", but that's kind of the entire point, and he's referred to as "tighten" in the credits lmao cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should clarify that this isn't necessarily a keep vote, it's just "don't delete as a typo" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphases mine). This word is neither commonly wikified (indeed, there are no mainspace links that point to it), nor has it been repeatedly recreated. But because it might reasonably be a search term for multiple items on Wikipedia, and none seem like an easy primary topic, a dab page should suffice. My view has not changed since the prior discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning at the prior discussion. As Thryduulf notes, nothing appears to have changed here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding a {{Wiktionary hatnote}} at the very least. Seems rather WP:RASTONISHing though. By the way, I also checked whether tightening exists, but apparently we only have The Tightening. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 15:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last discussion. Nothing has changed since last time. Would be fine with a hatnote at Megamind#Cast to Tight (or wherever else) if someone feels this is genuinely ambiguous or a likely search, but have no real strong feelings. BugGhost🦗👻 17:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I acknowledge I was pinged. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vote" added at the (current) end of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in with a Delete vote, although I'm okay with both the idea of retargeting or hatnoting to Tight. Either way, this shouldn't stay as-is, for the extremely simple fact that anyone looking for the extremely common English verb would be heavily astonished to find themselves here-- I struggle to think of a way that Megamind, the movie, is more notable than the English language word that it references as a joke. If we stay at Megamind, it needs a hatnote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to tight as a conjugation of that word. Tighten might be the correct name of the character, but I'm pretty confident that the character is not the WP:PTOPIC, even if it is an exact match. It's a minor character, vs a common word. I would not object adding the character to the DAB... other conjugations of the word are already there anyway. Fieari (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you that Tight is (possibly) the correct target and Megamind#Cast definitely is not, I do need to point out that Tighten is the main villain of the movie, not a minor character. Just a minor nitpick in a post I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Tight, and include the character on the disambiguation page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eh? seems like the consensus was to retarget this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. You can't just ignore previous !votes when a discussion is relisted. Right now this is clearly "no consensus", probably leaning towards a WP:NCRET disambiguate closure. C F A 💬 14:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, way I see it, this is headed straight for a WP:BARTENDER close. We don't have a consensus on where to go, but the Keep and Merely Hatnote votes are a quite small minority compared to Disambiguate, Retarget, and Delete combined (in sum total, the "We Can't Stay Here" vote) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you know what? yeah, let's do all of those, at the same time. nothing is more evil than mildly confusing readers

for legal reasons, i do not actually endorse doing this, nor do i know how it would work cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make a disambig page on another page, retarget to the disambig page, and then, after a day, delete both. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Tight as the current target is surprising. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep. Other than not being okay with the current status quo per my stance in the previous discussion, I'm no longer a blanket "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep. The DAB page does not really discuss anything connected to the idea of tightening, and I don't think that target will be helpful to the reader. "Tighten" is not a conjugation of "tight" because "tight" is not a verb. I grudgingly accept that a wikt retarget is not acceptable in this case, which leaves my distant second preference to be the DAB page, much as I agree with Steel1943 on the usefulness of that page. At bare minimum, a hatnote to the DAB and/or to wikt should be added at the target. I disagree with the argument that since an SSRT is inappropriate and the DAB page is no good, we should keep it at its current baffling target. When faced with a current target that is not the PTOPIC (and search results are pretty damning) the best course of action to help the reader is to delete, instead of plumping with a bad target because it's the lesser of two weevils. Cremastra (u — c) 00:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either:
Delete. Thanks to the existence of Tighten (character), this shows the current target as the first result, but will be less confusing to readers who aren't looking for the film character. Slightly preferable on balance to keeping IMO, when combined with the fact that the search engine will adapt if the situation w.r.t. this redirect changes.
Retarget to tightness. Few things at tight can be tightened. Tightness is much better in that respect. This requires a hatnote / see also link to the current target (that admittedly might look a little stranger at tightness than at tight).
Those two options are the most amenable to me. Either way, there definitely isn't the fuel for a new dab page. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the classic example of where we might once have had an article before the clean up of fiction, but instead have a redirect the creator of which did not apparently consider is in reality a commonly used word with numerous different meanings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps keep with hatnote? Compare Twice, which does not refer to stuff happening two times but a K-pop group, as discussed in this RM and this MRV. The MRV also brings up Thrice, which includes such a hatnote. In principle, though, I'd rather disambiguate it, pointing it to Tight as a sort of {{R from related word}}, so if that happens, I'm fine, too. I feel that a full deletion would be unhelpful overall. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of swears

List of swears → Profanity (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list at the target; we shouldn't suggest readers that we do. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 16:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lists have been deleted multiple times, including following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of profanities (2006), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of swear words (2007), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs (2006) and (at these and other titles) many times speedily under multiple criteria (usually A3, G3, and/or G4). The deleted content at this title was just a bulleted list of the Seven dirty words with literally no other content. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is actually scope for some sort of list of lists here, as many of the articles in Category:Profanity and it's subcategories do contain lists (e.g. Four letter word, Italian profanity, Bhojpuri profanity, Mandarin Chinese profanity (almost entirely lists), and Wiktionary has other categories and lists (e.g. wikt:Glossary of Romanian profanity, wikt:Appendix:English censored words, wikt:Category:English vulgarities, wikt:Category:English swear words, wikt:Appendix:Fictional English curse words). We also have Lists of pejorative terms for people, Minced oaths in media, Scunthorpe problem which related lists/articles containing lists but not a suitable target for the redirect. The number of times the various titles have been recreated strongly suggests this is something people are looking for here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC and similar consensus and discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Redirects to Profanity, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30#Dagnabbit, and several discussions listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4. There's just not consensus for this. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly surprised this isn't a fucking article, but delete per nom. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 04:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was, then the title would be wrong and/or would have to be speedy deleted as an article that duplicates another article's topic. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DABify, or possibly create a list of lists. I think this is a valid thing someone would search for, and we already have the information they are looking for, it just needs to be properly compiled to send them all the lists of profanity that we do in fact already have. Fieari (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no actual list exists. Why bother with a redirect? Wolfdog (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true, no list exists at this title but many more specific lists do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No list exists (even assuming the use of "swear" as a noun here is correct). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd normally recommend deletion... would it be a bad idea to simply redirect to Seven Dirty Words? It's not a list of literally all English-language profanity, but it is at least a list of some profanity. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be a good redirect, as that list is significantly narrower than the search term - for example it omits all non-English swear words (of which we have multiple lists). Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I still advocate for creating a list of lists... since we do have all those lists. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is scope for some sort of list of lists, and nothing in this RfD prevents an editor from creating one, but the title of that list of lists wouldn't be "List of swears". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DABify per Fieari. It's a very plausible search term, and there is relevant content. Deleting seems harmful to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of words is the job of a dictionary. Soft redir to wikt:Category:English swear words. —Cryptic 06:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing is not restricted to English, and we have lots of directly relevant encyclopaedic content. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't have a list of swear-words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. To be honest, this also seems like an implausible search-term. FOARP (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Douvall

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Will (sociology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Will (sociology)

Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

April 4, 1974

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#April 4, 1974

June 23, 2016

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 16

Gamma squeeze

Gamma squeeze → Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Either delete the redir or fix the content of the redir target article. The Short squeeze article currently has no mention of "gamma" or "gamma squeeze" whatsoever. N2e (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed nomination which was malformed. @N2e: You need to place the nomination template below the html line for it to work properly. I've fixed this now. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the redirection is a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma Squeeze so this isn't a BLAR situation. Thryduulf (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundle Gamma Squeeze into this. Jay 💬 17:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger protest in Nigeria

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

🆓

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:VB

Wikipedia:VB → Template:Venice Biennale (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A shortcut redirect from Wikipedia namespace to a navigational template doesn't make much sense. This should probably be retargeted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as suggested or delete, agree this XNR doesn't make sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the wikiproject, or delete as a 2nd option. Either way, it should not be a WP:XNR. Fieari (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball hasn't noticed it doesn't redirect them, and therefore they don't need it to. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhhhnotsoloud. Ambiguous towards a random template. If WP Volleyball wants it, they can create it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note Template:Vb, if TM:VB is suggested as a replacement to this shortcut. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should be discussed separately, as Template:Vb has quite a bit of transclusions. ✗plicit 13:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I oppose deletion. A shortcut being unused is not a valid reason for deletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the WikiProject didn't seem to care about this shortcut before, so not sure why they would now. Might as well free the title for someone who wants to use it for a more visible and constructive purpose. (However, if that purpose ends up being someone from the WikiProject creating this redirect to target the WikiProject, the redirect should be immune to WP:G4.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball as the only sensible target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obstipation

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

Term not mentioned nor defined at target. Even though it is similar to "Constipation", it appears to be an entirely different and more severe condition. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

from some quick looking, i haven't found a good enough target for that aside from maybe bowel obstruction (where it's also unmentioned). would soft redirecting to wikt:obstipation work for now? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note that this term "obstipation" is very, very rare compared to acute bowel obstruction (which seems to be the "modern" equivalent term, but that is my impression only and not a reliable source).

The dictionary definitions gave along the lines of "severe + acute constipation", and it even sounds like a medical emergency. Therefore on the basis of those dictionary definitions I changed the link from obstructed defecation which was imo inappropriate (the latter is a chronic condition, not a medical emergency) and also unsourced. Moribundum (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of City 17

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 23 § Tentacle (Half-Life) – Trainwreck
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 14 § Manhack – Trainwreck

Battle of City 17 → Half-Life 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Battle of City 17 → Half-Life 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Battle for City 17 → Half-Life 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Possible WP:Fancruft though technically not wrong TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind bundling The Battle of City 17 and Battle for City 17? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - each of these separately was at one point an article, but not a single source between them. A7V2 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Our page on Half Life 2 (which I've never played, though I did play HL1 - when's HL3 coming?) doesn't mention any battle at City 17 so these are unhelpful redirects. FOARP (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Airport

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Torchic → User:Blake/Torchic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Meowth → List of generation I Pokémon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Mr. Mime → Mr. Mime (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur → Bulbasaur (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

As talked with TechnoSquirrel69, would these be problematic? Web-julio (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment WikiProjects generally do what they want in their own namespace. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as the anonymous editor says, these seem like harmless {{R from move}}s that could be useful to the WikiProject — some of them even have internal links. Since none of the usual issues associated with cross-namespace redirects really apply here, I'm inclined to keep. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WikiProject Pokémon. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Harmless Wikiproject redirects. Not user facing, the wikiprojects can do as they like with them. Fieari (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

refine the second to list of gen 1 pokémon#meowth, find a way to trout redirects and trout the rest for existing (optional) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a little late to comment on this relist, but nah, i think it was a clear-cut keep with at best not much prejudice to refining meowth. they're project redirects and all, so... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 attacks

2001 attacks → September 11 attacks (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2001 terrorist attacks → September 11 attacks (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001 per @SeaHaircutSoilReplace. Hasn't this been RfD'd before? The term is too ambiguous to target an article about any particular incident, even if 9/11 is the most historically significant. Carguychris (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris This redirect has not been RfD'd before, which I find ridiculous. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I think it was something similarly worded and vague, like "2001 terror incident". I just recall making an almost identical comment before. Carguychris (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found 2001 terrorist attacks via WLH, and added it to this proposal. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris and PARKANYAA: you may be thinking of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#2001 New York attacks (that nomination was withdrawn), although neither of you commented on in that discussion. I too remember something similar to this and that's the only one I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf That was in fact what I was thinking of. I recall another similar one though... but that doesn't really matter I guess haha. Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA after some more searching I've found Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#2001 incident that Carguychris did participate in. The outcome was to delete because it was too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the other one! Thanks. I saw that - I rarely vote in RfDs but I lurk a lot. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that was it. Carguychris (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the nomination, these redirects do not assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack in 2001, rather that 9/11 would be the primary topic for these terms. All this is saying is that someone searching "2001 (terrorist) attacks" would 'highly likely' be looking for 9/11 over all other topics. While 2001 also had events like 2001 anthrax attacks and the shoe bomb, all pale in comparison to 9/11. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9/11 is the primary topic. C F A 💬 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tavix @CFA Even if it was the primary topic, I don't think anyone would search for "2001 attacks" or "2001 terrorist attacks" if they were looking for 9/11. Most likely they'd just search for, well, 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty plausible to me, actually. Redirects are cheap. C F A 💬 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear how the "redirects are cheap" claim applies here at all. The issue is where the redirect targets, not the redirect's existence. Saying this redirect is cheap is akin to not having any type of argument of any stance in this specific discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I made some searches with [21] and [22] other [23] search engines [24] — the 9/11 terrorist attacks are definitely the PTOPIC for both redirects. I don't see how someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, mostly because no evidence is given to support this assertion. Cremastra — talk — c 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom, simply due to the year which the current target occurred being less notable than its month/day combination. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, given the below discussion, I do not believe that the year by itself is sufficient to almost guarantee that readers are looking for the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very clear WP:PTOPIC. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like the primary topic to me too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Fieari @Pppery Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. All the recent pageviews for them in the past couple weeks are people coming to this RfD anyway.
- 9/11 views
- 2001 attacks views
- 2001 terrorist attacks views

SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, 2001 terrorist attacks got 29 views, which is good enough for me. Even if nobody is using it (and that's not the case), that's not a reason to delete per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (u — c) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra It's not about deleting the redirects, it's about retargeting them to more appropriate targets, as I suggested when I first started this RfD 2 weeks ago. Besides, I only suggested deleting the more recent redirect as a last resort. Aside from that, I never suggested deleting the older redirect created back in 2006, just retargeting it to a more plausible target. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. How do low pageviews point to retargeting to List of terrorist incidents in 2001? Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra Because barely anyone uses the redirects for going to the 9/11 page (given the pageviews). Because people are more likely to search for 9/11 instead of either of the 2 redirects, it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents (given the massive ambiguity of "2001 attacks" compared to 9/11, see Chaotic Enby and Steel1943's points), in spite of the points of 9/11 being the most notable of all the other 2001 incidents. PTOPIC isn't exactly clear if people don't search for the 2 redirects and instead search for 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace If "barely anyone" uses the redirects for navigating to 9/11, I don't see how the pageviews will increase if we retarget. I still don't entirely follow your train of thought here. People do use these redirects, and since 9/11 is the PTOPIC here, I simply don't see how retargetting to a more general target is the most helpful option for readers here. Like CFA and Tavix said, it's the primary topic and redirects are cheap. You say it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents, but I'm still struggling to understand why it makes sense. You seem to be assuming that readers don't use these redirects because (in your view) they point to the wrong place, and that by retargetting to a more general target, pageviews will increase. Readers aren't looking at RfD. They aren't going to spread the word that the redirect got retargetted. Cremastra (u — c) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think 9/11 will be the primary topic, and I never will for that matter. As said earlier, "2001 attacks" is far too vague for anything, including 9/11, to qualify for its primary topic. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. By the way, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to apply here. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are editing disruptively. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, sure. But I don't think accusing me of sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is, in fact, very productive here. But I digress. The searches do show it's the primary topic for me, but PTOPIC is something reasonable people can disagree on; it's often hard to find. I still don't understand what pageviews have to do with anything, but I'm happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the horse be. This discussion is probably due for a close anyway. Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Airport

