Jump to content

User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 22 33 55
TfD 0 0 0 15 15
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 7 10 17
RfD 0 0 36 34 70
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD

[edit]
Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

[edit]


Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit]
Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

[edit]

January 10

[edit]

Express newspaper

[edit]

Ambiguous, as lots of newspaper use the word "express" in their name. There is also no page which contains the list of newspapers with "express" in their name, so this redirect should be deleted DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:WINGSUIT

[edit]

Newly created redirect with no mention at target of how "wing suit" is relevant. It doesn't seem inherently obvious. Recommend to delete. An essay would be a better route to explain the analogy, if significant. —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep—Reference to this xkcd :)
A bit unusual, but I swear this is how I remember this—I can never remember what the actual title is for that policy. I think xkcd is popular enough that I won't be the only one. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I maintain that an essay is the way to go if one desires to give the concept wings, not a redirect without any obvious context. —Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Would adding [[wingsuit]] [[combat]] as another example (along with "chess tournament") be enough to clarify the redirect? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Closed Limelike Curves: Some related mention would address my concern. Coincidentally on another thread, someone brought up that the page chess tournament actually exists, so a better example is anyways probably needed. —Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Closed Limelike Curves: Regarding your addition to the MOS, is having two examples there now overkill?—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There were two examples before - he deleted the most common one, MOS:SOB, which I have now reinstated. As for basing a redirect on an obscure cartoon, I have no idea how it is relevant - please delete. - Arjayay (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Arjayay: They deleted the SOB shortcut, but did add the "wingsuit" example. Also, you may want to boldface your !vote to make it less likely to get lost. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly useless for everybody except one, or to be extremely generous, perhaps a handful of users. The "example", "wingsuit combat", is not even an example at all of a "sea of blue" for the many users who, via CSS, display redirects in a different color, and thus see two distinct differently-colored links. Even if the redirect is kept, the shortcut and example should be removed from the Manual of Style page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – Wikipedia needs a little humour once in a while and it is quite safe to use this in an example. (... and there is nothing obscure about XKCD!) — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's up to WT:MOSLINK whether the MoS should mention "wingsuit combat" and whether this should be listed as a shortcut. The only questions for us are whether it's a plausible shortcut (yes) and whether it's unambiguous (yes). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamzin. At least one editor finds it useful, and it's not doing any harm. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamzin. (I suspect that, contra Mandarax, significantly more people will be familiar with the Xkcd reference than use CSS to make redirects appear in a different colour to direct links!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Guaifenesin/codeine/pseudoephedrine

[edit]

This seems like a rare case of WP:XY happening to 3 different things at the same time. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep I don't think this is being used to mean "guaifenesin OR codeine OR psuedoephedrine", but is used similarly to Hydrocodone/paracetamol, that is, a preparation that combines guaifenesin, codeine, and pseudoephedrine, which is a real thing. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if Cold medicine is the best target. JJPMaster (she/they) 06:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is not mentioned at the target, though it possibly could be listed as an example of a combination drug under the Types section. The mix is indirectly mentioned at pseudoephedrine. Neither place is worth targeting as there is/would be no real information about the mix itself. ― Synpath 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Adamantium (band)

[edit]

There's got to be no way this redirect is useful as a target to a band that has nothing to do with them save for sharing a split single/EP. Ten years ago, someone tried to Speedy G8 this, but it was declined as it was deemed that it was determined to be "useful to Wikipedia". I don't buy that, and I'm asking that more people discuss it.

In theory, this band is notable, as this Orange County hardcore band has shared multiple band members with several different clearly notable bands involved in their scene. But that has not yet been demonstrated. mftp dan oops 01:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, return this to red. No band called "adamantium" is discussed at the target, therefore the redirect is misleading. WP:Cheap is an essay, and doesn't address a single thing from the nomination. If the band is notable, a page should be created, but having a misleading redirect to a page where it is not discussed is harmful and misleading to our readers without context. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Mario series locations

[edit]

Target section no longer exists, and no such information is in the target article. However, looks like this title had history as an article for a few months in 2007 before being subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • delete. no need to worry about the history, as it had no sources and was written like something in tv tropes, with levels of detail being all over the place consarn (formerly cogsan) 14:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Nominator comment: For what it's worth, it does not seem that there is such a list in Mario (franchise) either, though there are some settings sporadically mentioned throughout the article in places which would not seem to validate this redirect being targeted to any of them. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • keep and mention this on the talk page to encourage development of a properly sourced section. Tduk (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    ...So, keep per WP:REDLINK??? Usually, the lack of content at a title encourages content creation; the title existing could trick a reader into think the subject exists. (A title existing with no content or target is like "cart before the horse".) Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

