Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 25, 2021.

Jonah (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Jonah (song)

Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation piece[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation piece

Universal ruler[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term for the current target, "universal ruler" is a term that is used in various physical sciences and design fields to refer to measuring-rulers with universal properties ([1], [2], [3]). Even in the context of rulers as in "those who rule", "universal ruler" has been used to refer to various leaders who ruled far less than the whole world (e.g. Henry_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Universal_ruler, Genghis Khan, Vikramaditya), and it is also a term that can have theological implications beyond world domination (e.g. Chakravarti (Sanskrit term)). In the absence of a suitable redirect target, I think that this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the extent that there are multiple possible meanings covered in the encyclopedia, disambiguate. BD2412 T 18:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except these terms are underdeveloped at their respective Wikipedia articles, they briefly mention "universal ruler" but otherwise do not provide much information about the phrase. In such a scenario, internal search results seems more helpful IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If there is no specific meaning with significant coverage on WP to point to, or set of such possible meanings to disambiguate, defer to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. A Search reveals 58 other mentions with no common article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would expect the phrase to be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia (Emperor? Universal monarchy? Sovereignty?), but it doesn't appear to be. In the absence of such content, I don't think it would make sense to create a dab page that just lists the various other terms (like Chakravartin or Gurkhan), that have sometimes been translated into English as "universal ruler". – Uanfala (talk) 19:27, 25 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.

Mercator projectoin[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 unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only redirect with this typo for "projection". This typo is handled well by the search engine; this redirect may make it marginally quicker for readers making the typo while searching for Mercator, but it makes it a lot harder for readers who make the typo while searching for all other projections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:37, 25 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:Chemical infobox[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! 00:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. Improbable variant name; incorrect variant name—the infobox is not (adjective) 'chemical'. Unused for a reason then, no need to keep non-intuitive name variants. DePiep (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quite reasonable alternative name for the template, given that it is an infobox used in articles about chemicals. Mdewman6 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the alternative name would be {{Infobox chemical}} (btw, that name is discussed elsewhere ie not available now). wrt 'reasonable', I wrote about in my OP. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how sockpuppetry is an argument in this. Anyway, as you wrote there: "infobox after the title". As noted, the title (or object) is not "chemical (adjective) infobox". iow, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And declaring this mistake as reasonable, would that apply to ~all infoboxes? -DePiep (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I recall correctly, I created that redirect because I typed Chemical infobox instead of Chembox at least twice when creating pages, then I got confused why the template wasn't working when previewing the page, so I made that redirect so that that substitution wouldn't mess anything up if I made that mistake again then forgot to preview the page. I therefore think that the substitution is reasonable. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The fact that it's unusued casts doubt on it being that helpful in practice, but it's plausible and unambiguous. To answer DePiep's question, I wouldn't have a problem with creating Foo infobox for every Infobox foo, although I don't think that that would be a good use of any editor's time. Furthermore, while OTHERSTUFF may nominally apply to all deletion discussions, both its wording and its common usage are largely about AfD. RfD frequently looks to past RfDs, existing redirects, and such to determine whether a redirect is appropriate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:36, 1 January 2022 (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.

Quad-Ominos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Quad-Ominos

ABC 4 Sioux Falls[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. Incorrectly created, this was moved to ABC 13 Sioux Falls one minute after creation. Jay (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this redirect's history, it appears to be created mistakenly. feminist (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a reference to the major channel number of satellite station KPRY at Pierre...but not a good one, either. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:49, 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.

Wikipedia:Ikipedia:Snuggle/IRC/2013-07-10/Broadcast message[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to keep that redirect, please remove it. Q28 (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlikely title that had been fixed within a minute. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1234qwer1234qwer4 (although the nomination statement provides no argument at all and this could have been closed as speedy keep per WP:SK#1). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:55, 26 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.

Fleet (Republic of Singapore Navy)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Fleet (Republic of Singapore Navy)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_25&oldid=1063278215"