Hall Airport → Kaufman, Texas#Features (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I PROD'd the article about this airport on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Another user made a good-faith effort to preserve the content by merging it with Kaufman, Texas, article, but the user did not realize that the airport has been removed from FAA records because it has presumably closed permanently (which, in 20/20 hindsight, I should have mentioned in the PROD nomination). Thus, the airport article has been replaced with a redirect targeting an article about a town, but the content discussing the airport should presumably be removed from the target article for the same reasons I outline above. I suggest that both the content and the redirect should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris: As long as the content is there, the redirect is appropriate. If the content is removed from the target article (which is not something RfD can or should compel, but something you can do yourself per WP:BRD), then the correct thing to do is to restore the article and send it to AfD. If you think the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then I'd recommend the latter course of action (in which case you can close this as withdrawn). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've axed the airport content from the target article, but restoring the previous Hall Airport article solely to AfD it seems excessive. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia is not just about what is there right now, history is also a part of Wikipedia. So if there was an airport there, why would it not be appropriate to be part of the town's history? Just as we keep around Tempelhof Airport article after it closed, then we should have history sections for towns, mentioning significant landmarks that no longer exist.-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tempelhof clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Hall Airport was a privately owned 2,500' grass strip with no significant facilities. Most small private airstrips shouldn't have Wikipedia articles per WP:ROTM, but many of them do because they're listed in convenient online aviation databases. Carguychris (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the anon here. My preference would be to restore the content to the article and keep the redirect. I agree that this airport isn't notable enough for its own article. I don't agree it isn't worth a mention at the town article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore content per Presidentman. Being closed doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned Suikoden characters

Alen (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Apple (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Barbarossa Rugner → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Bright (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Camille (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Clive (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gadget (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gadget Z → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gaspar (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Georg Prime → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Grenseal → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Hix (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Humphrey Mintz → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Jeane (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Joshua Levenheit → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kasim Hazil → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kasumi (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kessler (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Killey → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kraze → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kun To → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kwanda Rosman → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Leknaat → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Leon Silverberg → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Lepant → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Lilly Pendragon → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Lorelai (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Lucia (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Maximillian (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Melodye → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Milia (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Milich Oppenheimer → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Nash Latkje → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Neclord → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pesmerga → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ronnie Bell (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sarah (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sasarai → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sheena (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Silverberg family → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sonya Shulen → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Stallion (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Templeton (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tengaar → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tuta (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Windy (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Yam Koo → Suikoden (video game)#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

None of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (applies to the above nominations as well; will C&P over there if necessary but it'll be the same discussion) per criterion 1 (these were all merged) and criterion 5 (they're useful - e.g. links from a disambig page or just searches on a character). It's also at least possible that the character lists could be brought back some day with better independent sourcing. Useful and harmless, best to let lie IMO. (See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_11#Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_V for an example character list that was redirected, the redirect was nominated for deletion, the RFD failed and the page history was kept, and the article indeed came back later.) SnowFire (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a distinction between redirects which refer to the characters as a concept, like the discussion you linked to, redirects which refer to the characters as a list, and redirects which refer to individual characters. Suikoden characters or Characters of Suikoden would be fine as redirects based on the precedent you linked to (which I agree with), because the target does contain some discussion of the characters as a concept. List of characters in Suikoden is harmful because its existence misleadingly implies that the target contains, well, a list of characters in Suikoden, which it doesn't, thereby leaving any user confused.
Redirects for individual characters likewise are harmful because they misleadingly imply Wikipedia has some content on the character when it doesn't.
And in particular they're not useful for links on a disambiguation page because any such usage would fail WP:DABMENTION, and the fact that it would fail that guideline is hidden from most of its enforcers who probably don't check for this.
And I don't think either part of WP:R#K1 actually applies - the history of most of these is Fandom-style content which is worse that starting from scratch if you were to try to build an article on one of the characters, and nothing needs to be legally kept since nothing was merged any further than the lists that I also think should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of characters in Suikoden contains significant page history that will be relevant if someone ever wants to attempt to restore these articles, and/or merge content from it. "Significant page history" is specifically a keep criterion at RFD. There's nothing misleading here at all: that was an article if someone follows some old links in the page history, and a redirect is the proper handle for it. Same for specific characters. There's no problem at all, and the standard at RFD is just "it's useful." I'm not saying that every single tiny piece of cruft has to be kept, if someone were to run around making redirects for every ability name or dungeon, but these all have non-trivial page histories and some of them are prominent characters where a redirect is useful (keep criterion 5).
Would it change things if I said that I, personally, would find the page history useful? Because don't get me wrong, I do think that some of the list articles should come back, I just didn't want to bother fighting it out at a potential AFD unless I were to acquire sources that are probably in Japanese. But as the FF5 example shows, this absolutely can happen. I've worked on "serious" non-video gaming articles that were in weak, unsourced states, and generally the existing content - however problematic it was - was absolutely not worse than nothing, it was often quite helpful. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see redirects as based on the present, not the past - it's misleading to have a "list of Xs" redirect that points to a page where there is no list of Xs. It's misleading to have a redirect point to a place where no discussion of the term being redirected exists. I think we're coming from points of view sufficiently different that neither of us will convince the other one of our position, so I'll leave it at that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, but this isn't just solely a matter of opinion with no right answer and just consensus. The RFD keep criteria are pretty explicit that "non-trivial page history" is indeed a reason to keep as is "useful to someone saying it's useful in good faith", both of which are met here. The characters of Suikoden are discussed in the relevant articles, if not to the depth the list formerly did. And just solely as a matter of practicality, rather than spend busywork deleting the redirects and requesting them to be recreated in userspace or the like, why not just let all the old redirects spring back to life if someone did write a modern-Wikipedia style Suikoden character list? (Not my main argument, but throwing that out there. Again, see the FF5 case - it seems by your logic, we should have deleted that article and all its redirects, then forced people wanting to recreate it to talk to an admin if they wanted to see the page history before recreating it and the redirects all later. For what advantage?) SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the claim that deleting redirects that are unhelpful to readers is busywork. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 15:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943, given your vote below, I suppose you are trying to +1 my comment and not SnowFire's? 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My indents don't lie! Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it was about Pppery's altogether? Looks like I was confused by CD's indent lines due to the +1. Though I guess that's what the "Go to parent comment" button is for! 1234qwer 1234qwer4 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All for nontrivial history preservation and the usefulness to someone. WP:CHEAP applies, and I don't buy the argument that it is harmful. I don't think WP:LEAST would be violated if someone was redirected to this target, even if information is currently lacking, and there is a good faith statement above that these characters may have enough sources to be considered notable by wikipedia standards in the future, which I will accept at face value. Fieari (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't the same logic that states that individual unnotable fire emblem character redirects (like matthew) should get deleted apply here? this seems a little too indiscriminate for me cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If they are not there, they are not there. Having readers being forwarded to the target article when there is literally nothing there about the redirects' subjects is misleading. If there is a concern with the histories of any of these redirects, consider restoring them and sending them to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, the WP:RCAT template {{R without mention}} puts the page into a maintenance category called Category:Redirects to an article without mention. The purpose of the aforementioned category is essentially a maintenance backlog; the category is meant to be empty, which means either the redirects that are tagged with this template should be deleted, or a mention of the redirects should be added to the target article. None of the "keep" votes yet have addressed this hypocrisy. If neither of the aforementioned actions are taken, it is akin to throwing the redirects back into the same maintenance backlog they were already in, resulting in no progress to improving the encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would relevant histories mean that they should go to AFD? Nobody is advocating bringing back the character-specific articles, so there's no point in AFD, it's a matter for RFD.
As far as the maintenance category, I'm sure that there are literally thousands of redirects that "should" be in that category but are actually harmless and "useful" and would be kept in hypothetical well-attended RFD arguments. We routinely have minor redirects for a variety of reasons, including preserving page histories and being useful. RFD Keep #5 is quite direct: if you want to improve the encyclopedia, just let useful-but-minor redirects exist. They're fine. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding that this is RfD and not AfD. However, the way that you have been referring to these redirects makes me believe that the existence of these redirects formerly as articles or being mentioned at the target before validates them existing as redirects. That is not the case, it causes problems, and I don't feel like repeating my arguments that I stated earlier, which are still valid and refute this point. My AfD comment was catering to the "keep" votes above, but I'd rather these redirects be deleted immediately. The redirects are not "fine" and are currently not "useful" since readers will find nothing about the subjects of the redirects at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see WP:RSURPRISE, which totally applies here due to lack of mentions in the target article. (Related note, one would think me, an editor working primarily with redirects for over a decade, would know Wikipedia:Redirect well enough to know of the section linked from the aforementioned shortcut's existence ... well, I just discovered it ... 😅) Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most per Steel1943. Most of these never had any sources, and all of these which existed as articles it was for around a year or less, but some were created as redirects. The ones which had sources, and so I am neutral between restoring or deleting (but oppose keeping as redirects to an article which does not discuss them) are: Barbarossa Rugner, Camille (Suikoden), Georg Prime (also could be retargeted to George Prime), Windy (Suikoden) and Silverberg family. Nash Latkje seemed to sort of have a source but it's a broken link (not formatted correctly on wikipedia) so maybe that falls in the same category. Kraze had a source, but also seems like it could refer to many things, for example Kraze United or a misspelling of craze, so not sure about that one either, perhaps some kind of dab. A7V2 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too many to go through. Renominate in smaller chunks, or individually. But I can start going through one at a time. 1. Alen (Suikoden) - I have removed the incoming link from the Alen dab page. Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD. Jay 💬 09:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Apple (Suikoden) - Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD. Jay 💬 16:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Barbarossa Rugner is a {{R from merge}}, that was merged to List of Suikoden I characters, and is now in the history of List of characters in Suikoden. Jay 💬 17:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both list pages were deleted at another RfD, hence the R from merge is no longer relevant. Delete if there is no content worth merging elsewhere, or restore and AfD. Jay 💬 10:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bright (Suikoden) - I have removed the incoming link from the Bright dab page. Delete as we have no info at the target or on enwiki. Jay 💬 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Camille (Suikoden) - Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD. Jay 💬 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Clive (Suikoden) is a {{R from merge}}.
7. Gadget (Suikoden) and 8. Gadget Z - Retarget to List of fictional robots and androids#Computer and video games Jay 💬 14:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Gaspar (Suikoden) - Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD. Jay 💬 18:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Georg Prime - retarget to Suikoden V#Characters. Jay 💬 09:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. Grenseal - Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD. Jay 💬 07:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. Hix (Suikoden) is an {{R from merge}}.
13. Humphrey Mintz - retarget to Suikoden Tierkreis. Jay 💬 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. Jeane (Suikoden) - the R from merge is no longer relevant as its initial target List of recurring characters in Suikoden was deleted at another RfD. Delete if there is no content worth merging elsewhere, or restore and AfD. Jay 💬 08:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for now as they are currently unmentioned. I do hope that a character lists gets recreated with better sources—if someone wants to take that task on I would welcome resoration for that purpose. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Not mentioned so these links are unhelpful to anyone searching these terms, and yes, this is a case where WP:PANDORA happened (redirects for all characters in a game). FOARP (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trainwreck; user:Jay is commended for trying to untangle this and find places where each of these could be retargeted, but this is very definitely a WP:TRAINWRECK and should ultimately be procedurally kept and then sent back to RfD in smaller batches; there's too much here to actually discuss over.

I'd like to also note that WP:PANDORA is not applicable here as per WP:BACKINBOX, thank you. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Bonita

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gypsy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep most

Jamie Jungers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Srishti

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Srishti

Japetus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Substituted

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Substituted

Β-aminoethylamine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Wikipedia:PCR

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Glenn Trumpkin

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete Glenn Trumpkin, Amy Covid Barrett and But his laptop, Keep Leningrad Lindsey and Mthreegan.

Beta-ethylphenethylamine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ra'ad 1

Ra'ad 1 → RAAD (anti-tank guided missile) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The more I research this redirect, the more confused I get. For starters, this redirect formerly targeted the article that is currently at Fajr-3 (artillery rocket), and did for the past six years. However, before that, this redirect targeted the article which it currently targets. However, to throw some more confusion into the mix, another similarly-titled article, Raad-1, exists. I may have figured out a better plan for what to do with this redirect by now if it were not for its incoming links; I am not clear what subject these links are meant to refer to. I'm thinking disambiguate is the way to go here, but I'm incredibly unclear what the base title should be for such a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment both RAAD (anti-tank guided missile) and Raad-1 say they mean Thunder and Thunder-1. ; while Fajr-3 (artillery rocket) seems to mean Aurora-3 or Dawn-3 ? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Vocational education and training centers

Vocational education and training centers → Xinjiang internment camps (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Vocational education and training centers is really vague and the first thing I think of is not China. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget to Vocational school~~. I'm guessing the internment camps got a nickname at some point, possibly as a euphemism to avoid censorship, but it seems that this search term should just go to the most obvious target. Fieari (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Vocational school. I think this description has been used for the camps in Xinjiang, but certainly not only for that topic, so the current target is at best too narrow. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Vocational school makes the most sense to me as well. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Vocational school per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly says, in a sourced piece of text, in the first sentence of the article, "officially called vocational education and training centers". The article Vocational school does not mention the phrase "vocational education and training center". Put a better hatnote at the target if you like but "the first thing I think of" is often not a very good way of determining a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. Someone typing in "Vocational education and training centers" in the search bar is more likely than not to be looking for the Chinese institution. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with hatnote as per Shhhnotsoloud and feminist. While the actual name of these camps is "Vocational Education and Training Centers", which means this is likely the primary topic, this can still be a rather WP:ASTONISHing place to end up if you didn't know about them. Luckily, Wikipedia has a handy tool for this situation--
"Vocational education and training centers" redirects here. For the institution these camps claim to be, see Vocational school.
Maybe give a second pass on how to actually write this one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what... I could accept this. I do find the name astonishing, but the hatnote should be enough. Changing my !vote to Keep with Hatnote. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards a keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C F A 💬 00:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose being kept at current target there are plenty of other topics using the term and I see no evidence this is the primary topic for the redirect [25] [26] [27]

Also @Lunamann that hatnote suggestion is a clear NPOV violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I mentioned that it might be a good idea to have a second pass on how to write it. Unless the NPOV violation is from merely having the hatnote in the first place, rather than the "...claim to be..." phrasing, in which case idk how to please you lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REtarget to Training centre -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus to keep, delete per WP:XY since Vocational school and Training centre both exist with no clarity on which one is intended. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the specific term used by the Chinese authorities for these concentration camps, searchers should be directed from the euphemism to the actual thing they refer to. FOARP (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CBOT

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

gehn wie ein ägypter

Gehn wie ein Ägypter → Walk Like an Egyptian (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Gehn wie ein Agypter → Walk Like an Egyptian (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

no mention of the german fandub in the target. i found no reliable sources for it, so a draft doesn't seem like a plausible decision. originally a prod that went nowhere, so it got blarred a year later, presumably for having no sources cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:RLANG. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Song has no affinity to German. Retarget to Die Ärzte discography as below (I forgot they existed for a second). Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect to the band, Die Ärzte? It got redirected to the article as a merge but I don't know if anything was actually merged. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not enough sourcage, probably. it's also not mentioned there, but in their discography cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Die Ärzte discography where a song by this name is mentioned. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapey McForehead

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10.

