Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

November 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 20, 2021.

Quondam[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Thanks to the IP for the legwork. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a Wiktionary soft redirect. This is simply a word, meaning 'former[ly]', but is redirecting to the bio of someone once nicknamed "Lord Quondam". Actually, it could redir internally to an anchor at List of Latin phrases (Q), if an entry for this term were added to that list. Regardless, it's highly probable that the average reader looking up "quondam" here is trying to find out what this term means, as they would with "quantum", not looking for an obscure bio that doesn't relate to the word but only to the longer phrase "Lord Quondam".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, make a better hatnote at the target. Any of your proposals looks like it would make it hard to find Lord Quondam when searching for "quondam", without significantly improving the situation for people looking for the word. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dabify as proposed works for me. —Kusma (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for the WP:DABMENTIONs (Acornsoft#Acornsoft games range, David Pryce-Jones#Novels), condom (which mentions quondam as an old spelling), and the current target. Add {{wiktionary}} for anyone looking for a definition of the word itself. The current target was indeed sometimes called by the bare "Quondam" [1] and not just "Lord Quondam" (for which "Quondam" is only a WP:PTM), but I don't see that he or any other of these obscure topics is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the word. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom and 61 IP. Draft has already been made and looks fine to me. CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per the draft DAB. Jay (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unofficial[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft redirect to Wikt: unofficial. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"unofficial" does not mean "person who is not an official" but rather "not officially established". The related sense of "official" is only described at the Official (disambiguation) page, so it might make sense to convert this into a Wiktionary redirect? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely convert to a Wikitionary soft redir. Nom's argument is compelling. Our article Official isn't about "officialness" but about "officials", which don't relate closely to the word "unofficial".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per SMcCandish. I think this strikes a good compromise between retargeting to Official (disambiguation) where there is a wiktionary link and a brief description of its antonym, or outright deletion to only yield search results. The soft redirect will allow users to choose between a Wiktionary definition or Wikipedia search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is an all-caps redirect like this really necessary? We don't have all-caps redirects from most domain names and I'm unaware of an all-caps styling being common for this one. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is it necessary? No. Is it harmful? also no. It got 90 hits last year, some of those would likely used en.wikipedia.org if this didn't exist, but as some methods of finding Wikipedia content are case sensitive it is probable that at least some wouldn't (it is impossible to know though), so on balance the small benefits and lack of harm from keeping outweigh the lack of benefits and small harm from deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Thryduulf. This falls into the category I think of as "Not worth creating, not worth deleting." I would not encourage anyone to spend their time creating "GOOGLE.COM", "FACEBOOK.COM", etc., but in principle they're valid search terms. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Thryduulf, and since the DNS system is technically case-insensitive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK KEEP per EVERYONE ABOVE. THIS REDIRECT ISN'T REALLY HURTING ANYTHING HERE, and IT IS POTENTIALLY HELPFUL. AS TAZMIN SAYS, WE SHOULDN'T CREATE A BUNCH OF OTHER REDIRECTS TO DOMAIN NAMES IN ALL CAPITALS, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD DELETE THOSE THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. REGARDS, SONIC678 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and gets hits so apparently it's useful to someone. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless and plausible allcaps variant of en.wikipedia.org --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kernel (Computer Science)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Kernel (Computer Science)

Sonic Riders 3: Sky Track[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 04:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this redirect was created-possibly a fan's idea for the name of Sonic Free Riders when that was in development? Plus, a Google search doesn't bring up anything relevant. Regards, SONIC678 17:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. No such game exists, and I'm amazed this redirect has been here this long without anyone noticing. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Speedy delete per own comment immediately above (at time of writing), this is a sufficiently silly title that there's no chance this won't get deleted. If not WP:G3, then WP:SNOW/WP:NOTBURO (no need to stick to process when doing so would delay an obviously correct outcome) are good reasons here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne

List of Wagle ki Duniya - Nayi Peedhi Naye Kissey Episodes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 04:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to the draft namespace and as such would normally be deleted per WP:R2. However, WP:DRAFTIFY suggests that you should only draftify an article if it was recently created or if an AfD discussion closes as draftify. This article has been around since June and I'm not sure if this is too old. Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if the page move was not discussed anywhere then you can just revert it per WP:BRD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The R2 criterion is met regardless of the validity of the draftification. As Thryduulf says, any editor can reverse the draftification if they disagree with it (whether or not there is a redirect there). As an aside, if this is returned to mainspace, it should be moved to List of Wagle ki Duniya – Nayi Peedhi Naye Kissey episodes for consistency with the main article and compliance with WP:LOWERCASE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

India at the 2022 Winter Olympics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. No longer a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Country has not qualified and unlikely to do so, and therefore this redirect is misleading. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Country has qualified and the page has been fixed, and sourced. I apologize for prematurely changing to a redirect. This should be withdrawn.18abruce (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

West Trenton Line (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural Close. Nomination withdrawn due to incorrect listing. (non-admin closure) snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Trenton Line (SEPTA) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as it is a running rail-line not a proposed, not-yet-started-construction on rail line of the same name. Proposal is to:

  • Proc Keep I realized I opened this in the wrong place. This should be a procedure keep for being listed incorrectly and I'll close it as one now. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Technoblade (and others)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 04:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more redirects about mostly non-notable Youtubers that redirect to a page that doesn't really cover their full work. See FlyingKitty for another example. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all per G7 @Explicit? @98.179.127.59, if you find any more of these (I think I linked to a few at the previous discussion) then you can give me a list on my talk page, and I'll mass-tag them for G7. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: Due to substantial edits made by others, these redirects no longer qualify for G7. ✗plicit 13:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@98.179.127.59 In that case, I'll just tag them for RfD. ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, these are worse than having no page at all. The search functionality can find mentions of their names but we don't have significant encyclopedic content about their channels so we should not have redirects for them. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll list as many similar redirects to these as I can at User:Qwerfjkl/pages. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-notable youtubers. Even dream's notability is questionable, only widespread media coverage is that he got caught cheating in speedruns, and 15-minutes-of-fame events don't justify an article (although that's a topic for AfD) (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 16:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Repubulique du Rwanda[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As there is no justification for this misspelling. Jay (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misspell of French-language word. Sun8908 Talk 09:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the page history indicates this was created in response to a misspelling found at http://www.webcitation.org/6EdrsXk6Y but that site is having problems at the moment so I can't see whether it is a reason to keep or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I still can't get webcitation to work ("DB Connection failed") but google finds only a handful of hits for "Repubulique du Rwanda" -wikipedia, most of them relate to this redirect and at least most of the rest are in a French language context (which are relevant to whether a redirect at this title should exist on fr.wikipedia but aren't relevant to us). That leaves approximately two hits that are both in English language contexts and not derived from this redirect, one is a facebook status I can't see even when logged in and one is an instagram photo I can't see when logged out (I don't use instragram so can't check whether those who do can see it). Even if I could see those posts, they wouldn't justify this redirect alone. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need to account for typos (plausible or not) in foreign languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Typos and misspellings that English speakers frequently make (or frequently encounter) of plausible search terms are equally useful regardless of the language of the search term. In this case there is no evidence this is a mistake English speakers make frequently so it's not a useful redirect, but that it is a mistake for a French-language term is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf's findings, although I disagree with the breadth of SMcCandlish's statement. A plausible, frequently-occurring typo of a non-English name for something would still be a valid redirect. As always, the main question is whether someone would ever actually search for (or try to link to) a term. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely misspelling in en.wiki --Lenticel (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sporting goods store[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 04:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target page does not mention stores, shops, retailers etc., which is assumed given the name of the redirect. I suggest retargeting to Category:Sporting goods retailers. Utfor (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Redirs from mainspace to categories tend to be confusing, and may actually inhibit article creation. It's frankly weird that we don't have this article already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation and defer to search results. Many articles on sporting good stores aren't even categorized, leaving much to be desired for anyone using this search term if it were targeted to the category. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