AOOO

[edit]

This abbreviation is approximately never used (the common shortening is AO3). Results seem primarily about the band Aooo, with an assortment of other abbreviations. Nowhere in the first ten pages of google results do I see the archive, though a search for AOOO fanfic does pop up a few people discussing why it isn't abbreviated AOOO. Rusalkii (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep – I don't know what the minimum time between RfDs is, but I think it should be longer than nine minutes. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Mushroom Kingdom

[edit]

Bringing this up for discussion after discovering that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushroom Kingdom occurred in April 2024, which established a consensus to redirect this title to Super Mario. I retargeted this redirect to Mario (franchise) As a more plausible target, given that the subject of the redirect is part of the franchise as a whole, not just the video game series. In addition, the franchise article seems to contain more information about the subject of this redirect than the series article. In other words, my vote here is keep, but I'm bringing this up for discussion because it seems like consensus for this is necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per nom. Retargets must occur at RFD and not AFD. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore. I guess I'll just use this opportunity to express my displeasure at the outcome of the AfD. If I had seen it at the time I would have !voted to keep it. Plenty of sources exist as was demonstrated by Zxcvbnm. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep redirect or restore article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirects from Russian to United States

[edit]

Delete as redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (point 8 of WP:R#DELETE)/per WP:RFOREIGN). Noting that the previous discussion was closed as a trainwreck, with the closer asking that these be renominated individually. I'm bundling these two together as they are both from Russian. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Astro Xpresi

[edit]

TV channel owned by the company; not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hippotaur

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. The target describes a cattle/equine hybrid, while a "hippotaur" would presumably be a cattle/hippo hybrid. Common usage does not seem to usually be referring to a jumart. Rusalkii (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep – I can't find any sources to justify a mention at the target, but it's a reasonable construction. The prefix hippo- means "horse", not "hippopotamus". jlwoodwa (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

January 9

[edit]

Line of Corpses

[edit]

This phrase seems to have been used recently by a Haaretz publication to refer to the military line in Gaza, and several other outlets have picked that up. The primary long-term topic according to a quick search is the song by that name on the album Wreath of Barbs, which we mention on that article. Not sure if it is best to delete altogether or redirect to the album; normally I would consider redirecting myself but this is a controversial topic so sending to RFD for community discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the Haaretz article "No Civilians. Everyone's a Terrorist': IDF Soldiers Expose Arbitrary Killings and Rampant Lawlessness in Gaza's Netzarim Corridor". A least in the English version, the actual phrase seems to be 'the line of dead bodies' from the following sentence.
  • The forces in the field call it 'the line of dead bodies'" a commander in Division 252 tells Haaretz. "After shootings, bodies are not collected, attracting packs of dogs who come to eat them. In Gaza, people know that wherever you see these dogs, that's where you must not go.
Same in this editorial and this MSNBC report.
This phrase then seems to be transformed to 'line of corpses' in reports/posts about the Haaretz report for some reason. Either way, it doesn't seem like a very useful redirect. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, the page was created by Sa1e24, a user without extendedconfirmed privileges. The page creation was therefore a WP:ARBECR violation and should probably have been speedily deleted. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Starz Entertainment

[edit]

The original Lionsgate was renamed as "Starz Entertainment Corp." as of November 2024. Because of this renaming, we need to retarget the redirect into the newly-renamed article in preparation of actual WP:RM to more simple name, and WP:NCCORP stats that we not need to use "Corp." or "Ltd" suffix for article naming unless it had been used for legal purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.111.100.82 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: Fixed nomination which was malformed, and tagged the nominated redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate retarget to Starz (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm a bit surprised – although not all – at the RFD nomination, after all, both per the IP nom's NCCORP assertion and that it's not the first time I've come across this title. As evident in the page history of this title (having arrived there via Starz Distribution (which was previously known as "IDT Entertainment" and had stakes/shares in now-named Mainframe Studios, who/which is mostly behind the production of most Barbie films)), the page now at Starz Inc. was boldly moved without discussion to "Starz Entertainment, LLC" and then this title due to (You guessed it!) NCCORP! I listed this at RMTR to have it sent back to the article title of "Starz Inc." again and Robertsky, in one of his final set of actions prior to becoming a now-admin, executed it. I'll list this at RMTR just like before to address (You guessed it again!) the NCCORP concerns once this RFD is done!! Intrisit (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 23:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Coppa Maifredi