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. → HAL 9000 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_19#I'm_sorry_Dave. I'm not convinced that deletion was the right outcome there, but this redirect should suffer the same fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Fortunately we are not bound by consensus so when a previous discussion gets it wrong we are not required to repeat it. This is a very notable quote, indeed it's the most notable quote from the entire work. There are potential arguments that "I'm sorry Dave" could be ambiguous (I've not looked to see if it is in practice), but for the whole quote every single one of the hits on the fist 8 pages of Google for I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that -Wikipedia -Wikiquote (not even the exact phrase) are about the film, about the line from the film, or referencing (almost always explicitly) the line from the film. People are using this redirect (sometimes it's getting multiple times per day) and the target is unambiguous, so deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Thryduulf. Even if it's not explicitly listed off in the actual articles, this is, as Thryduulf notes, the most notable quote in the entire work, a quote near synonymous with the character of HAL 9000 itself. Removing this redirect or directing it anywhere else would do a huge disservice to the readership. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Lunamann... from April, during the previous discussion. What I'm reading in THIS discussion, based on what has been stated so far, is baseless assertions of "having highest notability" with zero particular sources or evidence behind the claim "it's the most notable quote from the entire work". "Synonymous with the entire character itself", no less!! According to the information listed on our Wikipedia pages, Hal 9000 and its reliable sources, it's not. There are 8-10 quotes at the target that are namedropped, WITH sources and enough presumed importance to be featured in prose, but none are this one, and none of those have redirects.

Is it really the most notable quote from the entire work? Genuinely excellent! This content could improve the encyclopedia. So there MUST be some way to verify this claim from a reliable source? If I were to type this in as a significant quote, for starters I would certainly want to read about the quote SPECIFICALLY, because that's exactly the search term I typed in, but such an article does not exist at this time. Therefore, we'd want to encourage readers to add material which we don't have, per WP:REDLINK. For a standalone article, a structure like Our princess is in another castle! could work? We've definitely done it before. But maybe this quote-topic can be covered on a different page, and not have to be standalone if the sources aren't up to par. If I had to pick a character to end up at, I would personally want to go to an article about "Dave" (because that is the name I purposely typed). I did not type in HAL 9000. If I wanted HAL 9000, I (and anyone who wanted to find HAL 9000) would've typed in "HAL 9000", which I deliberately be avoiding by typing in 9 words, none of which contain "HAL" and none of which contain "9000". The search term is, for all tenses and purposes, a totally separate topic. A quote. Not a character. And nothing exists for it on Wikipedia, it seems.

If this quote is so important as it is claimed here, it seems like it'd be a homerun out-of-the-park slam dunk to have SOMEthing, SOMEwhere, related to this quote. But, to the best of my understanding, we do not, anywhere. We didn't in January. We didn't in April. And nearly a year later, not in October either. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from the history, given that not even Lunamann wanted to save this in April, is that this quote must not be worthwhile! (Obviously this is not true, because the quote IS "important" and likely notable, possibly even reaching standalone notability! But Wikipedia is not trying to "right the wrongs" of a lack of coverage. We can only report on, and redirect based on the material that is contained here on Wikipedia. Not what we want it to contain. This is regardless if it's "important", but not mentioned yet.) The way to indicate that there is a gap in Wikipedia coverage to be filled, is a redlink. This redirect has zero valuable history. It can ALWAYS be recreated once someone feels it necessary to discuss this potentially notable quote on the biggest online encyclopedia. Which will certainly happen eventually, especially so if the "quote is synonymous with the target itself". But doesn't need to happen now. We are in WP:NORUSH to finish it. And in the meantime, people who search for a quote, and don't end up at material directly related to their search term, will certainly be misled, as Wikipedia is not, does not function as, or advertise as a "type in a quote and get the character who said it without any mention of the search term you used because it's not 'important' enough to be covered at the target page you ended up at" service. The content of the article dictates the redirects that should exist. Not the other way around. Recreate the redirect once a sourced mention is added, somewhere on Wikipedia, because there are none right now... besides one.

Alternatively, retarget to Love and Rocket where the quote is discussed, and HAL 9000 is readily linked. But my guess is that people would probably not want that. Welp. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's referenced in an 2017 Human-Agent Interaction conference paper, "I'm Sorry, Dave, I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Chatbot Perception and Expectations"; an ACMI (museum) article, "2001: A Space Odyssey – 'I'm sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that' "; and a Sound & Vision magazine article, "I’m Sorry Dave, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That". ("I'm sorry Dave" was too ambiguous to survive. That is not the case here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – mention unnecessary for the redirect to answer the reader's most probable question ("where is this from?"). Re REDLINK, I think this is unlikely to be able to survive AfD (as evidenced by its lack of significant discussion in mainspace). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per FOARP. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless/until mention is added. If this quote is so important then it should be in the article. Without it this redirect is confusing and unhelpful. A7V2 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with or without mention, although I think a mention is likely warranted given the prominence of the quote in common and academic discourse (particularly related to computers in general, and AI in particular). Fieari (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture#Influence on technology where it actually is mentioned, and probably re-create I'm sorry Dave as a re-direct to the same place. I tend to agree with the keep !voters above about the significance of this phrase and plausibility that it will be searched for, but there is a separate article about the cultural impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with a specific section about its impact on technology, where this redirect is a rather well-known catchphrase. FOARP (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Traditioanl Jewish law

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Vulkan-Hercules

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shanker jadapa

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Raffaella Aleotti (Q3929201)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Heavy is Dead

Heavy is Dead → Team Fortress 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Popular video within TF2 communities but no mention of it in article. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as per WP:RETURNTORED.~~ No info present in article; if someone has info on this they can make a page or section on it somewhere. Until that happens, we don't need this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to Team Fortress 2#Fandom per Orchastrattor, who added the necessary, sourced information to the article that would be required to support this redirect. I am alive! Is nice. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is stupid cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~kill~~ per lunamann. no prejudice against reenacting heavy is dead here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny how this redirect thought it was good day to be not deleted. POW! You are Deleted (per Lunamann). mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will find the deleter, i will capture them, and no redirect will ever be deleted again! cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article, obviously noteworthy (sub)topic per WP:BEFORE Orchastrattor (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was also mentioned by Yahtzee Croshaw in his essay on punk and post-punk. I didn't even know this discussion was happening, I was just spinning the bit on Emesis Blue off into a new "fandom" section to mention Winglet's Fedora Chronicles ahead of "Mann's Final Stand". I was just looking to update the rcat templates for this redirect, Strong keep either way. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

works for me. refine to #fandom, still no prejudice against reenacting the video cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime Podcast

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

SHOUTcast Wire

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Firstly

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#Firstly

Once (adverb)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Linjian

Linjian → List of township-level divisions of Shandong (talk · links · history)

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this is a malformed nomination. There is no RfD header on the redirect. The current target of the redirect is Lin Jian, and not that contained in the opening of this section. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lin Jian is definitely the wrong target. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate with a see also to Lin Jian (林剑) and Linjiang (disambiguation); there is Linjian (临涧镇) in Pingyi County, Shandong, China; there is Linjian (林尘镇) in Zijin, Guangdong, China, listed at List of township-level divisions of Guangdong; Chen Linjian listed at 2020–21 and 2018–19 Chinese Basketball Association seasons; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Mongoloid

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#American Mongoloid

Indyans

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Indian lore

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Indian lore

North American people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#North American people

Контрудар: глобальное наступление

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

КСГО

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines → KLM (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm struggling to see the utility of this redirect that marginally abbreviates two of the three words in the full name of the airline. If space is at a premium surely you'd either just use "KLM" or abbreviate "Airlines" as well? This saves only 3 characters. Googling "klm Ryl Dtch Airlines" -Wikipedia brings up exactly one hit on Google, "how to pronounce", which scrapes Wikipedia page titles. It's amassed 77 hits since the current page view tool started keeping track in July 2015, which (if my maths is right) is an average of 0.7 hits per month and since 1 January 2023 it's accumulated only 4 hits. Capitalisation is by far the least important point here, but for any redirect in mixed case I'd expect KLM to be fully capitalised. On the other hand, this is old (created 2012) and unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe I got it from a document saying that, but sadly I did not make a note on where I got it from. In some newer redirects I am including URLs/documentation so I remember why I am redirecting some terms. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Steal Away."

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

Ain't I a stinker? → The Abbott and Costello Show (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ain't I a stinker → Bugs Bunny (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Stinker" does not appear at the target article for Bugs Bunny. However, it is mentioned at The Abbott and Costello Show and several other articles including List of Saturday TV Funhouse segments, and WikiQuote at q:Hare Force. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel that more people know this phrase from Bugs Bunny than from Abbot and Costello. I it a plausible search term, but I'm unsure whether we should drill down and really determine if there's a WP:PTOPIC, or if we should disambiguate. I don't think deletion is a good idea due to the plausibility of someone searching for this very famous phrase. If a PTOPIC is found, hatnoting may be appropriate. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would boil down to "where will readers receive the information most pertinent to their search term and have their questions be answered", and that is not the case at Bugs Bunny with zero mention. Yet the phrase "Ain't I a stinker" has like 6 mentions across Wikipedia, all of which might possibly be valid and could draw the target, but the fine details can be ascertained through this RfD. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not relevant on the Abbott and Costello TV series page, because it was never used in the series. A better place might be on the A&C radio show page, or the Abbott and Costello bio page. I do think it is a minor phrase that wasn't readily associated with the team.Plummer (talk)

"Ain't I a stinker"

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diamondina

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit!

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit!

Ain't no party like a diddy party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#Ain't no party like a diddy party

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel → Yu-Gi-Oh! (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no mention of "d-d" at the target article. Per the RCATs, this is apparently a related meme quotation, yet does not appear anywhere as written within the article. People looking for Yu-Gi-Oh! can reach the subject by typing Yugioh. Hyphenating between all the d's, just to reach an undiscussed meme subject, does not seem particularly useful or helpful here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Demonstrably helpful, give the steady daily usage count on the stats page, just in the past month. Unambiguous target. WP:CHEAP. Don't break people's workflow just for the sake of tidyness. Fieari (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [28], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."

Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [29]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.
For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

33-4

33-4 → 2005 Japan Series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This feels far too broad to be useful. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The irony of the deletion nomination adding 334 bytes...~~ Uhm... Yeah. You know... I dunno why I- ^[1] ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=33-4&redirect=no

Question - Is this score particularly notable in baseball? I know Scorigami is a thing in football, but less so in other sports because it's more trivial to score any particular number... but on the other hand, 33 sounds particularly outstandingly high for a baseball game in my estimation. Heck, backyard whiffleball has a 10 run mercy rule. So I could see this as plausible... but I don't know baseball well enough to be sure. Fieari (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In America - Barely anyone recognizes it

In Japanese internet culture/Japan itself - Strong Yes

(Disclaimer - The "33-4" score was throughout the 4 different matches, not in a single match). The jawiki has a clear and good coverage of the internet meme associated with the series, but nobody in enwiki so far recognizes these kinds of stuff. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Lean Keep - Not entirely certain whether the English Language wikipedia should have redirects based on foreign language memes, but this may be worthwhile... I'm leaning keep for the moment. For reference, the source used by the Japanese wikipedia to support the statement that 33-4 has become an internet meme there is: [30]. It does appear to be a reliable source according to our own standards. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like the only possible ambiguity is with 29. And create 33–4 too, obvs. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is the famous 4′33″. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never trust a bartender with bad grammar

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Billy Wilds

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Joe Tractorman

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The sun is a deadly lazer

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Quartzose

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 14

Worker

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move

Draft:Cimexa

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pizzaface

Pizzaface → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pizza Face → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

currently unmentioned in the target and with primary topichood completely usurped by a pizza tower character with the same name (good for him :3). was about to retarget there and call it a day, but per wikt:pizza face, there might be some other possible target(s). opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate at pizza face and add the wiktionary link there. The TMNT character 'Pizza Face' is mentioned at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 where it is also the title of a TV episode. There are several other topics on Wikipedia available as mentions. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ALQ-128

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#AN/ALQ-128

I am ..., Hear Me Roar!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ting ting tang tang tang

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?

Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me? → Mickey Mouse March (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This line is not at the target article. People who use this term instead of looking for "Mickey Mouse March", will not receive content related to their search term. It is currently impossible to verify whether this line is indeed from this song (based on the lack of material in Wikipedia mainspace here), so in absence of any content or material related to the "leader of the club", this redirect is not helpful. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The natural way to search for songs is by typing in the name of the song. there is no one "natural" way to search for anything (that's why we have redirects), rather there are many ways people look for things that exist on a spectrums of plausibility and usefulness as a redirect (the two do not always align, e.g. when plausible search terms have no primary topic). In the case of songs, prominent lyrics are very much a natural way to search for a song when you don't remember the title, and in most cases someone searching Wikipedia by the lyric is looking for information about the song not necessarily about that specific lyric so not being mentioned is not a reason on it's own to delete such a redirect. When a lyric is included in multiple notable songs, very prominently in one and not at all prominently in the other then the one in which it is prominent is almost certainly going to be the primary target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia pages are governed by the titles of articles. Wikipedia is not a FAQ, it is not a question-and-answer, it is not a lyric database, and it is not a type-in-a-line-from-a-song-and-get-the-song-it-comes-from service. We DO have some lyrics that are baked in as redirects. Sometimes it's because people might get confused between a title, and its stand-out lyric (see: The Longest Time vs For The Longest Time. The latter redirect is not the title, it's a lyric, yet the two are practically the same that it's almost interchangeable, and is very frequently used in sources. These are, imo, equally likely to be searched.) But in practice, the the odds of typing in any ole lyric into the Wikipedia search bar, and ending up at the song it came from, sits at a very comfortable ~0% chance of occurring. This is because there are near infinite-permutations of lyrics in existence, millions of songs with thousands and thousands of song articles on Wikipedia, so it just doesn't happen in practicality. Yet, per WP:Article titles, the best way to end up at an article is to type in the article title. With it, one cannot possibly go wrong. If something went wrong? The built-in search engine catches all mentions of keywords in case someone doesn't know the song name (but there are services for specifically finding that), so with enough trial and error you're sure to get to where you want to go. What doesn't occur on Wikipedia? The millions of song lyric databases for the millions of songs that exist. This is not Wikipedia's purpose; this is the purpose of Genius and Lyricfinder. We build redirects for likely search terms with directly associated content. There's trillions of likely search terms out there. We do not have trillions of redirects; we keep and maintain the redirects that are directly governed by what information is actually listed at the page, in order to educate readers on material directly pertinent to the term they searched for, without having to make guesses of purpose i.e. that they're okay with not getting the material they deliberately searched for (chances lean no, such unmentioned redirects are often fairly described as "misleading" and "unhelpful"). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not find it implausible that someone would search for the 1st line of this song. It's helpful. I do not find Utopes' argument above compelling. Sure, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a lyric database, but that's why we don't have the full lyrics in the article. All the list of things we are not is about article content, not the search methods to get to an article. Quite frankly, I find the application of article content standards to redirects entirely inappropriate. The only questions we should be asking are "is it plausible?", "is the target unambiguous?", and "is the result helpful? (does it violate WP:ASTONISH?)". This passes all those questions, and that is the criteria by which I !vote keep, basically every time. I do not believe I am alone in my interpretation of our policy in this way. Fieari (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that people may remember first lines of songs. After all, that's the first impression people have of a song. I do the same, especially if a lyric is particularly memorable (a factor that is wholly subjective; I'd personally never create a lyric redirect for my own personal favorite lyric just on that fact alone). But if I don't know the name of a song, I wouldn't imagine going to Wikipedia as my first fix for that, and cannot fathom a single person who would. But moving your main thing, I hope you are aware that redirects are still pages that are in mainspace, and that ALL of mainspace is held to the standard of what Wikipedia is and is not. So that includes redirects, which can very well violate WP:NOT, effectively spanning millions of pages. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should have redirects for every first lyric of every song, and seem to support creating and maintaining/!keeping redirects for every single one without exception. So a database of first lyrics. Maybe even the second lyric. In mainspace. With histories spanning millions of pages. I don't even know where to begin unpacking this. On every front, for every uncited lyric created as a redirect in mainspace, this is a violation of WP:V.
Based on WP:NOTDB, the policy page that Wikipedia should not be hosting unexplained, indiscriminate information. Millions of lyrics baked into redirects, is exactly that. WP:NOT applies to redirects. The way to alleviate this perennial issue of unmentioned/contextless material, is to at least have the information contained in redirects be verified, SOMEwhere, in an accessible location (like the target, for instance), and ALWAYS verify it if the material is challenged or if it is a direct quote. Redirects are absolutely bound by the verifiability policy, unless you disagree that "all material mainspace must be verifiable" and "redirects are material in mainspace". There's no other way to tell if a redirect lyric is even correct or not. There has to be a standard, and there is a standard, as nearly all unmentioned lyrics have been getting deleted (and only have recently been contested from my own experience). The VAST opinion on unmentioned redirects is that redirects to articles without mention are problematic, which is why CAT:RAW titles are nominated over and over again at RfD to clear out the backlog of neglected titles which nobody wants to resolve. Because at the end of the day, the redirects should not shape the content in existence; the content should shape the redirects in existence. No harm in deletion; pages can ALWAYS be recreated once verification occurs. (It's for that reason that RfD should be the lowest stake XfD as zero valuable history is lost, usually. But whatever.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For once, I think this this actually something that might reasonably be remembered and searched for over the name of the song itself. The problem though, is that it's unclear if someone would be looking for the song, or the show the song was used in (I think the latter is more likely). And without a clear target, we shouldn't be guessing which of the two possible targets was intended. Disambiguation is clearly inappropriate here, so that leaves us with a delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Utopes, even though I think this might not be the best test case, what you've got here is absolute gold. For the love of god, please organize it all into an essay. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar → Don't You Want Me (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of a "cocktail bar" at the target article. No mention of "waitress" at the target article. This is a seemingly unimportant lyric, and people who search for this instead of the natural "Don't You Want Me" title of the song, are likely looking for material directly related to their search term, which doesn't exist here. No verification exists for people who don't know whether they ended up at the right place. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (see above re "natural" ways to search). This is the opening line to the song, which (along with the first line of the chorus) is almost always going to be a plausible search term for those who don't remember the title of the song. In this case the lyric is unambiguous and there is no deep meaning to it that cannot be gleaned from reading the article's section about the song as a whole, so people using this search term are finding what they want to find. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is precedent of redirecting the entire first line of books, or movies, or songs, or any creative work, to the work in question (on the premise of being the first line alone). It might randomly happen, but inappropriately so without something particular being true in that case. When it does happen, there's usually more to it, and/or its a special case with special coverage. The precedent arises if the line in question is particularly noteworthy enough to garner sourced content. Perhaps it's been reused multiple times in subsequent works, or an "iconic quote" that people would want to read about? That does not seem to be the situation here.
In any case, I am challenging this material in mainspace. This material has to be quoted from SOMEwhere, but where? Readers are left with no context, or any evidence that this line is even correct, much less related in any way to the song (i.e. blind trust in redirect correctness with no source, and we've seen that redirects can't always be trusted at face-value for their inate factual accuracy). If this line was mentioned somewhere at the target article, that would alleviate all concerns. But I don't think this particular line in this particular song is relevant enough for even that. If there is evidence that "Don't You Want Me" has some connection to the first line of the song, moreso than any song with lyrics also has a "first line", then that could be worth including maybe, but that's for the RfD to uncover. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1st lines of SONGS, as opposed to other artistic works, are frequently used as the titles and it is very plausible for someone to know the 1st line of a song but not the actual title (see: Tubthumping, granted that's a case where so few people know the title vs the lyrics that it merited discussion in the article, but it still illustrates the general point that this happens). I disagree that it would be WP:ASTONISHing for a user to find the article on the song when typing the lyric, even without a discussion of the specific lyric in question. This is a helpful search aid, not a statement that we are talking about the lyrics specifically. We are not a lyric database, but we can help point people to the article they were likely intending to find in the way that many people search for songs. Fieari (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, "I get knocked down" IS mentioned, WITH a source, at Tubthumping! EZPZ! And is in the album cover too no less, woah! Therefore I get knocked down is substantiated, and I had zero intention of seeing it deleted. It's likely, and demonstrably so, with article content at the target page. Good song btw. ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Motherland the German army march

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

My tea's gone cold, I'm wondering why I got out of bed at all

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nikostratos Greco-Roman Warrior

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

External factors plant

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

WRYYYYYYYYYYY

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The World (weapon)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#The World (weapon)

Wikipedia:Requests for creation

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

buccal organ(s)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#buccal organ(s)

T:WPMHA

T:WPMHA → Template:WPMILHIST Announcements (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~Two incoming links. With the existence of the "TM" alias, TM:WPMHA is a totally sufficient shortcut for navigating to this page, in an effort to keep a confusing PNR out of namespace. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirect is 10 years old, which means it was definitely created before the namespace redirect TM: was created, and we generally keep old cross-namespace redirects. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the redirect predates "TM:". But 2014 is really not that old. Pseudo-namespace titles have been majorly contentious for much longer than a decade. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18#T:WPTECH is an example of a heated discussion, but T: titles have been getting nominated since 2010 and earlier (on principle of being T: titles). So I'd hardly call 2014 a "longstanding example", especially as this title has never stood the test of time. As an example, T:AC has been the subject of 3 RfDs. T:WPMHA has been the subject of none, so there's no precedent of !keeping. It's only been "unearthed" as of today, basically. Compounded with WP:NORUSH to discuss this PNR sooner.

We don't "generally keep" cross namespace redirects on the premise of "being old", so I'm really not sure where that statement comes from. Being old does not inherently give a title immunity. Especially so if the title is otherwise problematic, which cross-namespace redirects inherently are, especially ones from mainspace where our casual readers stick to. The "problematic"-factor is offset by some level of demonstrable utility, which is why such titles might stick.

Quick aside: pseudo-namespace redirects =/= cross-namespace redirects. WP:PNRs are designed to allow for easily linking to a title, without the need to write out the whole prefix for the namespace. "Template" might only be 8 letters, but if you're typing it ten or so times a day for monitoring purposes, those keyclicks add up. PNR utility can come from either use in wikilinks, as well as use in a search bar.

So let's examine demonstrable utility. This title was created in 2014, exclusively as a compromise when T:WPMA was getting deleted. Since its creation, it has only been used by one person, the creator, on this talk page. As far as T: titles might go, 1 usage per decade is on the low end. The wikilinks are easy to adjust. Pertaining to "use in a search bar", well, the TM: alias makes it easy to access ANY template now, so all search-bar-efficiency rationales are essentially caput for T: titles. (Unless, for some reason, there's a template on WP which is so vital that its "utterly necessary to shorten 'TM:' to 'T:', saving a singular keypress". That might've been the case when 7 key-presses were being saved by "T:", but now that it's down to 1, I'd be shocked if that's the case for any template on WP.)

In closing, cross-namespace-redirects from mainspace are always unideal. Casual readers should not be accidentally falling through a trapdoor only to end up in the Wikipedia backrooms, if they can help it. T:kort, T:SCC among others, are content articles on in mainspace which "T:" titles actively infringe on. So PNRs of this type should be kept to a minimum, as they interfere with reader navigation to actual articles. Now that the TM: alias is a feature that exists, I predict most (if not all) "T:" titles will be deleted before the end of 2024, but that's just my own prediction and idk if that'll truly occur or not. But this I feel is one of the more uncontroversial ones to go; its a comparably easy two-link repair, and a solo nom to test the waters before a potential group nom of other T: titles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's old, it is getting used (as determined by page views, not by count of links from current revisions of pages on en.wp), it is unambiguous and I'm not seeing any evidence of it having caused any actual (as opposed to theoretical) problems in the last 10 years. We need more than that to justify deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something every day. I wasn't aware that T363757 added TM: as alias to Template: on English Wikipedia five months ago – in May – until now, and I'm probably not the only active editor for which this is the case. I see that ever since the T: prefix was snowed under back in December 2010, a subset of these have been picked off one or a few at at time. We currently have just 63 categorized redirects to template namespace and Special:PrefixIndex/T: finds 79 pages. (79−63)=16 non-template T: prefix redirects:

Ten mainspace T: prefix redirects, one to talk, four to template-talk, and one to project namespace. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That list above is not comprehensive - I use T:AC and T:ACOT (both target Template:ArbComOpenTasks) quite often and neither are on the list, similarly T:CENT (Template:Centralized discussion) is also missing. Special:PrefixIndex/T: finds 79 redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list is for non-Templatespace redirects, 16 of which exist says wbm1058. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comprehensive list of T: prefix redirects to template namespace is the first 63 redirects listed here. I made sure that list was comprehensive (as of the time of my edit) by making one – two – three edits. Indeed, one of those was to T:CENT. It's so easy! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryl

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

ps triple

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Open/Point No.1

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Online education

Online education → Distance education (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Online Education → Educational technology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 14 § Online education – retarget to Distance education

Seems ambiguous. There is also Online school. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget [Online Education] to Distance education. Thanks to the COVID pandemic happening, this seems to be the primary redirect topic for these terms with Educational technology and Online school being potential subtopics when referring to the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listed the previous RfD. Note that there was a disambig page Online learning that was discussed there. Jay 💬 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the discovery/existence of the aforementioned disambiguation page does not change my stance. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Involved) Relisting as the September 15 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both to Online school — as distance education doesn’t only cover online learning. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... huh? Online learning is a disambiguation page, and education doesn't happen only at schools. I'm not seeing the argument here, and I really am trying. Steel1943 (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Online learning because this phrase often refers to online learning in class. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Retarget to Distance education, Online learning, or Online school?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to online learning. in this case, i feel a dab would be more helpful, as it also includes all the suggested targets (and then some) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the above. This relist comment comes off as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Jay 💬 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Steel's insinuating that CycloneYoris specifying Online learning and Online school as the two targets worth talking about, comes across as having a stifling effect on the discussion that excludes the option Steel himself advocated for way up at the start of the discussion, which was Distance education

I'll also note that this is... not actually what a supervote is, given an actual supervote is a closing admin who forces a non-consensus close. Possible WP:UPPERCASE issue lol? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah.. got it. I guess it was the wording of the relist. CycloneYoris could have said two new suggestions have come up, or generically said there are multiple suggestions. Jay 💬 05:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I somehow forgot to include the first suggestion in my relisting comment. Sorry about that! CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my first instinct is to retarget to Online learning. Learning and education are closer synonyms than online > distance and online > distance. However, it may be a better idea to retarget with hatnote to Distance education, with the following hatnote: "Online education" redirects here. For other uses, see Online learning. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26, November, 2006

26, November, 2006 → 2006#November (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This day is not discussed at the target page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per, nom. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue stated in the nomination statement can be resolved by retargeting to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26. However the real issue should be the formatting. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There's nothing wrong with the formatting. "Day, Month, Year" is totally plausible. The issue is a lack of coverage of this date in mainspace, for a mainspace search term where readers predict, and expect, to end up in mainspace when typing it. A blue-link here is misleading to prospective searchers, when we have no mainspace coverage for such a term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, Retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26 where there are plenty of mainspace links to events that happened on that day. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26 per Taxix and Utopes. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26. C F A 💬 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try… Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Retargeting would only justify creation of similar redirects. Furthermore, the use of multiple commas is not usually standard. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't explicitly cite WP:PANDORA, but "...would only justify creation of similar redirects" is pretty much entirely what a WP:PANDORA argument is-- so I'm going to direct you over to WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per Tavix and Utopes. The Day/Month/Year formatting is completely plausible, and the only thing at issue is an extra comma-- which, one extra character added by accident shouldn't impact plausibility enough to delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer deletion, so I wouldn't say via of me. The formatting is totally fine, but because there is no mainspace coverage of this encyclopedic search term, going to a portal where there is no encyclopedic prose or editable material is unideal. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Utopes, Champion and other nominators above supposed for the deletion as costly redirect. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 22:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the portal per Tavix—that's the option that is most helpful to the reader. If a reader wants to know about 26 November 2006, then they get redirected to the portal which tells them about things that happened that day. The redirect is helping them. That's what it is for. I cannot stress that enough—our primary goal here is helping the reader. Retargeting to a reader-facing content page which has plenty of information on the exact thing the reader searched is a far superior option to just deleting and leaving the reader annoyed by many, many orders of magnitude.

The WP:PANDORA argument can be discarded, since it doesn't address the actual quality of the redirect (besides other issues discussed at WP:GETBACKINTHERE, which maybe should be moved to the WP namespace at this point). If I like the redirect, I could in theory say "keep per WP:PANDORA; it will encourage creation of more redirects of this type". That's essentially a WP:ILIKEIT argument; accordingly, WP:PANDORA amounts to a hidden WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

WP:COSTLY is also cited as a general reason for deletion, so I looked at that essay and its examples of unneeded redirects.

Numbers one through five don't apply to this redirect.

Number six is WP:PANDORA, which has already been discarded.

Number seven doesn't apply.

So I do not understand how deletion as costly redirect is correct here.