36.6[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The number without a context (unit of temperature) is too ambiguous for the target of human body temperature. Jay (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous. The human body temperature article is easy to find if that's what the searcher wants, but "36.6" (just a number, not a temperature) has many other potential meanings. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as way too ambiguous to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can you explain specifically what the "many other potential meanings" are? This number has a very clear connotation with the human body temperature, as given in degrees Celsius. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     13:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    from google results: 36.6 inches, 36.6 cm, £36.6m, 36.6 metres, section 36.6, 36.6 mm, a verse in the Book of Numbers, 36.6° declination, 36.6 g, 36.6 kg, 36.6°N, 36.6%, 36.6 mole (unit), 36.6 psi, 36.6 inHg. There is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the other measurements related to anything specific that would make that usage a plausible search term? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     16:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a plausible search term for anything. For the current target to make sense all of the following must be true:
    • This is a temperature
    • It is in degrees Celsius
    • The searcher is looking for information about one specific thing that can be this temperature
    • That thing is the human body
    There is no basis on which we can reliably assume any of that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A number without the unit (degree Celcius) is ambiguous. Sun8908 Talk 16:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some measurements with one decimal place do have a primary topic. 98.6 would be primary for human body temperature in °F if there weren't several things named after it with the number as the title, and 25.4 is primarily the inch to millimeter conversion (although it's a redlink right now and it could be deleted per WP:XY if created). However, from what I understand, unlike 98.6, nobody agrees on 36.6 vs. 37 vs. another close number, and I live in a region that uses Fahrenheit, so I don't know how common 36.6 actually is. HotdogPi 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I live in an area that uses °C (at least for body temperature, the UK is weird with units), but unless context is firmly established as body temperature, "36.6" without any units would be meaningless. It's also worth noting that 36.6°C is just one of a range of normal body temperatures anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too devoid of context, per Thryduulf.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and the above comments favoring deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and as per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Earl of Bute[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget both to Marquess of Bute#Earls of Bute (1703). Very little participation after three relists. Though I see there's consensus for retargeting both of them to the same target. A separate RfD can be opened for "The Earl of Bute" if someone is dissatisfied with this outcome. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's helpful to have these 2 redirects pointing to different places. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second choice: Retarget both to John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute. page views show he is the most read, though we don't know which name people sought him under, but the two redirects should go to the same place. PamD 10:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for "The Earl of Bute".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Marquess of Bute#Earls of Bute (1703). I don't buy the PM argument, as it smacks of recentism, and is probably only applicable to some subset of out British readership and some much smaller subset of our Commonwealth readership. He'll only be one short link away, anyhow.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not recentism, the British prime minister has been notable for some 200 years. He's far and away the most notable holder of the title, which he is better known by than his given name. I highly doubt a long-extinct earldom will be of particular interest to those outside a Commonwealth readership. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't read that closely enough, and thought that the current PM was also the Earl of Bute. That makes me doubly certain both should redirect, along with Earls of Bute, to the section on the Bute peerage, since even a "well, lots of readers for the next couple of years will be looking for this specific person" argument isn't applicable. I think you're falling for the inverse of the Dunning–Kruger effect, and presuming specialized knowledge on the part of the average reader instead of making the encyclopedic presumption that they lack the knowledge and are here to get it. As for your other prediction, it's not one we engage in. We don't write articles on video games as if only gamers will read them, write articles about a town in New Mexico as if only locals will read it, etc. (And extinct peerage titles are probably most frequently of interest to genealogists, who are everywhere.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The earldom itself is never known as "The Earl of Bute". When prefaced with the definite article, it's referring to the person himself holding the title. The British prime minister is the primary topic for that person and has never not been in the entire existence of Wikipedia. Pageviews confirm that the prime minister has consistently been the most sought for. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This fails to convince me. The article is not just an article about the earldom per se, but also a list of persons filling that role, so it remains the most appropriate target since there have been multiple earls of Bute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pipelinks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. MBisanz talk 04:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of an obscure company that briefly appears at target which could be easily mistaken with WP:PIPELINK. I propose deletion or a retarget to the aforementioned guideline as to not confuse readers. CycloneYoris talk! 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but remove the WP:SELFRED from the target list). The target has the only mention of the term in the mainspace, and a mainspace link is preferable to creating a WP:CNR. - Eureka Lott 13:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment piping could be a target, since links of piping are used to connect conduit. I suggest a 2DAB at pipe link with an additional {{selfref}} for Wikipedia -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article contains a properly-sourced mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Shhhnotsoloud, but clean up as suggested by EurekaLott.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Imran Ali[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title redirect —AFreshStart (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, incorrect title. JIP | Talk 14:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like nearly all {{R from move}} redirects internal to draftspace this is completely harmless and deletion may hinder the author finding their work. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a connection has not been established. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a relevancy/correctness failure. If someone's worried about the original drafter not being able to find the moved page, it would take less time to leave them a user-talk note about it than to continue arguing here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Imran Ali. The existence of articles for people with this name makes the draft's current target confusing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no need of a redirect from Draft:Anything to mainspace Anything, unless the draft was moved to the mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent connection whastoever to target article. CycloneYoris talk! 05:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other deletes. Huggums537 (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:MCN[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and retarget to Template:More citations needed, respectively (i.e., both will point to Template:More citations needed). Numerically, there was equal support for both this course of action and deleting/deprecating both shortcuts. Clearly there was no appetite for the status quo, and little support for targeting both to Template:Medical citation needed, but beyond that, this was tricky to call consensus on. I could've invoked WP:NCRET, and the outcome would've been the same.
Fortunately, transclusions have been dealt with during the course of discussion. My thanks to whoever helped make that happen. Notably, there are none in mainspace. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some odd reason, Template:MCN points to Template:More citations needed, while Template:mcn points to Template:Medical citations needed. These two redirects probably should point to the same spot, given that the only difference between them is capitalization, which is confusing. I've noticed that the all-caps redirect only has less than five transclusions whereas the all-lowercase redirect has several hundred transclusions. Therefore, I propose that the all-uppercase redirect be retargeted to Template:Medical citation needed.