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Appears to be a race at held at this course, see e.g. 1962 World Sportscar Championship, 1963 World Sportscar Championship. If there was only one such article I would retarget there, but there's two of them. Not sure if it should be mentioned in the article for the course, but I don't have enough context to add it; as is the target is a stub. Rusalkii (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

BlueAir

[edit]

This revision essentially states why this redirection is unclear: The version of this phrase without a space seems to more commonly refer to the brand of air purifiers owned by Unilever. Redirecting readers to the current target with this title is misleading. With that being said, I'm not sure if delete per WP:REDLINK (the brand seems notable) or weak retarget to Unilever would be more helpful here, considering a hatnote placed on the latter may be a bit confusing since there's no real clear place in Unilever to place a respective hatnote referring readers to the nominated redirect's current target, though the redirect is currently mentioned in Unilever. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The air purifiers are Blueair, not BlueAir. I think this version is a very plausible incorrect name for both the air purifier and the airline. However, the image and mention of "BlueAir" at the current target and the prominence of the airline over the air purifier as encyclopaedic topics mean to keep with hatnote is preferable IMO. J947 ‡ edits 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Dagbani Wikipedia

[edit]

Listing this for discussion having bumped into this from Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. This was created on 8 August 2024 with no action on it whatsoever since then. What do you think? Intrisit (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Life's nothing like the movies, Fabelman

[edit]

Another unmentioned quote from the Fablemans, but this one targets the film itself. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It feels like my life is going by so fast, but it's not getting anywhere

[edit]

Not useful to have a quote by this person as a redirect to this person. The article itself is separately at AfD, but the quote is not mentioned here nor at The Fabelmans. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not putting me donkey outside when I'm sad, okay?

[edit]

No mention of this quote makes this not a helpful search term for the target film. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Humans have only one ending. Ideas live for ever.

[edit]

No mention of this quote at the target article. Also, "for ever"? "forever"? Not a likely means of navigating to this page. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Nilo Rodis-Jamero

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. However, the subject of the redirect seems to be notable and has a strong connection to the target; i'm not familiar with the subject of this reader, but the subject seems to be a costume designer that was heavily involved in Star Wars episodes V and VI. In addition, this subject is mentioned in a decent amount of other articles on Wikipedia. Seems like a good "delete per WP:REDLINK" candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

return to red per nom, and don't tell civvie about his name consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Star Wars Anthology 3

[edit]

Target is unclear what "Anthology 3" refers to. There are mentions of an "anthology" containing the Rogue One and Solo films, but the reference has no affinity to a number "3". Third party searches also do not return clear results to define the subject of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The Organa family

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Big Game James

[edit]

This might well also apply to James Franklin (American football coach), who is also known as "Big Game James". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget to disambiguation page - I see that James Shields (baseball) also mentions that he is called "Big Game James". Rather than redirecting to one person, perhaps have a disambiguation page that references these three (so far) people who have used that name. - Dyork (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

B***h

[edit]