Regarding Utopes' argument, which seems to be that the portal is not mainspace and not very "encyclopedic"— I agree that it is not mainspace, but portals are still intended to be user-facing content. If portals exist as user-oriented content, and they certainly do, I don't see why it's not a valid target. Portals are exempted from WP:R2 and are not considered harmful cross-namespace redirects. Cremastra (u — c) 20:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of WP:GETBACKINTHERE I am perfectly okay with moving it to WP namespace! I just haven't done so myself mostly because I'm not sure if I have the authority to lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know what, after seeing User:Cremastra create WP:RDATE, I've decided to say screw it. I've moved WP:GETBACKINTHERE to WP namespace, and added three more shortcuts-- WP:GBIT, WP:BACKINBOX, and WP:UNPANDORA.

If I shouldn't be doing this please slap me with a fish. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spewed out a few of my thoughts at WP:RDATE. Cremastra (u — c) 20:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wpedia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Presidential Board

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 13

Tata (Persian King)

Tata (Persian King) → Tata (king of Awan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysolith

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

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified of this discussion at Chrysolite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf's analysis. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf, perhaps an actual mention on the Peridot page is warranted to prevent any cases of WP:RASTONISH. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chrysolite since it seems to be just as ambiguous as that term, for which it seems to be an alternative or foreign variant. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the disambiguation page Chrysolite, per Felix QW. Renerpho (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Both with and without the "e" (and with a "us") in many European languages the terms have have over the last 100 years or so become more specific. But our enquirer may not have found the term in a modern work. Of interest there is nomenclature for the subspecies, chrysolite de Saxe being topaz, chrysolit[h]e du cap being phrenite. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Retarget, no mention of "lith" at the target page so "lite" captures all desired usages. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandview (typeface) and others

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bumping trains

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep.

Catcher's mitt

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Mick Armstrong

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restore and take to AfD

Ronnie Cowan (rugy union)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3.1415926535…

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#3.1415926535…

Sidepiece (DJs)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 12

National Sports Administration

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Erie Von Detten

Erie Von Detten → Eerie Von (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Simply not an alternative name. This was created in the early 2000s, but was redirected to Eriee Von. It hasn’t received an edit since 2005, and averages 0 views a day. Roasted (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Erik von Detten as a misspelling. Cremastra (u — c) 19:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the above retarget probably shouldn't be made either (Erie is not a misspelling of Erik), especially in light of the 0 pageviews. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged the redirect as a {{R from merge}}. 67.119.58.107 who had appeared to have BLARd Erie Von Detten, actually did a copy-paste merge as the new article Eerie Von. Merge the history of Erie Von Detten (which is from 2002) into Eerie Von. Jay 💬 17:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot policy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Image use

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

No original research

No original research → Wikipedia:No original research (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "No original research" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Do not keep as ~~both~~ an unhelpful WP:XNR due to the Wikipedia meta-ness of the phrase. ~~and since there's no appropriate page in the article space to retarget this redirect.~~ Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update per Jlwoodwa's comment. I'm neutral on their findings, but want to make it clear I'm no longer hard "delete" on this regardless of the result. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia § Content policies and guidelines, with a self-ref hatnote to WP:NOR. Unlike the other redirects nominated today, this phrase is almost completely unique to Wikipedia. Someone who searches for this is overwhelmingly likely to have WP:NOR in mind, and it's a term that people could encounter before they learn about namespaces. (I would !vote for keeping if not for the brief mention in mainspace, which is a better target per the consensus against new WP:XNRs. If someone removes the sentence It must not present original research. from the target section – which seems mildly possible, since currently it's only sourced to Wikipedia itself – the redirect should target WP:NOR again.) jlwoodwa (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget given unlike legal threats this is likely at least more so a Wikipedia specific term but has mainspace content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. Not about real world use outside in the real world beyond Wikipedia. Not about R&D dollars vs basic research dollars in funding policy, etc. ie. funding for watch crabs walk, etc. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Jlwoodwa. Unambiguous and a likely search term, including for those who haven't learned about namespaces yet (it's a common reason why first attempts at articles are deleted/draftified), but given the mainspace content exists we should target there with a hatnote to the project space page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and Hatnote per jlwoodwa above, who makes an excelent case for it. This is a wikipedia unique term of art, if they are searching for it they want to know about it in the context of wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy

Deletion policy → Wikipedia:Deletion policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question with XNRs to projectspace is always, "Is it plausible that someone would think to search for this internal page while new enough to not know what namespaces are?" New users are often quickly thrown into the fray of our deletion process, so ths is a plausible thing for someone to search for when the article they created has just been CSD'd/PRODded/AfD'd. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Deletion policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this were retargeted to the analgous deletion of articles on Wikipedia then it would be obvious that it is being ridiculously presumptuous. Delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia as probably the most plausable topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I'd agree with Tamzin, but Einstein v. 357 LLC § Findings on Evidence and Internet censorship in Germany § Access Impediment Act show that the term sees some use outside Wikipedia. There's also Data retention § Policies, which isn't called a deletion policy, but it's certainly a policy on deletion. I'd accept retargeting some mainspace article with a self-ref hatnote to WP:DP, but I haven't found a good target so far. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect, with a deletion log entry including a link to WP:Deletion policy to help Wikipedians and intending Wikipedians. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. This gets much use in the controversies on social networks with their content policies and arbitrary deletions. Clearly a WP:REDYES -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Crouch, Swale. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone searching for "Deletion policy" on Wikipedia is looking for Wikipedia's policy on deletion - for example someone whose article has just been deleted or a reader who thinks some other article should be deleted, so it is important that this is easy to find. However given that relevant mainspace content exists we should target that, those who are looking for the policy can follow the link at the top of the page. Those looking for other deletion policies will not find anything on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the vast majority of readers searching Wikipedia are using an external search engine. I don't think it's fair to assume that they're looking for an English Wikipedia-specific policy. Lots of user-generated content sites have policies on deleting content. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the concept of deletion is not exclusive to Wikipedia. (I oppose "retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia".) Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steel1943. All sorts of things have deletion policies; since we don't have a broad-topic article on them, this redirect should be deleted. Cremastra (u — c) 19:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning policy

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

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that this was created as cross-namespace (to Wikipedia:Banning policy), banning is in namespace 0. Not that this seems like a particularly useful retarget; "policy" only makes sense in relation to just three of the entries on that dab page. —Cryptic 20:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Not sure how I missed this. C F A 💬 21:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the redirect to the Banning disambiguation page is apt, but I don't have a better suggestion. Ban (law) comes closest with its lead sentence, A ban is a formal or informal prohibition[1] of something., but the article is about legally-enacted prohibitions (as indicated by the name). A policy is generally used to describe guidance that an authority is enacting on its own discretion. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Banning is better than any of the alternatives anyone has come up with so far, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ban is incrementally better, I think. (And conveniently already has a hatnote to Wikipedia:Banning policy.) —Cryptic 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Block (Internet). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that "banning policy" is more generic than restricting Internet access. It can refer to prohibited behaviour in a place open to the public, for example. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that is a bad target. Banning is not restricted to the internet. People get banned from shopping centers, amusement parks, casinos. It would be encyclopedic to examine banning in casinos -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "banning policy" is not restricted to the internet. Delete as too vague; we don't have a broad-topic article on banning. My second preference is to retarget to Ban. Cremastra (u — c) 19:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

Blocking policy → Wikipedia:Blocking policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Blocking policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Retarget to Block (Internet). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that might be a common usage today, I think Access control is a better target to cover the broader concept of a policy to block access. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though this can clearly indicate block allocation policy... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. "Blocking" has several ambiguous contexts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have blocking and there are potentially other forms of blocking that could have policies however it could be useful to new users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. "Blocking" is just so ambiguous this is not useful. Block allocation, Banning, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Access control per Isaacl and Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking makes the most sense to me if we retarget, but really, I don't know what we'd gain by having a redirect from here to there. Not going to help with searches, not going to help find more specific content. Access control would be a surprising place to land at if you're looking for one of the other senses of the phrase. —Cryptic 06:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

Username policy → Wikipedia:Username policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question with XNRs to projectspace is always, "Is it plausible that someone would be looking for this internal page while new enough to not know what namespaces are?" Given that for many people creating a username is the first step in contributing to Wikipedia, I find the answer in this case an emphatic yes. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Username policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to User (computing)#Username format. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section provides a bit of info on operation system restrictions for usernames. A username policy is generally about rules enacted by an organization about usernames (thus is at the discretion of the organization and not solely due to technical limitations). isaacl (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have username policies and there could be other uses that don't involve computers etc where usernames have policies. Also User (computing)#Username format doesn't appear to discuss policies so it probably not a good target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. There is so much material that could be built about controversial username policies for social media and accounts allowed by corporations. There's the unreasonable name length bans for users of various services that appear in the news now and then, about people with long names or short names, not allowed names, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pppery. That page already has a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Username policy. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to User (computing)#Username format. Seems right to me. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats

No legal threats → Wikipedia:No legal threats (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term for a new user. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "No legal threats" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe retarget to Legal threat but otherwise delete as not a Wikipedia specific term though having "No" makes it more so its obvious unlike original research that people or websites etc don't want legal threats. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. This is all over the place in the world at large, and in written contracts, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia-meta phrase with no adequate article namespace equivalent. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the below "retarget" votes have not convinced my to change my stance from "delete", basically per Utopes. Steel1943 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Legal threat which contains a hatnote to the Wikipedia policy, and thus covers everything that anyone using this search term is likely to be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf. 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs)
Delete. "No legal threats" is not a likely search term for someone looking up "legal threats". Any Wikipedia desires become irrelevant and navel gazing at that point, and the appropriate page can be found in Wikipedia space. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Days

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Scottish Nose-pickers

Scottish Nose-pickers → Scottish National Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Scottish Nose Pickers → Scottish National Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Scottish Nosepickers → Scottish National Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Little Evidence that this is a title that would be searched for. Only a reference to Nicola Sturgeon Picking her nose can be found using this search term. See no need for a redirect on that basis. Blethering Scot 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've merged these two related nominations that had an identical rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a very-long established nickname with lots of independent uses, e.g. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], and plenty of others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. BarntToust ^(Talk) 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added the other redirect I made of a variant of this name. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned at target/WP:REDYES. I would expect someone searching for this term already knows what it refers to, but is looking for information about its usage specifically -- information we don't have. And on the off chance someone doesn't, they may be left wondering why they were led to the target in the first place. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 35. Possibly speedy as well. Maybe those sources are good, I don't know. But it is definitely not helpful for regular readers, because the only evidence that they might be at the right place is tucked into an October 2024 discussion in projectspace (this one). So readers are unable to verify any of that, or "easily check that information comes from a reliable source". On top of that, it's G10. No mention of "nose" or "picker" at the target. The example textualized at the WP:G10 policy page clarifies that "mentioned attacks are valid". It's never been the case where the opposite is acceptable (unmentioned attacks). Delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, tag as non-neutral. This is a perjorative name that isn't clearly linked to its target at first glance, but as Thryduulf states has a long history of being used. I disagree with the IP's assertion that someone searching for this topic would 100% be trying to find out more info about what the name comes from-- they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to". But we have no information to help them determine that, or why it does. Wikipedia is not Google. If an ignorant reader puts in in the search bar, they'll have no idea why they landed where they did, with no information about the phrase they were looking for. It's misleading and a waste of a reader's time. Therefore, deletion is the only reasonable action here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Copa América

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joining the of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

JD "the Couch" Vance

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Couch sex

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Having sex with couch

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

K'gari (local council), Queensland

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6.

October 11

Allan Cerda

Allan Cerda → Cincinnati Reds minor league players#Allan Cerda (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cerda is not listed as a player on the team, and according to his MLB profile, he has played for several teams, so I'm not sure what the best redirect would be. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No longer plays for Reds and not notable for stand alone article.-- Yankees10 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Same reasoning as before. Not sure why this wasn't deleted before re-listing.-- Yankees10 18:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The user is better served by Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fântânele River (Mureș)

Fântânele River (Mureș) → Mureș (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fantanele River (Mures) → Mureș (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Was redirected under a verifiability concern years ago. Fântânele River doesn't list it. Can't find it on either OSM or Google maps. Used to also have Kutas-patak redirected to it, but that's a waterway somewhere else. Looks like this was the result of some sort of a confusion. Joy (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's also the version without diacritics, which I'll be adding here, since I think it should share the same fate. Regards, SONIC678 20:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misbehaviour

Misbehaviour → Behavior (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Misbehavior → Behavior (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ill-behaved → Behavior (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not actually helpful redirects. The reader expects a description of, well, bad behaviour, but instead is redirected to a page that describes "behaviour" in general and doesn't describe misbehaviour in the sense of a kid pulling the cat's tail. Misbehaviour isn't actually the antonym of "behaviour" here, even though it sounds like one. The behaviour article discusses behaviour in its broadest biological and societal sense. Soft redirection to wiktionary seems the best option here. Cremastra (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak disambiguate misbehavior/misbehaviour the only entries which strictly meet MOS:DAB are Misbehavior (film) and Misbehaviour (film), and various WP:DABMENTIONs (e.g. songs on Behaviour (Saga album) and Come of Age), but there's a whole bunch of stuff that would go in WP:DABSEEALSO: Missbehavior, Misbehaving (disambiguation), a {{wiktionary}} link, and closely-related concepts like acting out or misconduct or anti-social behavior which just barely fail MOS:DABSYNONYM (they mention "rebellious behavior", "behavior which is unacceptable", etc., though never strictly use the word "misbehavior"). Perhaps a bit of a WP:IAR but it seems better to disambiguate than move both films to their base titles and put giant hatnotes on them. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Firstly, I want to point out that, rather than Behavior, since the term "misbehavior" is generally understood to refer to Human behavior, that should probably be the proper redirect target. Just one problem: to my astonishment, there is no mention of misbehavior in that article. Surely there should be at least a full section there! I also checked out the articles about Misconduct and Deviance (sociology), but neither of them is truly appropriate. Wish I had a good answer! Oh btw, I removed the "antonym" reference before I came to this discussion. Anomalous+0 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has just been noticed at Talk:Behavior#Proposal to create behavioural problem section or page too. Seems quite an oversight, when the science and attention to covering “behavioral problems”—especially in children—is so big. — HTGS (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate the first two per 59.149. Delete Ill-behaved. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment drafted dab at Misbehaviour. But without further work (e.g. adding relevant section to one or more of the articles in "See also" so that those articles could be listed in the main section of the dab), after this discussion is closed someone else may eventually come along and dispute the existence of the dab page by proposing that the film articles be moved to the base titles. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melonade

Melonade → Homestar Runner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target; listed in Lucozade#Variants but there is also a more general Wiktionary entry at wikt:melonade. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Retarget to wikt:melonade as the best information currently available on this word. I have doubts it is sufficiently covered in WP:RS to make an article here at this time (but who knows in the future...). Fieari (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unmentioned and WP:REDYES 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No article has any substantive material. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REtarget to melon where melon juice redirects to -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:melonade per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enix150: Thryduulf hasn't participated in this discussion. Jay 💬 17:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Path