A small amount of cleanup will be needed to insert the appropriate templates where the the all-uppercase redirect is currently being used, though I believe that the extent of work (fixing less than five transclusions) would be so small as to not have a bearing on the decision to retarget the redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace both create a new one at {{med cn}} and replace the other with {{more cn}} -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I've added the other discussed redirect to the nomination. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     22:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Retain Template:MCN for medical use only, and use Template:Additional citation needed (or easier, Template:ACN) in place of the other. - JGabbard (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both templates are used a lot. I suggest "MedCN" for "Medical citation needed" and "MCN" for "More citations needed". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Of note; the "under discussion" notifications added to the templates is causing issues in the articles they are used in. Now to the matter at hand; I agree that both {{mcn}} and {{MCN}} should redirect to the same template. I am of the opinion, however, that they should point to {{More citations needed}}. Although mcn does have a much higher transclusion count than MCN; a bot could be used to change the 443 (at the time of replying) instances of {{mcn}} to {{MEDCN}}. I note the suggestion of using {{ACN}}; but the documentation on that template says its use is intentionally different to more citations needed. Little pob (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mcn and replace with MEDCN. I'm someone who is much more likely to use the medical version of this template, and even I can agree this is ridiculous. More citations needed is a much more likely usage of this for 99.9% of users. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Template:More citations needed, the more generalizable use case. There is no reason to "delete Mcn and replace with MEDCN". If you want a template or redirect called "MEDCN", then just go make it. That has nothing to do with this discussion. There's no such thing as "replacing" one template or redirect with another; the database doesn't work that way. Edit: On re-reading, I think what was meant was to replace extant instances of calls to {{Mcn}} with calls to {{MEDCN}}, about which see comment below on why to just use the full template name when doing such cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 20:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I checked, and {{MEDCN}} and {{medcn}} already exist and go to {{Medical citation needed}} as one would expect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Template:More citations needed per above. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:More citations needed because Mcn is used relatively rarely in comparison to MCN. Before doing that, change all instances of Mcn (fewer than 500) to medcn, then add shortcuts for MCN and Mcn at the documentation to avoid confusion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Uh, @Ftrebien: you said "Mcn is used relatively rarely in comparison to MCN" but the opposite seems to be true, with Mcn having about 500 invocations and MCN only 5. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @R. S. Shaw: Right, MCN really has fewer uses. I mixed it up, I was really comparing it to More citations needed, which is what MCN points to and Mcn originally pointed to. But I still think that the MCN and Mcn shortcuts are best for the most common template More citations needed than for the much rarer Medical citations needed. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better to change the extant instances to {{Medical citation needed}}, not {{Medcn}}, since doing the latter will just end up having a bot later change it to {{Medical citation needed}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: Why will a bot later change {{Medcn}}to {{Medical citation needed}}? Jay (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there's a bot that replaces template redirects (e.g. {{fact}}) with direct links to the real template (e.g. {{citation needed}}), and we have a long history of replacing obscure template names with plain English ones so in this case {{Medical citation needed}} will be the real template not the redirect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly agree with 64.229.90.53 - delete both. MCN/mcn is not so much shorter to be worth causing this many issues. No matter which direction it points in, it's going to be an issue - the acronym is more commonly invoked for the medical one, but the More citations needed template is more common overall. Having it at all is contributing to the absurd impenetrability of wp jargon. What actual benefit is gained by keeping these? (genuinely it would be great if anyone could address this, no one has given a reason) --Xurizuri (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Xuruzuri ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to {{more citations needed}} (a target besides here would be surprising to editors). Shorcuts are ambiguous by there very nature, more citations needed is clearly the more prevalent target, and deletion is certainly not a good solution. Moreover—"Mcn" has existed since 2012, while MCN was just created in 2018. Template:MEDCN serves sufficiently for the medical template.