Unnecessary censorship and not a likely search term. Also, nothing at the target includes any type of censored term. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  • WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply to redirects, which are not encyclopedic content, but rather navigational aids that can be used to guide readers from a censored term to the uncensored one. This bit of censorship is pretty common, including in reliable sources, and doesn't seem to be ambiguous with any other censored term, so keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamzin. This is a commonly used censoring of the target word, so we should aid readers who are looking for it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Either keep or retarget to Bitch (slang) to match B****. In any event, they should probably match and so I think that should be bundled? I'll also agree that masked redirects from swears are generally useful (we have many more). Skynxnex (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per above; a redirect that goes from a censored term to an explicit one is the opposite of censorship, and this redirect could help someone unfamiliar with that particular form. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    On further consideration, skynxnex is right that Bitch (slang) is the right article for it to be retargetted to BugGhost 🦗👻 00:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bitch (slang) per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • As the redirect creator, I agree with retargeting to bitch (slang) per Skynxnex.
    Disagree with deletion, as I have seen this term used by many-a kids on the internet who think that they're cool by swearing but don't want to get in trouble with their mothers for ACTUALLY swearing. Oh, and family-friendly youtubers will often censor the term using THIS manner. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, second choice retarget to Bitch (slang). I'm genuinely unsure whether Bitch (slang) is the overwhelming primary topic for bitch when the dog sense is removed from consideration. What pushes me towards retaining the current target is that if the reader is sufficiently puritan to bother censoring bitch in search, they could well be looking for the female dog sense. J947 ‡ edits 22:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Tazmin and Presidentman. CheeseyHead (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget to Bitch (slang)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Moral delete, but prefer keep to retargeting. I'm dubious this is actually helpful, but given the lack of deletes above, it seems here to stay. But regardless, the starred out version is exactly as ambiguous as the unstarred, and so should point to the dab page there, not to one of the entries on it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as my first choice... this is a disambiguation page that leads to both the female dog sense and the pejorative slang sense, which I agree is more likely to be censored. However, this is still my 1st choice because of J947's argument. That said, as a close second choice, I would accept retargetting to Bitch (slang), as it is the most likely intended target. Fieari (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Eyes Closed (Kanye West song)

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Purportedly an unreleased song originally intended for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy but later reworked into the Snoop Dogg song "Eyez Closed" from the album Doggumentary,[1][2][3][4] which is mentioned at the target. मल्ल (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

GvK

[edit]

Ambiguous DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget to GVK, where the film is already listed. Tevildo (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

T:IARD

[edit]

Doesn't seem to need to exist in mainspace along with other real mainspace articles, confuscating actual articles people might want to navigate to in favor of backroom templates of a controversial pseudo-namespace when the "TM:" alias has existed for nearly a year now. TM:IARD works just fine at easily navigating to this page, without needing to be cross-namespace of a controversial PNR. And no incoming links. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete The shorter T:IARD is not used anyway. WP:IARD seems to be the main shortcut anyway. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

T:IAP

[edit]

TM:IAP works just fine. No incoming links, no need to occupy mainspace with an additional redirect alongside the other real articles that begin with "T:" that people might want to navigate to with less backroom possibilities. An australian place infobox does not seem to meet the threshold of daily site maintenance, but even if it did, adding an extra "m" to the TM:IAP link works well enough. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

T:Pic of the day and etc.

[edit]

I'm not convinced these are useful as "T:" redirects. The pages in question have cropped up relatively recently. The only reason that "T:" would be used is for shortform shortcuts to oft-navigated templates. While TM:TFA and TM:POTD might qualify for this bill, I don't think they qualify for the fully written out versions. People who are interested in getting to this page quickly would not be writing out "Today's featured article" in full, nor "picture of the day" in full. They'd use TM:TFA or TM:POTD. "T:" is currently used only for specific shortform shortcuts. These are not those. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

P:

[edit]

Probably not useful as an open-ended redirect when no article title is given for it. There are mainspace articles such as P:Machinery and P:ano that could have very well been sought, but instead these two characters (which would otherwise indicate portalspace if a portal's name was given to them), take readers to a portal of its own choosing. People looking for portals using the P: pseudo-namespace, can do so by typing in "P:", followed by the name of the portal they were after. I'm not convinced an "empty"-titled redirect is going to be of much use here. Targeting P seems more useful, if it targets anything. This one doesn't even point to portal space. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep – I don't follow your reasoning. It's not for users looking for a specific portal, and it doesn't take users to a portal of its own choosing. It's a shortcut to portal space, and while it doesn't technically go to a portal space page, it goes to the contents for portal pages. Whether that's the best use for P: (as opposed to going to P (disambiguation)), I don't know, but it does make sense as a shortcut. Mclay1 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

H:

[edit]

Probably not useful. Created with the edit summary "MOS: redirects to the Manual of Style". MOS is now a namespace of its own. And in any situation, "MOS" is both longer and more specific than just the letter "h", followed by a colon. I'd argue there's really no reason to have this as a guesswork redirect. People looking for help would probably be more likely to type in something like H:HELP which takes them to the same place. All articles have titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Cat:

[edit]

"Cat" is not a pseudonamespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

CAT:

[edit]

I don't believe this is helpful as a redirect. Even as a pseudo-namespace, it's generally a good idea to give some indication about what category is being sought here, to which there is none. CAT:CONT makes a lot more sense, rather than being one colon away from the mainspace disambiguation page of CAT. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep – There are many cross-namespace redirects to category space beginning with "CAT:". CAT: is the pseudonamespace prefix and that's why it goes to Category:Contents at the top of the category tree. The shortcut makes sense. Mclay1 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Tp:

[edit]

"Tp" is not a pseudonamespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

TP:

[edit]

"TP" is not a pseudonamespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

T:

[edit]

Makes no sense as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

European Journal of Higher Education

[edit]

Delete as a misleading redirect.