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Unmentioned Suikoden characters (2)

Gilbert (Suikoden) → Suikoden#Suikoden II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Valeria (Suikoden) → Suikoden#Valeria (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Viki (Suikoden) → Suikoden#Viki (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Viki(Suikoden) → Suikoden#Viki (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

None of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Viki(Suikoden) because there's no space between the title and the disambiguator. Unsure on the rest, though—they may not be mentioned, but as SnowFire says in the huge nomination below, the list of characters may be brought back with independent sourcing. I think these three should share the same fate as those in the huge nomination two nominations below this one (I am open to being swayed otherwise, though). Regards, SONIC678 06:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just tagged Viki(Suikoden) with {{Db-x3}}. Steel1943 (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin should take note of some of the comments at #Unmentioned Suikoden characters that may also apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Delete Viki(Suikoden) per Sonic678. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add link to the #Unmentioned Suikoden characters discussion which is mentioned several times in this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viki(Suikoden) has already been deleted under X3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames from the name Leib

Surnames from the name Leib → Leib (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

deletion requested, the target doesn't contain any surnames from the name Leib but only lists persons with the surname Leib. One would expect derived surnames like Leibovich, Leibovitz, etc. Hodsha (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Leib#Surnames derived from the name now that the content has been restored. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need. The original (and restored) page contained anchor. --Altenmann >talk 23:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer section redirects over anchor redirects whenever possible, especially when forwarding to the top of a section, so I disagree. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree with your preference: sections are often renamed and nobody cares to fix redirects, that can be multiple. I am fixing such consequences of benevolent but clueless copyeditors at least one a month. Anchors are permanent, unless someone removes them without much thinking. --Altenmann >talk 18:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about section headers or anchors: Someone removing them or renaming them causes havoc. The main difference here though is that section headers are more compatible with the mobile version of Wikipedia than anchors. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Someone "optimized" the page and created confusion. --Altenmann >talk 23:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever they did to the page, this redirect doesn't make sense anymore, given the respecting content is no longer there, so I'd say the nomination statement is valid. It's like deleting a redirect from a fictional character to a character list after the character is removed from the list. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...And now, it's back. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Steel1943. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Altenmann & Steel; whether it's refined or kept at the anchor is honestly not an issue to me, both go to the same place. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Leib#Surnames derived from the name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change to Leib#Surnames derived from the name. I don't think "Surnames" is a good idea for an anchor on such an article, seems quite confusing especially with a section "Surname". A7V2 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Revilla

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon → Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

his name was initially inconsistently spelled, with "gannon" having been used from 1 to alttp in japan, and only in 1 (and later zelda's adventure, but no one cares about that one) in not japan, so it was already out of the equation by the time the cd-i games were out. point is, getting two names mixed up and using an outdated spelling of that name doesn't seem that plausible cogsan _{talk page? contribs? it's yours, my friend} 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible and unambiguous; deletion of this does not improve wikipedia BugGhost🦗👻 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently, "Gamelon" is a setting, not an alternative name for Ganon. For this reason, the redirect is erroneous and not a title match in any form or variation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
correct, gamelon is the place, ganon (which the game explicitly spells with only two ns) is the green guy cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"

However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?

I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many errors. "Gannon" misspelling has no affinity, this is not the original Zelda game, and we won't be having Gannon misspellings for every single future Zelda game just because it was a typo in only the manual of the original. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research impact

Research impact → Research Excellence Framework (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. The redirect is a very broad concept (the impact of research), and the target is very specific (a programme that evaluates the impact of research in the UK). If we have an article that discusses research impact, the general concept, this should be retargeted there; otherwise it should be deleted to encourage article creation, since the current target is country-specific and doesn't explain what "research impact" is. Even the target's "research impact" section merely quotes the programme's own definition of research impact, without any hints about this definition's usefulness outside the UK. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig. In addition to the target we have other articles like Bibliometrics, Impact factor, Author-level metrics, Citation impact and probably others that someone using this search term could be looking for. There is also Research4Impact that warrants at least a see-also on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redirect, unless someone wishes to work on Thryduulf's disambig suggestions. Jay 💬 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary beast

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Fendlerella utahensis

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2026 Women's Finalissima

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2026 Futsal Finalissima

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

DC Super Hero Girls (disambiguation)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

The [console]: round 2: the revengening

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PS3 Media

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The [console]

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep/retarget

PSX2

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PlayStation Dos

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 10

Soft D

Soft D → Finnish phonology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Danish phonology per nom. Fieari (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe weak disambiguate. A search reveals at least 3 other reasonable targets, 2 of which I wouldn't even begin to know how to describe correctly. It also finds a mention at Colloquial Finnish, presumably why this redirect exists, but that article appears to be ~99% OR. I'd advise someone who knows more about Finnish to look into that one more closely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that Danish phonology is the most common use of the term, but it does also exist in various medieval languages, so this is a WP:REDYES argument. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to consider what readers are most likely to want to find when they search for a certain term. I argue that the most common use of the term should be where it redirects to. If there was another concept that was almost or just as common, then deletion or disambiguation would make sense. It seems like there's a consensus that this shouldn't redirect to Finnish, but I feel like there's just too little else to argue against this redirecting to Danish. — Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 15:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Maryland alumni

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

No relation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Weak Keep - While we don't need a soft redirect for every page, having a few scattered around is not so harmful as to require deletion. Why waste time on something so WP:CHEAP? Basically, don't bother with this one, it doesn't matter. It's not like we're encouraging people to create soft redirects willy nilly... and it seems this one did have a purpose for someone, so why not let it stand? That said, I really don't care that much. Fieari (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to No Relations as an R to plural; encyclopedic searches should lead to encyclopedic, editable material where possible. I agree there should probably be an article at this title though, seems fitting. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-duction

F-duction → Plasmid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wiktionary defines sexduction as "A form of bacterial conjugation involving the F-plasmid." – wbm1058 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of characters in Suikoden

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tellurane

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cincinnati Bengals (AFL)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Carrotion

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

Not really a plausible phonetic misspelling, nor a plausible typo. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment I think it is an OCR error for carotene -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

delete per "what is this even a typo of?" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

good cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
You should probably categorize your redirects so this kind of misunderstanding doesn't happen. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 09:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep per Graeme Bartlett above, and tag appropriately. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Graeme Bartlett's comment about the reason it was created. Redirects from synonymous technical terms are useful, even if outdated. If there are other plausible meanings (as typos or OCR errors or whatever), then it could potentially be broadened into a disambiguation page. Marbletan (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete After trying to find scholarly literature sources online and failing, I think this redirect should be deleted. I would prefer not to elevate something that is not corroborated by other secondary sources. The definition in the book Graeme Bartlett has may have been an error or an overly generous view of alternate spelling and at least didn't catch on enough to be recorded digitally. I'm soft on deleting, since the redirect is mostly harmless and redirects are WP:CHEAP. ― Synpath 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism (arts)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Symbolism (arts)

It's never lupus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

!(*$

!(*$ → 1984 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This redirect won't make it any easier to find. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retargeting is misleading, and hence worse than deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
How would retargetting an example of grawlix to the article on grawlix be misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it requires QWERTY to work, and not some other configuration -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Given your logic there, we could certainly potentially take up the task of tactfully developing a diverse set of these (partially per Steel1943 below) to aid searching for this topic. We should not, however, use an argumentum ab existentia to include this in that group without thoughtfulness. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And I don't agree for the reasons I already stated. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sure. 🤣 Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...Ain't no "gaslighting" ... just "stick dropping". Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redriect to Grawlix, per Thryduulf BugGhost🦗👻 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given it seems to be ambiguous between two bad targets. Cremastra (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 35.139.154.158. No affinity has been shown with this particular 4-character sequence of keyboard symbols than any other similiar potential grawlix sequence. No one seems to be suggesting that this should be done for every, or a subset of (e.g. 1900s), year article(s). Thus, there is no good target. If there is no consensus to delete, prefer current target over suggested retarget per Steel and Rich. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was initially not going to opine here, but... nah. delete. 1984 has no particular affinity with accidentally holding shift, doing that anyway can be brushed off as what is colloquially known as a "skill issue" which the average joe would likely spot and fix, and grawlix has no more affinity with !(*$ than it does with $@)¨(, @$¨)!, or !&&)!# cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grawlix has no special affinity with any particular sequence, that standard would disallow a redirect from any example of it which would clearly be detrimental to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the area of joke numbers, that is. only not linking 177013 because that's extremely not safe for life cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can't be a grawlix because of the parenthesis. A parenthesis is considered punctuation and punctuation marks are not used to make a grawlix because they are perceived as being outside of a word rather than a part of a word. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for that? Our Grawlix article doesn't mention anything about punctuation, and multiple illustrations contain punctuation. Thryduulf (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the lead image in grawlix starts with an exclamation mark cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightlike separation

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Spacelike vector

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. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to causal structure. — The Anome (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Missoes

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure I understand Explicit's proposal above, but whether the history of the former article is being maintained at Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) or Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack), the target (for both or just the one not deleted) should be refined to Khaidi No. 150#Soundtrack, and I will shortly change this for Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack). A7V2 (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Atoms

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#John Atoms

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
a little iffy on doing that, since a good bit of those are in archives, and i hear the admins might tickle your schnitzels if you edit archives wrong. absolutely no prejudice with non-archived instances, though, so i'll be doing that soon-ish (except on talk:vaginal lubrication, my isp doesn't like that page) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did that for non-archive pages... 3 days late. i swear i didn't forget, i only fell asleep for nearly 3 entire days cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G6 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, redirects where it is supposed to. Steel1943 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really related but i just realized this is a redirect to rfd in rfd. ow my brain cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this, fully protect to avoid some potential issues arising from its existence in the future per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 31#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page has existed for well over a decade without said issues EVER arising... I don't think that would be necessary. Fieari (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason whatsoever for this to exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incoming links and page views show this to be incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...not feeling this one, to be honest. the reason was an accident at best, and the only incoming links outside of this (and the previous) rfd discussion are in archives (which i'm admittedly still not inclined to edit). unsurprisingly, views seem to have stopped when i fixed all the links, give or take the rare person presumably clicking on it here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these links (this and the AfD one) can be quite convenient as if your browser's autocomplete for RfD has a subpage, Ctrl+Backspace to get to the base page will result in the URL becoming this form. There is no harm to keeping this, while deletion would (very) slightly inconvenience people (like me) who navigate in such a way. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

Usurper King

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is a difference between describing a king as a usurper and calling someone "Usurper King". Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete or retarget to List of usurpers per Fieari -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Usurper, following the same principle as Fieari but I see no reason to prefer the list to the article about the concept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S-compact space

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. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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. [37] 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
(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.) 1234qwer 1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment it is a Eubot (talk · contribs) creation, Eubot made tonnes of these stupid incorrect Latin-to-Greek letter redirects -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the majority of cases Eubot ASCII-fications are plausible. This one isn't only because it conflicts with the notation for something else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tebasaki

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Murgh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Murgh

John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alpha-chlornaltrexamine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:JDELANOY

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disaster recovery

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

October 9

Lists of Pokémon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Tenorite (typeface)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#Tenorite (typeface)

Joker persona

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:William Cilium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

4C Untitled Flatiron Nonfiction Summer 2023

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Next king of Denmark

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ingrid I of Norway

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Next king of Norway

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Haakon VIII Magnus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

🆓

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#🆓

Cody, WY μSA

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn.

Third Lebanon War

Third Lebanon War → Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No evidence that this conflict is known as the "Third Lebanon war", and it isn't even mentioned at target either. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is easy to concieve of this as being a common search term given media reporting. E.g., The Jerusalem Post states "Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway". TarnishedPath^talk 06:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, the comments above by non EC editors should be discounted per WP:ARBECR as such editor~s may only make edit requests and cannot participate in consensus forming discussions. Secondly, this redirect arose as a result of an undiscussed page move that was undone. There is so far little evidence that the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) will escalate into a third war, limited incursions notwithstanding, although that is of course possible in the future.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, I've removed the non EC editors' comments per WP:ARBECR. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources using the term to describe this conflict and I've not found any uses of the term to refer to other conflicts. As a second choice, this could be retargetted to the Lebanon War disambiguation page, but in practice this doesn't seem ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources are referring to this as the Third Lebanon War so I'd imagine its a reasonably common search term, besides there is not exactly any other war that could be considered a third lebanon war so anyone searching that is looking for what we redirect them to. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of places say invasion and we don't have an official name for it. Don't want people to mix it up with other events because we gave it a name ourselves, that's not the role of Wikipedia. Maybe at some point in the future there will be a name used across the board, but it's not like we have a crystal ball to see that future. I propose that until then we just use the same description in the majority of outlets instead of selective snippets that could be seen as biased. Similar logic was used when discussing "War in Afghanistan" being proposed as 'Afghanistan War' aswell as being used against proposals for the "Covid Recession" being called a bunch of other names and there are more examples in naming of other current events but I dont want to get too far off topic. My point is that right now it's far too early to think about this kind of move and/or redirect. Dasein (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about what the name of the article is or should be, it's solely about whether "Third Lebanon War" is a useful search term for anything, and if so what it is a useful search term for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about redirects, redirects using alternate names. I mean anybody can search for anything using any term or description. The important part is whether or not it's reasonable. I'm making the case that this isn't a relevant term to use for redirects atm. A few niche news articles alongside the rest (which describe it very differently) doesn't seem like it's enough. Besides shouldn't a war have a separate page to this rather than be a redirect? Dasein (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, I stand by my point even if wording could've been handled better. I feel the same reasoning would apply here. If it was a useful search term then it'd be so for anything that follows the invasion, right? Where relations/wider conflict is one thing, current invasion would be an event in said wider conflict, and any subsequent war (not that we have crystal balls) would be another thing with its own page and more apt for having a redirect like this (if it's a commonly used/reasonably assumed search term at the time anyway) I refer back to what I said about the sources used to initially justify it also being an issue which is why I don't think it's a good fit at all right now. Hence my stance currently being Delete. Dasein (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources have described the conflict as such. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but lean retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Otherwise a reasonable search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. See Talk:2024_Israeli_invasion_of_Lebanon#Requested_move_3_October_2024 where it is being discussed to rename that article to "Third Lebanon War". The consensus appears opposed (including my own opposition), since this appears to be primarily (albeit not exclusively) a term used by Israeli sources, and hence represents an Israel-centric perspective. However, Israel-centric terms still make good candidates to be redirects to more neutral terms, since obviously some readers (especially Israeli or Jewish or pro-Israel readers) are likely to be using them as search terms. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target is being proposed. Notified of this discussion there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon where it is already mentioned in the lead. And it isn't just Israeli sources, look at, say, The Guardian (Third Lebanese War. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, plausible search term and the invasion has been described as such, even if it is not necessarily the most neutral or widespread term. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger protest in Nigeria

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Hunger protest in Nigeria

Uncle Cosmo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Uncle Cosmo

Redirects to Regnery Publishing

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Will (sociology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Will (sociology)