`One has ~10 usages, while the other has ~50 (making a comparison of their usage trivial). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per 64.229.90.53 and Xurizuri. Most participants in this discussion may find one of the two templates as the more plausible, whereas the discrepancy between the transclusions of the two shortcuts suggests that the editors who actually use the shortcuts have mostly favoured the other target. This is a classic situation where regardless of the chosen target, the ambiguity will go on causing confusion further down the line. The suggestion to use {{more cn}} and {{med cn}} instead is an excellent idea, and it appears that most existing uses of the nominated templates have already been converted. We should convert the rest, and do what we normally do in such cases: create a {{template disambiguation}} page that lists the two alternatives and ideally include an error message on transclusion that shows similar information. That way, anybody who's used either of the shortcuts before will be gently guided to the correct option, and so would all the future editors who will think to try those shortcuts (we agreed they were plausible, right?). – Uanfala (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Template:Mcn to Template:More citations needed, which is the more general template. That way if you guess wrong, it's not problematic. If medical citations are needed, it is true that more citations are needed. The vice versa is not true in the general sense; medical citations are only needed in a medical context. -- Tavix (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uses of one of the templates are not a subset of those of the other. In fact, they've got very little in common. Template:Medical citation needed is used to tag an individual statement as requiring a WP:MEDRS-quality source. Template:More citations needed, on the other hand, is a banner sitting at the top of an article pointing out that it needs a larger number of sources. The medical template is used inline and may be employed multiple times in a given article and can end up getting incrementally added and removed to various statements as the article changes – all this justifies the need for a shortcut and probably explains why one was created early on and used widely. The other template is used once per article, typically sits there for a long time, and it's normally placed with the help of NPP tools – this makes for little need for a shortcut and is probably the reason why one wasn't created until recently and once created, wasn't used much. Frankly, of all the options on the table here – deletion, deprecation, status quo, etc. – retargeting to the banner is the least defensible. – Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies if my comment made it sound like one was a subset of the other, it was not what I was saying. It was merely that if someone guesses wrong, it's problematic one way but not the other. The fact that more citations needed is a big banner is another advantage to retargeting there. If someone wants an inline template, and a big banner is placed instead, that's a huge red orange flag that you've placed the wrong template! -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on a possible closure. I see consensus to keep MCN targeted to More citations needed, and to retarget Mcn to More citations needed, but need advice on the post-closure actions. How do we get a bot to replace 50(?) usages of Mcn to MEDCN, or as SMcCandlish suggests, to Medical citation needed directly? Or we can do this manually. There are no usages in mainspace. I assume archived talk pages and discussion logs are not to be modified, and that is how we came to a figure of 50 (Godsy?)? Jay (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • BDD, there were still over 30 transclusions at the time of closure. I've fixed them now [2]. Jay, when a template redirect is retargeted, this usually results in a mess on the pages that use it (as indeed happened here). Transclusions are supposed to get fixed, even in sandboxes or old discussions, at the very least because not doing so means the retargetting has changed the meaning of what other people have written. – Uanfala (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In doing so, we also assume what those editors meant at the time. I thank you for those efforts, and we certainly need to be vigilant when it comes to mainspace, but some amount of decay in talk page archives, drafts, etc. is inevitable. I don't think it's a reasonable ask for closers. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Dash[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Multiple retargets. Each redirect has been retargeted to their respective article and section as described in full detail by Pamzeis. Tamzin and Sonic678 if you can both help me out and add links to the current targets I would greatly appreciate it. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony has had five different "generations" since it started in the 1980s. The fourth generation, which My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic was produced during, is likely the most well-known one, but it certainly isn't the only one that people might look for. Many of the names of characters from that show have been taken from ponies from older generations.