  • European Journal of Higher Education refers to this journal (ISSN 2156-8235)
  • European Journal of Education refers to this journal (ISSN 0141-8211)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

South Korea women's national kho kho team

[edit]

Simply listed as a participant, without any further any further details about the team provided. Delete to encourage article creation and because anybody searching for this title won't find the information they're looking for based on the current target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Dyork (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

PolyGram Audiovisuel

[edit]

No mention of this name on the target page. Also appears to be using the French spelling of "audiovisual", making it unlikely to be used much. The English spelling of "audiovisual" is also absent from the target page. – numbermaniac 12:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. Polygram Audiovisuel appears to be a French subsidiary of the group, with several film credits, making it a somewhat likely search term. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Tik tok

[edit]

re-targeting to tick tock PER WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and onomatopoeic writing, much more neutral. What's more there is the SPACE between. gtp (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Consider Tik tok comes also from searching "tik tok" since auto-capitalize the first. Nothing against the kids scoial media, just considering encyclopedic criteria. gtp (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 30#Tik Tok, which had unanimous support to redirect to TikTok. This is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the prev. RfD you cited. Anyway, the major technical argument proposed in that discussion is counting views from "Tick tock" searches which majority is effectively TikTok, while I would like to know views from "Tik tok" searches, in appearance similar, but different since "Tick tock" searches include who know TikTok only by speech (not write), while "Tik tok" is shorter but, paradoxically, more specific search. gtp (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Update: [5] is the proven proof people come back from "TikTok" to "Tick Tock", not to do some sports, but since they didn't find what they searched for. For who don't know how toread the left column are % links-clicks to Tick Tock from other searches/pages (which back from TikTok is 49%); the right column are links from Tick Tock to disambiguated. gtp (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The fact that 49% of the Tick Tock hits come from TikTok is because TikTok is a very very popular article. TikTok gets about 300,000 views a day while Tick Tock gets about 4000 (stats). Your stat doesn't indicate that Tick Tock is the primary topic at all, it does the opposite. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - social media app is clear primary topic, dropping the space is a very plausible mistake. Hatnote already exists. Not sure what is meant by 'more neutral'. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Simple, if somebody searches fo TikSPACETok, maybe he really wants Tik_Tok, otherwise he had searched typing "Tiktok" or (if he had really no idea) for "Tick tock" english onomatopoeic. Even my grandma knows a SPACE really counts in engine searches. Pls read my second Update. gtp (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - From a user point-of-view, I suspect that in January 2025 if people are searching on "Tik tok" they are probably looking for "TikTok" the social media app. I know that for the longest time I did not realize there was no space when I was searching for it. People who are not familiar with the app may mistakenly think there is a space there. - Dyork (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - The social media is currently the WP:PTOPIC by a landslide, even with the space. Fieari (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums number ones of 2025

[edit]

The target doesn't include lists of number one hits per year, let alone number one hits from 2025. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep as it expands to more than albums; extended plays and compilations. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Angular precision

[edit]

"Angular precision" is not mentioned at the target, though I'm certain "Angular precision" is related to something somewhere! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I had hoped to point it at orders of magnitude (angle), but was surprised to see such a page no longer exists. Arlo James Barnes 03:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Either retarget to Angular resolution, which seems in the ballpark, or barring that, delete. The small angle approximation is a completely different concept, so it shouldn't point there. Still, I'm not sure if resolution for imaging is really as general as a term like "precision" suggests someone might be looking for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

List of mayors of Bhopal

[edit]