Boston Stadium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Toronto Stadium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Dallas Stadium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

PVTTIMHALL

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Gamma squeeze

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Gamma squeeze

Quran Afghanistan

Quran Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Quran in Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very general term; this Quran doesn't come up in the entire first page of google results. I'm not seeing a primary topic here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)

I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an XY situation at all, as the redirect only refers to a single topic. It may or may not be vague or ambiguous, but it isn't XY. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too ambiguous; there are probably hundreds of Qurans in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as primary topic. Which other Afghani Qurans are discussed on Wikipedia? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for "Quran in Afghanistan" return mostly the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, followed by some assorted social media slosh. My leaning is delete because this ambiguous, but I'm willing to try drafting a DAB page. Cremastra (u — c) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done at Quran in Afghanistan. Cremastra (u — c) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per Cremastra's draft. Jay 💬 07:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isometry (mathematics)

Isometry (mathematics) → Isometry (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer 1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Isometry cover all of the topics on the disambiguation page? If so, I would agree that there is no need for the latter. I am not fluent enough in mathematics to say whether it is. BD2412 T 00:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics as I agree with BD2412 and also lack the mathematical knowledge to answer the question. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to isometry. This is disambiguation page abuse. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at WhatLinksHere there are no pages that link to it, page views are typical 0 and never above 2, so I don't really see the page serves any purpose other than cause confusion. --Salix alba (talk): 12:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Isometry (mathematics) to Isometry and change the title Isometry (disambiguation) into a redirect to Isometric. Content currently at Isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to Isometry and put into a section about examples, including some explanatory context (i.e. this should not just be a plain list of article titles); if that's too much work for someone right away, these could conceivably be added to Isometry § See also. Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation) is a completely absurd title and should be deleted –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current state of the isometry article i think the contents of the disambiguation page should be selectively merged into the lede to this article (in particular it is baffling that there is no mention of Euclidean isometries in the lede there). jraimbau (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subcarpathian Polish Athletic Association

Subcarpathian Polish Athletic Association → Polish Athletic Association (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at target. Only hit on google is MOSiR Stadium (Stalowa Wola). Cremastra (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, refers to this organization: Subcarpathia: Polish Athletics Association. It seems to be a literal translation --Habst (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of Subcarpathia at target. The organization mentioned by Habst seems to be a subsidiary organization of the Polish Athletic Association specifically for the region, but the redirect isn't useful if we have no information on it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman, how about adding a list of regional organizations to the Polish Athletic Association article? --Habst (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with keeping if information is added. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Still no mention at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Presidentman. May be recreated when regional organizations are added to the target. Jay 💬 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N3rd

N3rd → N3RD Street (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Probably ought to be a dab page as can conceivably refer to White N3rd of LuvBug or N3RD Street (which really ought to be at N3rd Street). Am I missing something? Launchballer 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nerd (disambiguation) and itemize there. The street and the performer can be listed a stylizations of "nerd" (the street is pronounced that way, even though it originates as North Third ) ; it is also '1337'-5p33k spelling of nerd -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or retarget to Nerd (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the dab per the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a hatnote to LuvBug if you want. The street is pretty clearly primary here (since it actually has its own page), and there's only WP:ONEOTHER possible target, so this is the ideal setup. No one searching 'n3rd' specifically is going to be looking for any other extant uses of the term. A second hatnote to the dab page would probably be overkill, but still preferable to redirecting there outright. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is a little more complicated than I first realized...I missed some of the history and the repeated recreation/deletion of White N3rd. But I still think the street is primary here. And with only two possible targets, one primary, redirecting to the big dab page would be very unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonama dialect

Yonama dialect → Tokunoshima language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No search hits on the target page or on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The placename Yonama (与那間) in Tokunoshima actually exists, so it's probably an undocumented dialect that's only extracted by the existence of the toponym. If that's the case, it can be deleted.

My redirects were taken from a .xlsx spreadsheet concerning metadata of Ryukyuan dialects, which is located in the .zip below.

https://repository.ninjal.ac.jp/records/2000162 Chuterix (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chuterix. Jay 💬 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Le métro de Tony Hawk

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ß-carotin

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Srishti

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Srishti

Jamie Jungers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Jamie Jungers

Mindy Lawton

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Grood

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kerrek

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Kerrek

Asplode

Asplode → Homestar Runner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Your head a splode → Homestar Runner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Your Head Asplode → Homestar Runner#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, but there is a Wiktionary entry at wikt:asplode (which does also mention the full phrase in the quotes). 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget asplode to wikt:asplode, delete the other two, don't explode any heads cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all via {{wi|asplode}} per nom. I think all three can be kept since they are captured by the quotation examples. -2pou (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should all three be retargeted or just the first one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget "Asplode" only. Delete the other two. Soft redirects to wiktionary should only be for title-matches, any more become surprising and confusing. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KGVC (FM)

KGVC (FM) → KVRF (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, highly implausible search term given parenthetical disambiguation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment KGVC appears to be another station owned by Radio Free Palmer. It's even mentioned on their website. The FCC site (link 1) states that the radio station is currently silent, and List of radio stations in Alaska lists it as "defunct." I'm torn between deleting to create an article or redlink or simply adding a mention. There's also KGVC-LP, which I guess could theoretically be an alternate target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment the disambiguator is highly plausible for sequences of four letters starting with W or K as many articles about US radio stations are titled this way. As for this series of letters, it's complicated: This was previously the call sign of a radio station in Alaska, that is now defunct (according to KGVC and List of radio stations in Alaska). KVRF (AKA Big Cabbage Radio) was the parent of and/or is the successor to that station and/or now uses that call sign (different hits on google). Complicating matters is that KGVC-LP was also an FM radio station. Ideally I think this would redirect to the KGVC dab page as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} but unless content is added about the former station in Alaska that is just a single-entry dab page, with no other notable uses found by google (it's not an airport, the post-nominals are actually two separate ones: Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter (KG) and Victoria Cross (VC)). While the low-power (LP) station is the only one we have content about, it's the one with the lowest claim to primary topic status based on Google hits. Confusing me even further for a while was Google including hits for KVGC, a radio station in California, in all my search terms. I'll drop a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the Alaska station FID 198603 existed, it nominally was the primary topic, though it never merited an independent article and would have been a redirect to KVRF. The station operated for less than seven years on this license and was functionally replaced by a new facility, KVRK FID 765583 , though Radio Free Palmer at one point intended to move KGVC out to complement its coverage area. (KGVC was shuttered because its tower site was reused for KVRK.) I recommend deleting this redirect, redirecting KGVC to KGVC-LP, and adding a hatnote: "KGVC redirects here. For 91.5 MHz in Glacier View, Alaska (2015–2022), see KVRF." (That article needs adjusting to even mention KVRK.) I also recommend redirecting KVRK to KVRF and instituting this hatnote there: "KVRK redirects here. For 89.7 MHz in Sanger, Texas (2004–2015), see KAWA (FM)." We need in this field to make more use of hatnotes to substitute TWODABS that nobody truly needs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good solution. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Takoma

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Methodist High School

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Universal Studios

Universal Studios → Universal Studios, Inc. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Universal Studios" is typically used to refer to either Universal Pictures, the film studio (as a nickname/former name), or the various theme parks around the globe named "Universal Studios" that are operated by Universal Destinations & Experiences. The parent company of both divisions is also named Universal Studios, Inc., which is where universalstudios.com points to (versus universalpictures.com and universaldestinationsandexperiences.com). Universal Studios currently redirects to Universal Studios, Inc., making it an unnecessary disambiguation, but a recent RM ended with no consensus for a move. Previously, the redirect pointed to Universal Pictures. I'm not convinced a primary topic can be determined here, given the two- or three-way split, so I would call for turning this redirect into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electing for disambiguation per nominator's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Universal Pictures (second choice is disambiguation) – At the very least, we have a rough consensus here against Universal Studios, Inc. as the primary topic, with some in that discussion leaning toward Universal Pictures instead. Universal Pictures was originally titled Universal Studios for more than a decade until an undiscussed technical move occurred (never got the discussion it deserved). Then recently in May, the redirect was changed to point to the parent company article instead of Universal Pictures (again, no discussion until this month).

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.

BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.

Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.

"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.

"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.

In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.

14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.

"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.

There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.

Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.

Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.

"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.

You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.

"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.

That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...

Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.

The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).

2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.

So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.

Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.

As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.

Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.

We are left with three options:

Keep as is – Worst one. Universal Studios, Inc. is essentially the history of "Music Corporation of America", how it came to be, its 1962 buyout of Universal, and everything post-buyout. Many who land here will be confused, as they expect to be reading about Universal's history.
Retarget to DAB – Better, but far from perfect. Retargeting here will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly). It will also create the most work moving forward to manually update and correct these links down the road.
Restore original target → Universal Pictures – Best by far given the # of Wikilinks, along with WikiNAV data on the topic phrase "Universal Studios". In addition, we have some loose off-Wiki data from Google Books that seems to support long-term significance in favor of the film studio (theme parks compete but do not overtake the film studio in this space).

Knowing what you know now, 2pou, are you still split between options 2 and 3, or do you have a preference between them? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: The "Retargeting [to the disambiguation page] will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly)" will not be a concern if this redirect is disambiguated, considering an internal Wikipedia project page, WP:DPL, encourages editors to disambiguate links that link to or point to disambiguation pages, and there are several editors who work on this. Seriously, if there is one aspect of Wikipedia I have seen consistent over the past 10+ years, other than article creation, it is the plethora of editors ready to disambiguate links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! The hatnotes (on both Universal Studios, Inc. and Universal Pictures) are new and were added by me on the day I opened the RM that preceded this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteNexus, thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that in the history. Looks like you added the hatnote on August 31, and I like how you placed both options in there (the main theme parks article and the film studio article). Hopefully we'll get a chance to see WikiNav update soon to show September's data. Its clickstream data dump usually drops in the first few days of the following month, and from what I gather, this is usually processed and displayed about a week later on the 12th. We'll know shortly if the theme park company link in the hatnote became a factor in September.

It's also worth noting a few things. Using the "Search" box to jump to your next destination will still be tracked by WikiNav in outgoing traffic. Even without the hatnote, WikiNav would have still been capturing searches from that page. So for Universal theme park seekers getting their searches right on the 2nd try (by being more specific), we would have seen that in the August data. So I'm a bit skeptical we'll see a huge difference, but we'll see. In addition, the version of the article heading into August did contain Universal theme park links in the Takeover section as well as in the navbox at the bottom. To be fair, "Universal Pictures" was more prominent, appearing one section earlier and also in the infobox. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Universal Pictures as the primary topic and {{r from former name}}. The individual theme parks (Universal Studios Hollywood etc.) are partial title matches, so none of them would be reasonable redirect targets. The broader Universal Destinations & Experiences isn't referred to as "Universal Studios", and per GoneIn60's analysis above, people who search for "Universal Studios" alone aren't usually looking for it.
I don't see the need for Universal Studios (disambiguation) if it'll only list two other articles. Why not just a hatnote? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the individual theme parks are partial title matches means they are equally plausible candidates for the primary topic as the film studio, which is a zero-title match. A disambiguation page would include Universal Pictures, Universal Studios, Inc., Universal Destinations & Experiences, Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, Universal Studios Beijing, and Universal Studios Lot. See how it's difficult to prove that the film studio (which, again, does not even include the word "Studios" in its name) is more primary than any of these other candidates? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. If anything, I would believe this redirect is the WP:COMMONNAME for the theme parks, but per the above conversation, seems I may possibly be incorrect in that stance. Either way, I oppose "retarget to Universal Pictures" as there's more than one potential subject to claim the nominated redirect as a common name, and the winner of that trophy is certainly not the film production company. Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrBro

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Awantipora

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Diffusion semigroup

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Year of Science

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

John Alston

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore

October 8

The Red Palace

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2024 Cornell

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of charaters in grand theft auto advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of charaters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of characters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list or section at target. However, Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters does exist, but it does not contain a list of characters. (List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirected article [38] until and unless a valid AFD of the article is done (rather than a unilateral undiscussed and unproposed redirect). Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice per Softlavender and WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [39]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a perfectly valid target and alternative to deletion for character lists that are clearly without sourcing for independent notability. The plot section covers everything the reader needs to know about these characters. Sending this unsourced "list" to AfD is needless process unless you think deletion is a better outcome than redirection here. If the "list" title is the issue, then rename as "Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance" but you'd still have the old title pointing to that redirect. czar 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that many, many "Lists of GameTitle characters" articles redirect to their parent articles' Plot sections same as this does. It's a common redirection because these character lists are just as commonly created, almost always without regard to sourcing. czar 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore article? Or simply refine to the "Settings and characters" section of the current target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no way that the original LoC would survive AFD, and the game itself is only 10ish hours, so even a (new) character section as redirect target seems overkill. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain per Czar. Softlavender and Thryduulf suggest restoring and sending to AFD for procedural reasons. as Sgeureka recognizes, this will surely fail to be retained at AFD, which as Czar correctly points out, will likely lead to a redirect. I see no reason to go through that process. Thryduulf points to WP:BLAR, but I see nothing there requiring us to restore it or go through AFD, since no one appears to be arguing for the article to restored.
I'm confused by Steel1943 and Sgeureka's insistence that the redirect target be an actual list. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a fine target without any modifications. We can and routinely do redirect list titles to articles which discuss the list subject but aren't lists. Daask (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Keep/Retain as no list exists at the target. Other list redirects may exist but because they haven't yet been discussed at RfD. Agree with Czar's compromise of moving the BLARd page to Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance and refine to Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters. Make it a move without redirect and delete the other nominated entries. Jay 💬 13:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Jay in that there is no list; someone using this redirect-- which would require someone looking for a list-- would be WP:ASTONISHed to find themselves here. Thus, I disagree with the idea that retaining this redirect is a good idea. I also question the idea of renaming these redirects, given WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Is the history of this page truly important enough to keep that we should rename the redirect in order to prevent it going away when the redirect is deleted, given the extremely low likelihood of it being brought back to a proper article (given its unsourced and non-notable nature)? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not present, history had no sources cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of the end of Facebook

Predictions of the end of Facebook → Facebook (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Predictions of the end of Twitter → Twitter (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

If a reader typing predictions of t into the search bar (after seeing such an article for Google or Wikipedia) stumbles upon a page like Predictions of the end of X which redirects to X social media platform, they may be given the potentially false impression that the article on X may contain information about such predictions and may end up wasting their time scrolling through the article only to potentially conclude that no such information may be present. Sure, they were "merged" into their respective articles, but their poor usefulness is still a problem. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep End of Facebook and refine to Facebook#Userbase, the last paragraph of which has content on predictions of the end of Facebook. Weirdly enough I can't actually find anything like that for Twitter, despite the widespread doomposting after Musk bought it, but I would expect it would be worth a sentence or two at least in Twitter under Elon Musk or Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of Facebook one: mentioned but I don't think it's that plausible a search term, nor something it makes sense to link to from other articles, but it does no harm. Delete Twitter one unless mentioned somewhere, in which case (weakly) keep or retarget as appropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine the Facebook one per Rusalkii, above. Delete twitter one, it can be recreated if/once information about the many news articles speculating about the end of twitter under Elon is added to an article. Fieari (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged Predictions of the end of Twitter as {{R from merge}}. Note that Predictions of Facebook's end would also need to be retargeted if the nominated one is. Jay 💬 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine the Facebook one per Rusalkii. Delete twitter one per Fieari. No prejudice against recreation if a suitable target exists. Daask (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine facebook delete twitter. Cremastra (u — c) 20:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Speedy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:Highlights