Rainbow Dash, Scootaloo, Sweetie Belle, Pinkie Pie, Rarity, and Cheerilee (Her name is misspelled in the redirect to the Friendship Is Magic page. The redirect where her name is spelled correctly goes to List of My Little Pony Earth ponies.) have all been major characters during the third generation, which ran from 2003 to 2010, before having their names reused for the fourth. Spike and Applejack have both appeared in media for the first generation, which was in the 1980s, as well as the third and fourth generations. Fluttershy, one of the main characters in Friendship Is Magic, first appeared during the third generation as a relatively minor character, but that doesn't mean that readers may not try to search for information on the older version.

Overall, I believe that it would be more helpful to the reader to retarget these to the appropriate all-generations character lists (List of My Little Pony characters#Dragons for Spike; List of My Little Pony Earth ponies for Cheerilee, Pinkie Pie, and Applejack; List of mainline My Little Pony ponies#Pegasus ponies for Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy, and Scootaloo; and List of mainline My Little Pony ponies#Unicorn ponies for Sweetie Belle and Rarity). Doing this would be beneficial to both a reader who was looking for information about the older versions of the ponies as well as to a reader who was unaware of the ponies' appearances in earlier generations because they could learn a bit about them from the list.

As for Baby Bouncy, she only ever appeared during the first generation, so targeting her to the Friendship Is Magic list is illogical. She should definitely go to List of mainline My Little Pony ponies#Pegasus ponies. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Pamzeis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Pamzeis. These targets are less likely to cause confusion. However, it would be preferable if some links could be added from the proposed target sections to the current targets. Also, the self-redirects should be removed if this is the outcome. (!voting mostly so I don't later feel obliged to close this... my condolences to whoever does.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the redirects Pamzeis' way (thanks for creating the anchors!), and add links to the current targets per Tazmin. I've created several "(My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic)" redirects for the characters who appear in Friendship Is Magic to be consistent with Spike (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic), which will hopefully help readers who're looking for these specific incarnations. The Friendship is Magic incarnations may be what first come to people's minds, but redirecting these general titles to that specific page might cause a bunch of WP:ASTONISHment and possibly reek of recentism. Regards, SONIC678 20:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Balkan football stadia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Restore & take to AfD. It's obvious that consensus is running to restore the articles and take to AfD, so I'm withdrawing the RfD and doing so. (non-admin closure) Ravenswing 11:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following a string of related RfDs and AfDs, where it was properly determined that a number of soccer stadium articles lacked reliable sources and should be redirected to the articles of the teams that played there, this was one of three articles redirect, and promptly reverted by an editor who maintains (contrary to WP:GEOFEAT, which holds the opposite) that these stadia are presumptively notable and that proper sourcing is not required. I'm seeking to affirm the redirect. Ravenswing 06:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The subject is notable. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. The user failed to do the BEFORE. Also replacing an article with a redirect should be taken to AfD. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As per WP:GEOFEAT, the definition of notability is that these stadiums must meet the GNG. They do not. The burden of proof is not on an editor who stipulates that reliable sources do not exist. It is on the editor who alleges that they do. Ravenswing 14:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As said, this is not the place to discuss GNG. If you believe the articles do not pass it, you should send them to AfD. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim that this isn't the proper venue to discuss the notability of a subject, you should not have based your opposition on notability. Ravenswing 11:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to article per WP:BLAR. If anyone believes this stadium is not notable then send the article to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and take to AFD, the proper venue for a discussion on notability. GiantSnowman 12:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects as is per WP:NOTBURO and WP:NRVE. Nothing prevents anyone from writing an acceptable article, if acceptable sources exist (not if one merely claims they exist - as proving a negative is nigh impossible, whereas proving acceptable sources exist should be trivial if they do). That was not the case for the pre-redirect article (a dubious hobbyist website which has anonymous authors?). As such, this was a proper application of WP:V (which is a different, and stricter, standard than WP:N). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I have merged the three near-identical nominations (which also had identical comments...). There's no reason one would expect different outcomes here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N, WP:V and WP:NRVE are all arguments relevant at AfD but irrelevant here. If you believe these articles should not exist take them to AfD, but they will not be deleted here. This is not pointless bureaucracy it is application of basic policy that articles which do not meet the speedy deletion criteria get deleted without being discussed at an appropriate venue. RfD is not an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was I suggesting deletion? Articles which have little useful content or which are based on poor sources, but have a plausible target, routinely get blanked and redirected, especially when they're particularly short, like here, and when they fail one of the fundamentals such as WP:V. As for the notability argument, that was to refute people who argue that this is "notable based on the existence of suitable sources" (an argument which, more importantly than not being relevant at RFD, has not a shred of supporting evidence, hence why I was citing NRVE). NOTBURO is also valid: nothing prevents you from doing the actual task of looking for acceptable sources and writing a proper article, but it's clear that the existing articles were not based on such sources, and there's no reason to go through process solely for the sake of process. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    'I haven't suggested deletion, for that matter; deletion's entirely inappropriate. RfD strikes me as the appropriate venue to discuss whether a redirect is appropriate or not. If it isn't, call it something else. Ravenswing 11:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not appropriate. Turning articles to redirects and sending them to RfD is basically gaming the system. And the pages should have been articles anyway, because that was the last stable version of the page. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. There's no formal requirement to go through AfD if an article has no reliable sources and there is an obvious redirect target. The WP:BURDEN is for those seeking the inclusion of content. If you have access to such reliable sources, then again A) it should be trivial for you to prove so and B) there is nothing preventing you from writing an article based on such sources. Returning to the pre-redirect versions, however, would be returning to versions which breach WP:V. If anything, even if you can twist guidelines in a way that seems to suggest this wasn't by-the-letter of them, Ravenswing should still be praised for correctly applying WP:IAR, i.e. "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it". Which was done quite correctly here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input." Sending it to RfD was wrong. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, both WP:BURDEN (The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material) and WP:IAR (keeping these as no-reliable-source stubs does not improve the encyclopedia) apply. You are the editor seeking to restore material, well then you're the one that needs to cite reliable sources. As simple as that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which, of course, you aren't going to do. Your pointy behavior and obstructionism would be less objectionable -- and your demand for more input from "football editors" more understandable -- if you were actually making productive edits. Which you aren't: you've made all of FIVE [3] constructive edits in articlespace to football articles in the last year. You are not at all invested in improving these articles; you just don't want anyone touching them. (And, frankly, I fail to see -- and you have failed to articulate -- what the difference is in a discussion here as to the appropriateness of a redirect as opposed to a discussion at AfD as to the appropriateness of a redirect. Surely you're not insinuating that the editors here are nincompoops incapable of making a reasoned judgment.) Ravenswing 13:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is irrelevant how many edits I made and where, so please stop with personal attacks and discreditation. And again, the appropriateness of this debate is AfD, because that is what the policies say. I did not make them up. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should go read WP:NOTBURO (specifically: A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.) instead of digging your heels in. If you don't address the principal issue here (which was that no reliable sources were present, and that the articles are so short that what little content there is is better put at the relevant targets), then you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own, since you're not going to convince anybody. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic conduct dispute. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(shrugs) You've attacked the number of soccer edits I make, and you've been free from the start of your filibustering in making personal and ad hominem attacks. WP:BOOMERANG. Ravenswing 05:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not attacked anything. And what you did is not a procerual mistake, but the wrong use of RfD altogether, trying to game the system. This is the place to discuss targets of redirects, while you want to change the articles into redirects, what has to be done for each article individually at some other place. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These stadiums appear to be relatively important football venues in Serbia. If you want to delete them, put them to AfD, where I think that I can prove their notability. Olos88 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing how the modus operandi seems to be throwing whatever WP:NOTNEWS coverage there is and hoping some of it sticks, that would definitively not be an improvement. This should be merged back to whichever targets are most relevant, and if additional, relevant content can be added there, and there is enough of it to warrant a split in the future, that can be considered. Keeping one sentence stubs out of pseudo-legalistic reasons about procedure is not an acceptable solution, however. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and take to AfD: This is not the correct venue to discuss whether an article should be redirected. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwerfjkl and Jay: I don't see what's gained by A) changing the "R" in "RfD" to an "A" (see WP:NOTBURO, as quoted above) or B) restoring (even temporarily) content which thoroughly fails WP:V and which will only allow more WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTSTATS schtick to be thrown upon it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If RfD were the same as AfD, then we wouldn't have them as separate processes. Jay (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore all. No comment summaries or talk page discussions on why the articles were converted to redirects. Converting them to redirects and bringing them to RfD to discuss verifiability is not proper. Jay (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem. This was not an attempt to "circumvent" anything, and your accusations are unfounded and uncivil. Quite aside from that there is obviously a lively discussion here, I had this quaint notion that Redirects For Discussion was a proper venue to have discussions about redirects, rather than filing at AfD when I neither sought -- nor believe to be appropriate -- deletion of these articles. Moreover, I'd have imagined that anyone seeking to learn my rationale for the redirects would -- astonishingly enough -- surf the links on the article to this discussion to find out. (Hey, look, I set it forth in the paragraph at the top!) Silly me. Ravenswing 13:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore all. There are users who think they can verify notability. There is no reason why we should not give them the opportunity to do so. Huggums537 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Variable-Response Research Aircraft[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 04:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term applied to one modified Ryan Navion aircraft, no mention of it in the target article. Redirect contained unreferenced article text up to 2008 when it was redirected. Term caused confusion at another article (see Talk:Aircraft flight control system). Request deletion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Classical supernova[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Classical supernova

37°C[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, while 37°C is a normal human body temperature, it is not synonymous with that topic. Deletion seems appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone proves me wrong that as a search term, body temperature is the only plausible meaning. Note that there are the similar, but more specific redirects 36.6, 98.6°F, and 98.6°. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the redirect in response to 98.6° and 98.6°F. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ambiguous. The article Human body temperature is easy to find if that's what the searcher really wants. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I've RfD'd the other redirects mentioned above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The human body is not the only thing that can be 37°C. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @Thryduulf, it may not be the only thing that can be 37°C, but it is definitely the most common. [4] ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - 37°C can refer to other things as well and it's not synonymous with human body temperature, but it does seem to be the most common. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 08:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, following CuriousGolden who said what I would have but with more concision. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the absence of demonstrated confusion and as the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of 37 degrees. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely primary over other topics. Even if it can have other meanings (e.g. the melting point of some element or compound), human body temperature is more important by far. HotdogPi 16:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the most plausible target. According to my search, 37°C is listed as the boiling point for some chemicals like Ethylmethylamine and Pentane but I think those are not what our readers' have in mind when they use the discussed redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barbarians (2021 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 04:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with a circular mention and 4 incoming links. Delete to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already several pages point to this, so there will be several red links in various places. Uncertain if the film meets WP:NOTE so perhaps we can retain for now since it's a helpful smidgeon of information. If the film eventually meets WP:NOTE then page creation (and deletion of this rather-poor redirect) will naturally follow. Chumpih. (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC). And some request for further guidance here.[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. @Chumpih: should not have created it: a disambiguation page is a list or articles that exist, not those that don't. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, can WP:AFD, and remove the line on the Disambig page. As mentioned, it's unlikely that the film meets WP:NOTE. How to treat? Do we go for several red links? Or remove the links and put a little information on each of the pages? Chumpih. (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC) And if you fancy offering your opinion here it would be welcomed.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as aparently non-notable. (However Shhhnotsoloud appears to be under the impression that DAB pages cannot have redlinks, which is not true. We just don't want things on them that are likely to remain redlinks forever.) In answer to Chumpih, I would advise "remove the links and put a little information on each of the pages"; we don't want to redlink things that are non-notable. That is, we do not want to encourage creation of bogus articles that have to go back to AfD again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of schools, colleges and universities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#List of schools, colleges and universities

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_20

Leave a Reply