There is no such list at the target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment, I concur the redirect is misleading in its current form. Still, does contain history back to 2021. This page existed as a standalone article until 2 days ago (December 31st), when it was BLAR'd and remade at the target of this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep since it appears rare that somebody will ever fill that list. gtp (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore. I've reverted User:UrielAcosta's cut-and-paste move. After that, properly move the page back to Mayor of Bhopal, since User:Hemant Dabral's 2021 move was faulty. (There was never any list content in the page.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Eventually there'll be a list of mayors on this page, someone just needs to add it. If not, then just merge the article with Bhopal Municipal Corporation. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Triple dub

[edit]

Delete. It appears to be an outdated slang term that saw some use in the earlier days of the Internet but has largely faded into obscurity. A Google search shows three entries on Urban Dictionary for the phrase, and essentially nothing else. It also appears to be the name of an obscure rapper, which may well be a slightly more popular topic. Regardless, this redirect has gotten a whopping zero page views in the last month, so the course of action seems clear. Anonymous 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete if it really appears to be the name of an obscure rapper. Otherwise keep since it's an improbable search, and could help that 1/1000000.

Xenopronoun

[edit]

When this term is used in online MOGAI circles, it seems to refer to a kind of neopronoun that are unable to be understood by humans[6][7][8] (While I know that these sources are unreliable, there aren't really any reliable sources that discuss this topic). The current target links to "nounself pronouns", which are a different category. JJPMaster (she/they) 02:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete By their very nature, Xenopronouns aren't currently known by humans. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment many such reliable sources exist proving it is a thing. Saying things like Xenopronouns aren't currently known by humans isn't a very good argument. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Significa Liberdade. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Many people use this term to mean nounself pronouns or even neopronouns in general, typically because they don't know this specific definition, which is possibly a recoining or reinvention. I couldn't check what's the meaning these sources are using. It's a brief mention, only a source with a lot of microlabels and neologisms would use this meaning or know this lore. Skemous (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, without predjudice to re-creation if the appropriate information is added to the target article (or elsewhere). The current target is not what the term means, and is therefore potentially misleading (criterion 2). Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

6 April 1992

[edit]

Does not appear to be the primary topic on a quick google news Wikipedia search, and the war was not a one-day event, making this redirect highly unlikely. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget to 1992#April, the next best choice for pre-2002 dates too early for the current event pages. J947 ‡ edits 00:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: I'm aware that it's neither an official nor a universally agreed upon perspective, but I would like to bring up WP:PANDORA. Should we really be having redirects for individual days to their corresponding month and year? This solution seems less ideal than the current situation. Anonymous 03:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are differing opinions on the validity of such redirects but I am firmly in favour of their mass creation. J947 ‡ edits 03:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Anonymous. Although we have redirects for some dates (e.g., July 4, 1776), this particular date does not seem to have that level of importance. However, I would accept a retarget to Ilirida since this was the date "the Republic of Ilirida was proclaimed", and we don't have any other major events on the same day at 1992#April. Feel free to ping me with questions or if anything else comes up. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The start of the Bosnian War was probably more significant than this secession event, though, so it doesn't actually make sense to prioritize the latter, it would easily by seen as a violation of WP:FRINGE by the average reader. --Joy (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to a heading explaining the start of the Bosnian War. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
April 1992 has a mainspace target. Skemous (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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! 07:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Variants names for Israel-Hamas war

[edit]

None mentioned in target article or in fact used at all anywhere that I can find. Appear to variants on Shemini Atzeret war or Simchat Torah war, both of which do get used. Rusalkii (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Understood your question, what would you suggest...deleting? gtp (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I think these should be deleted, yes. Rusalkii (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Tensor product of shaves of modules

[edit]

Unlikely typo that could inhibit search. Correct Tensor product of sheaves of modules exists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

T:Uw-move3

[edit]

Unnecessary new T: space redirect which will occupy mainspace alongside other articles. No incoming links. TM:Uw-move3 works just fine to navigate to the template in shortform. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

For specific usages. Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pseudo-namespaces cause more clutter than they're worth, especially for pages unlikely to be linked or navigated to directly. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ROWN

[edit]

Confusing shortcut/redirect that looks too much like WP:OWN and several other shortcuts already exist that do the job. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Others that exist that already help, so that this confusing/misleading one does not need to exist and should not exist, include:WP:ONLYREVERT, WP:REVERTRARELY, WP:RVONLYNEC. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Currently used on over 400 talk pages across wikipedia, some of those uses are fairly recent. Typical usage seems to be to pipe it with another phrase relevant to the specifics of their discussion (example from one of those pages: "I’d appreciate it if you would revert only when necessary"), so wikipedians are using the shortcut just to save keystrokes while making their point. It's useful to someone. Heck, it seems to be useful to a lot of someones. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Nancy Khalaf

[edit]

Target page does not mention this person. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pop philosophy

[edit]

It is not clear that this is directly relevant to the target, and it is not mentioned there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

delete per nom, as it could refer to a lot of different stuff, from shower thoughts to influencing. or wait until april fools to close this as "retarget to rizz" consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

2023 Dolphins season (Disambiguation) and etc.

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It should be said, that uppercase letters being used in a disambiguator in article titles is generally equally likely as lowercase letters in article titles to be searched for by unfamiliar users, in my opinion. However, per MOS:DAB and WP:DAB, disambiguation pages are not articles.

Uppercase versions of parenthetically disambiguated words may be useful in navigation to a particular article title about a "foo" versus a "Foo", and whichever way is comfortable to readers. In this case though, "(disambiguation)" is the tag we use to indicate a disambiguation page, which happens to reside in mainspace, a location it shares with regular articles which can also include parenthetical disambiguations to distinguish them. It is not helpful nor useful to have an uppercase variant as a redirect to this type of help page, of which there are hundreds of thousands of disambiguation pages in quantity.

Thus is the nomination. As it happens though, I did (what I found to be) an interesting query to determine, based on Jarry1250's findings in 2007, to find which of these common disambiguation terms have uppercase disambiguator redirect variants being used in the year 2025. These findings are posted in the similarly named User:Utopes/findings. I think it's pretty interesting to compare the existences of uppercase disambiguators to see which disambiguators are used more frequently as uppercase ("Album" and "TV Series" sweep this competition), as well as the ratios between total usage and uppercase usage. The resulting ratio may be ~juuust about equal to the same ratio with 2010-2025 titles added in, but I have not been able to fully confirm this because the queries for 2025 have taken far too long 😅 and using 2007-2009 works as an example.

By looking at the ratios, we note some interesting outliers that don't really matter to this nomination, but are intriguing to think about regardless imo. Such as how "(TV Series)" disambiguators in 2025 exist at an ~approx 2:5 ratio with the correctly named "(TV series)" pages from 2009. Maybe because there's already two capital letters, people feel like adding a third? But perhaps even more shockingly is the popularity of "(Number)" which exceeds the number of "(number)" pages from 2009, at a 1.04:1 ratio. Fwiw, if someone wants to replicate this examination for 2025 numbers that could also be interesting (because I tested it for "(number)" and of course the ratio dropped back down, but 360 appearances of "(Number)" in a title is still quite fascinating to me).

Nevertheless, it seems there is already an overwhelming trend in the dissolution of "(Disambiguation)" disambiguation pages. Compared to the 26k disambiguation pages of 2009, only 15 of which uppercase versions exist in 2025. (3 of the 15 are Ø (Disambiguation). 12 becomes the more accurate number, for an even smaller proportion & also is the number of redirects in this nomination). This contrasts the rest of the common disambiguations, such as "(Album)", "(Song)", or "(Band)", whose uppercase variants seem to be otherwise mainly harmless, and also reflect an infinite possibility of disambiguators that could be used instead which could be upper or lowercase. But "(Disambiguation)" is not how we do disambiguation pages. These are not regular articles, because they are not articles, meaning that we don't particularly require modification variation redirects to reach them. They are, what they are, for what they are. (These are otherwise a bad practice with very little apparent consensus, so delete these to sweep the lot.) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep all: Clear plausible miscapitalizations. Considering you hold the shift key to get a bracket on most keyboards, it'd be very easy to hold it a slight bit too long and end up capitalizing the first letter. Also, redirects are WP:CHEAP and these do no harm, so I see no reason to delete them. I also don't see the number of them in existence as being a contributing factor towards deletion, it doesn't make them less useful or more harmful in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Noting that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 14#Coby (Disambiguation) ended in keep back in 2020, but it was batch deleted by BD2412 when they deleted ~292 pages on November 19, 2022, citing the outcome of the discussion a month prior that resulted in 120 pages being deleted. I mention it to show that explains why there are so few pages that have "(Disambiguation)" and that there were actually a lot of other pages that weren't discussed and because, in the past, there has been a discussion that resulted in keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: harmless. C F A 01:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: It should be noted that all of these were created in 2024 or later, because the last bundle of these were all deleted in 2022 at the most recent RfD of this type. Therefore none of this bundle has substantial history, and all were the result of errors fixed immediately with the exception of 2. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    There were also RfD noms that resulted in keep prior to the mass nomination, in which those previously kept redirects ended up deleted for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me. I'm of the mindset those ended up deleted more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I was kind of surprised to see this notification on my talk page because I agree, this is obviously an error. Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    For the sake of clarity, I created a few of these the dolphins redirect and it was definitely intentional @Bobby Cohn. It's fine if you think these should be deleted, but I wanted to be clear that they're not necessarily clearly errors. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies, of course; I didn't mean to speak for everyone. I realize that wasn't clear in my !vote now, but I meant in regard to one on my talk page. Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all. As Josh pointed out, redirects are indeed cheap. The redirect I created was not out of error, it was very intentional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Late Again (Disambiguation) was created by RGMNotTrue and automatically turned into a redirect when you moved it to the correct title, so I'm not sure how that could have been an intentional creation on your part. Perhaps you meant that you intentionally chose not to suppress the redirect? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That was exactly what happened. If I was opposed to a capital D in the disambiguator, I would have simply suppressed the redirect. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Harmless, WP:CHEAP, unambiguous. Do I advocate creating this style of redirect for all disambiguators? Heck no. But do I support removing those that already exist, and have been helpful to someone? Definitely not. Doing so would only make wikipedia less useful, not more so. Fieari (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Hey man im josh and all other!Keep voters above and WP:CHEAP. Like I've argued in previous discussions with this capitalization, capitalizing the disambiguator doesn't harm things around here—it still fulfills its promise of a disambiguation page. I don't see any valid reason to delete these redirects given that. Regards, SONIC678 08:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Indic languages, Matheus Pereira, Object-orientation, P90, and PBA. These were left over from disruptive page moves which were soon reverted, and should have been deleted as G3. Delete Late Again, Lusarreta, Northern Bears/bears, and Progressive Christianity. These are R from move redirects, though the pages were at the wrong title for a few hours at most. Also delete Eidi, which was likely created in error. Neutral on 2023 Dolphins season, which is the only one intentionally created, and which the creator feels strongly about. Though I'd argue that R to disambiguation page redirects are technical in purpose, i.e. to avoid directly linking to dab pages in navigational aids. Such navigational aids are expected to be correctly capitalised, and errors should be fixed, negating the need for such redirects from miscapitalised Ds. Readers directly typing the terms in the search box gain nothing from their existence, since search is case-insensitive. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all per precedence. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all esp until the mobile search is fixed Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • L3X1, I'm not aware—could you help explain what the problem is with mobile search that these redirects help avoid? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

KPSR (FM)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Cannot find any sources referring to the target this way. Rusalkii (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep The Praise Network owns a fourth full-power FM facility, KPSR (FID 767452), at Smith Center, Kansas. The station was authorized with a license to cover last month and then immediately went off the air. The request for silent STA reads,

    The station completed construction of the facility on October 31, 2024 and filed License to Cover application on November 1, 2024. Upon activation of the transmission system, it was found that harmful interference was being caused to collocated WISP antennas on the tower. Reduced power was attempted, but it was determined that KPSR must cease operation pending the replacement of cables for the WISP. Troubleshooting and repairs cannot be made in a timely manner and the station is formally filing request for Silent Authority until such time as the interference can be mitigated.

    The facility is authorized and has been added to the full-power repeaters table. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think without any context on this in the target it's confusing to have on station redirect to another with no explanation. Rusalkii (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is normal for this type of facility, especially a non-commercial educational radio network (either Christian or public). There isn't a lot of content about KVHL in Texas Public Radio, but that is where it should redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - Article has mention of the term, and has all the information that is available on wikipedia. The fact that it isn't much is irrellevant... surprise should not be an issue with a simple Ctrl+F, or just scrolling down an inch or so. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Mentioned at target and unlikely to ever be notable enough for a standalone article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Mention has been added since I nominated redirect; no objections to keeping now that it's there. Rusalkii (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Older

[edit]

Old business

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Awesome_Aasim/rfd_rewrite&oldid=1201929683"