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Engineering

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

First Americans

First Americans → First American (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The First Americans → Indigenous peoples of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
First settlers of the Americas → Peopling of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
First North Americans → North America's Forgotten Past (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Hm. First American only links Indigenous peoples of the Americas, though maybe should link Peopling of the Americas as well; if not, then the plural "First Americans" should be considered unambiguous given the other disambiguation page entries. The last redirect points at a series of historical fiction books, which is probably not the primary topic. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 02:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like all of these should redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Yuchitown (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First Americans and The First Americans should both point to Indigenous peoples of the Americas because nothing on the First American dab page could be plural other than "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". First settlers of the Americas should be deleted as it could mean several things, gets no views, and has no incoming wikilinks. First North Americans should definitely stay as is, because it can only mean the book series previously at that title; it is virtually never used to refer to indigenous peoples. Bottom line: retarget the first, keep the second and fourth, and delete the third. Station1 (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this suggestion. That sounds reasonable. Yuchitown (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: What else could First settlers of the Americas mean? It looks unambiguous to me. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Indigenous peoples of the Americas versus Peopling of the Americas, the first thing that popped into my mind, rightly or wrongly, was European colonization of the Americas. Station1 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support Station1's solution. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Station1's solution, except the third redirect should be retargeted to History of the Americas in line with Discovery of the Americas. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese opera

Japanese opera → Theatre of Japan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Suggest deletion: the target article does not mention opera. The topic of Japanese opera is likely a notable one and this should be red link per WP:RED _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Noh. "Japanese opera" is a phrase used in that article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Noh and the arguably more "operatic" Kabuki could plausibly be called "Japanese opera", and often have been: "Kabuki is Japan's opera. Dramatic storylines featuring sword-fights, ghosts, and love affairs are brought to life by gorgeously clothed performers." Theatre of Japan explains this well enough. A look through google suggests Japanese opera could only ever be a disam page, although there are some modern Western-style operas. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate to Musical forms of theatre in Japan and its principal traditional forms Noh and Kabuki. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As-is, this redirect is incredibly confusing: it brings the unsuspecting reader to a page that says nothing about opera. That said, what did the searcher expect to find? An opera company or theater in Japan? An opera written by a Japanese composer? A native Japanese opera-like theater genre? Garbage in, garbage out, we should not answer an open-ended question with a random response or even a collection of these. Викидим (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what they would have expected to find is presumably something fitting in Category:Opera by country. So maybe garbage out, but definitely not garbage in. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this interpretation is the most plausible. Alas, we do not have a text similar to French Opera. Викидим (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I honestly expect that someone typing this into search is looking for Kabuki; I think the correct "answer" is Noh; and I think an "Opera by country"-type result would be the one expected by most wikipedia editors, but we don't have it. So I come down to "let people use the search engine". -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But look at what the search engine currently gives (after this redirect, of course): [40] Cremastra — talk — c 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
enwiki search results show plenty of entries for Japanese opera singers, composers and operas. Kurofune (opera) says it is regarded as the first Japanese opera. There is no single article that conveys information on the term, but it's ideal to have this as an article or an article section. Delete. Jay 💬 16:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above to encourage creation. In this instance, an effective dab page would probably morph into a BCA that would share some similarities an article on this topic. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

All-Star Batman

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Shady Sheehy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete.

Pokémon Fushigi no Dungeon Red (plus that other one)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alicia Douvall

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Alicia Douvall

Democracy Index

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Democracy Index

Tighten

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Tighten

Naoki Tanisaki

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Naoki Tanisaki

List of swears

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#List of swears

Ansem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Ansem

Häxans förbannelser

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

@Jay: Yes, but Swedish is spoken in Finland, as explained in the article I linked to in my comment, so it does have affinity. I just wanted to clarify that. Cremastra — talk — c 01:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Towel Trick

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3RL

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:VB

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Wikipedia:VB

Rabila railway station

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Obstipation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Obstipation

Alison Chabloz

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Cards Against Disney

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Enigmatic Man

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mr. Bland

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Affine cone

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Rio Este (desambiguacion)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gedko Powało

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Vocational education and training centers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Vocational education and training centers

King Roland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#King Roland

Shiro sAGISU

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shamrock Airport

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Shamrock Airport

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

Template:Lang1

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banana Guard

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banapassport

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Billy Rowan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Charlotte Bishop

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Decco Bishop

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Decco Bishop

BlockParty (game portal)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Boussh

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Burin en-bec-de-flute

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

January 1, 2003

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

October 6

Scared Shitless

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

William B. Cox

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Rush Limbaugh/Chicom

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Britney Spears 7th studio album (Britney Spears album)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:MBTI Instrument

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore templates

Minister for Cities

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Set indexify

British Music Invasion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List over Swedish Artists by Albums and Singles Sold

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Dota 2 heroes

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Online education

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#Online education

Footman Frenzy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

26, November, 2006

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#26, November, 2006

January 3, 2003

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Undermine (Warcraft)

Undermine (Warcraft) → Warcraft#Azeroth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to World of Warcraft: Cataclysm as {{r without mention}} for now; could easily be covered there. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an invitation to add more unwanted fancruft. No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undermine is a fictional location in the Warcraft universe. The Undermine is supposedly on the Isle of Kezan, in the southern part of Azeroth. The 20 November 2007 consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undermine (Warcraft) was merge and redirect [to Azeroth (Warcraft)]. The 28 November 2007 consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeroth (Warcraft) was (merge and) redirect to Warcraft universe. On 18 December 2007, Warcraft universe moved to Warcraft (series). In December 2009, Warcraft (series) moved to Warcraft (unnecessary disambiguation). There was a consensus to mention "Undermine" in the Warcraft article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final version of ==Undermine== in Azeroth (Warcraft), before its "merge":

===Undermine===
The Undermine is believed to be the home island of the goblins, and is ruled by the Goblin Princes of Trade who hold their slave pens and palaces there. Undermine exists partially on the world's surface, but most of it is underground. It is primarily a series of volcanic caverns, tunnels and chambers that span out of the Isle of Kezan through the ocean floor, connecting to adjacent smaller islands to the west. Aside from the goblins and their slaves, the tunnels are also inhabited by a strange breed of purple-skinned goblins named hobgoblins. They are larger than regular goblins and they rarely live to three years of age. They were created by alchemical experiments on goblin subjects during the Second War.

The merge template was removed at 02:05, 28 November 2007, with edit summary "both articles were redirected here", but no content was merged. This was a failure to implement the consensus. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of Undermine was finally added at 01:31, 12 December 2008:

The goblin capital is Undermine, a city beneath the surface of the island of Kezan. As of December 2008, Kezan has not been included in any game in the Warcraft series.

Another mention was added 16:56, 2 March 2009:

The majority of media in the Warcraft universe takes place upon a planet called Azeroth. This planet has ~~three~~four continents, named the Eastern Kingdoms, Kalimdor, Northrend (the world's polar cap) and Undermine (considered home land of the Goblins)...

A 12:20, 26 June 2009 edit changed this text:

~~The goblin capital is Undermine, a city beneath the surface of the island of Kezan. As of March 2009, Kezan has not been included in any game in the Warcraft series.~~ Goblins are a neutral, mercantile race based in the underground city of Undermine.

Mention of "not been included"/"yet to be visited" was restored 01:02, 31 July 2009:

The Goblin continent of Undermine, has yet to be visited in any entry of the Warcraft series.

This was removed again @16:25, 25 August 2009: "as stated before... undermine is not a continent, and the number of major landmasses has not yet been decided due to the fact that there are unknown lands where pandarens and maybe more".
Text was changed @16:28, 25 August 2009:

Azeroth has ~~four~~ three known continents... Two other major islands are Kezan (where the Goblin city Undermine is located, introduced in WoW:Cataclysm) and Zandalari

Text was again changed @14:11, 18 September 2009:

~~Goblins are a neutral, mercantile race based in the underground city of Undermine.~~ the various goblin business cartels based out of the city of Undermine now supply both factions, though they have closer ties with the Horde.

On 27 October 2009, the last mention of Undermine in Warcraft was "split per WP:BOLD" to Races and factions of Warcraft. Later, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and factions of Warcraft closed as redirect to Gameplay of World of Warcraft.
Seems all this content which hasn't been cited to reliable sources has been undermining the principles of Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wbm1058, in terms of action, what would you like to be done for this redirect and this discussion? Jay 💬 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to finally close the September 12 log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content was merged to Azeroth (Warcraft) in 2007, and I have tagged the redirect as {{R from merge}}. However the merging user:Atama did not mention the source in the edit summary but only summarized as Added information about Undermine. I guess we need to keep the user edit history of the redirect page for attribution. Jay 💬 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texvc

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

Legacy cruft does not warrant a double soft redirect from mainspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget if a mention is added. The page was moved (without redirect) to project space in 2010 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texvc reached no consensus. The redirect was recreated "since Meta has many links to this page, and I don't have access to a bot to correct Meta". The redirect gets over 400 hits a year with only a handful of days with zero visits, and I can find no evidence of anything else with this name so it's clearly providing value to those using it. I don't know how to filter out all the manpages, package lists, forum questions and programming snippets, etc. to assess whether this is notable enough for a mention somewhere, but someone who does know how to do that should do that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there is no page in projectspace, it is a redirect to an offsite location, this is therefore a redirect to an offsite location, and not the proper use of a redirect. The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary. Per Thryduulf's stats, WP:REDLINK to allow creation of an article, should it prove notable. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary this is incorrect. While Wiktionary is the most common target of soft redirects in the mainspace it is not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: unambiguous. Cremastra (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mainspace -> Project namespace -> MediaWiki page = at least one WP:XNR too many. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? In what way is this harming anybody or anything? Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too many redirections initially starting in a namespace not related to its final target. Such a title being in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (the redirect's target) makes sense, but not from the article namespace. That, and the acronym seems like it may be a subject which has either WP:REDYES potential as either a standalone article or a subtopic to add into TeX or AMS-LaTeX per the very text on the target of Wikipedia:Texvc. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no consensus to delete, but this double redirect is messy. Soft retarget to mediawikiwiki:texvc. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, target interferes with searching for mainspace targets such as Texvalley. Not an encyclopedic article, and distracts real searches for real articles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundle TeXvc with this. Jay 💬 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per TechnoSquirrel69, which would resolve the double redirect issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel status minus Actual status Inconsistency

Feel status minus Actual status Inconsistency → Body image (neuroscience) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not mentioned at target (in over 10 years) seems to be created for listing at dab FAI as the only user, but I'm removing that dab entry as it fails WP:DABACRO and wouldn't be used anyway due to incorrect capitalisation. Widefox; talk 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an index [41], that could indeed be listed at FAI. The capitalisation *seems* to be correct, although I'm not sure why the authors chose to capitalise it this way. In other sources [42] [43], sentence case seems to be preferred. I don't think there's enough information to write an article, but it might merit a mention at the target. Cremastra (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies already for the wall-of-text input:

The term (with same sort-of-dopey captialization) was indeed added in 2014 (by the redirect's creator) and still present up until a reworking in late July 2021. I have taken the liberty of re-adding the mention, as I discern no reason for its removal (made by an editor inactive since 2023). Per Cremestra and the mention in several papers, it seems notable enough for a mention at the target as well as the FAI dab page.

I'm dubious as to the usefulness of the redirect due to its length, although it comes up nicely as the only choice when I type in "Feel status". However, if we keep it, I'd like to change the caps; although correctly matching the original 2014 paper's use, it's different on both the 2016 [2] and 2020 [3] papers mentioned by Cremestra. I personally prefer the last, from Social Science & Medicine, which uses hyphens, which seems (of the three styles) most easily understandable and conformant to English usage (and therefore what I used when restoring the text). In one paper's reviews Zaccagni (original paper's lead researcher) acknowledged a lack of facility with English (though the caps weren't explicitly mentioned); I don't know how much leeway we have in choosing a style. I do think it an unlikely capitalization for a WP user to type in, so I would lean toward Keep, but sentence-case it. It just looks wrong otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has been added back to the target, but participants have been unsure about the capitalization of the redirect title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep but sentence-case it per JohnFromPickney, especially given multiple other papers have politely overlooked the idiosyncratic punctuation. The target should be refined to Body image (neuroscience) § Measurements. Cremastra — talk — c 19:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to correct capitalisation if you want to. The advantage of doing this is that the correct capitalisation will be shown in the "redirected from" text which is pretty minor, but still a good thing. Personally I'd leave the existing case as well, as that will support incoming web links, but I know RfD don't care about that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Farage riots

Farage riots → 2024 United Kingdom riots (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Negative redirect not mentioned in the target article. A quick Google search doesn't seem to show that is a common term. Borderline speedy deletion candidate. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My quick google search showed that this is very much a term that has been used in reliable sources [44][45][46][47] and sources that may or may not be reliable (I've not looked in detail) [48][49][50][51] (and also a use in The London Economic titled "Farage Riots trend as Reform UK kick off conference" the filter won't let me link to). Many of the uses in both sets are quoting Nigel Farage complaining about others using the term, some of them attribute the term to him. I'm not sure whether a mention of the term at either the rioting article or Nigel Farage's article is due, but it's not a suggestion that can be dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the due diligence, but I won't withdraw my nomination unless it is mentioned in the article... non-neutral redirects without sources seems like a BLP violation, doesn't it? -1ctinus📝🗨 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newsthump is a satirical website, but the first four sources seem reliable (the Instagram link being a broadcast interview on LBC radio). I've also heard this phrase being used on podcasts and in the media, and the stats[52] seem to show people are searching for it, I think it's a keep. Orange sticker (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I created this redirect not out of agreement with the term, but rather because I had seen the name used to refer to these riots frequently at the time on social medias and on some reliable (and less reliable) news sites, as Thryduulf found. The term is certainly biased, I do admit that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies around redirects. My rationale was simply to help readers who may know these riots as the Farage Riots to get to the appropriate article.

Anyway, I understand your reason for proposing deletion. I personally do not have enough knowledge on the subject of the article to integrate mention of this nickname in a well written manner. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thank you for editing! Mittzy (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target or to Nigel Farage. Notified of this discussion at the two pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still unmentioned. We're in WP:BLP territory here, so this needs to be cited to a reliable source. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RSURPRISE due to still being unmentioned in the target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grabage truck

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mick Armstrong

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong