Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 19, 2022.

Fifre[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 01:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French and Italian WP:RLOTE; can't find a particular connection with the target. eviolite (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is to redirect Fifre to The Fifer, a painting called Le Fifre in its native French. eviolite (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 19 March 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.

Cyclus (geometry)[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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused here. I can't find any instances of the term "cyclus" being used in geometry in any language, at least from Google Books and other sources. There's this etymological dictionary that indicates a circle or the revolution of a celestial object, which is I guess is similar to "turn" but seems really obscure/archaic and is likely more astronomy-related than geometry. There's also this, which uses it in a German quote that seems to mean something like "the [cycle] of my work in the field of analytical geometry is complete", not related to angles at all. Of note is that the dab page Cyclus does not mention this either, nor does the Turn (angle) article in all of the languages I checked. eviolite (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The term "cyclus" does seem to be used for something related to angles at https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/536 but that's only one publication and the meaning appears to be somewhat different. I don't think that single usage justifies this redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most probably this is nothing new to you, but since it hasn't been mentioned yet, cyclus is Latin for cycle. At least in Europe, Latin was the lingua franca of sciences, including mathematics, therefore Latin terms are often of historical relevance in many science contexts even if they are not widely used any more. I weakly remember that I have seen this term being used to describe the equivalent of a full angle in an old book, but unfortunately don't remember which book it was exactly. However, it is a reasonable redirect, abbreviations cyc. or cyl. (although today derived from cycle) are in the article. So, for as long as it isn't confused with another topic or is in the way of another article, keep per WP:RKEEP #3 #5 #6. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I completely fail to see how this is the case. After its creation, and before this RfD, the redirect only had 20 views. There have been no proven examples at all of "cyclus" being used, even in Latin texts, to mean "turn"; "weakly remember"ing something in one book certainly doesn't pass WP:V. Given the lack of verification and attestation, and given the complete lack of evidence, the redirect (and the assertion that cyc and cyl were once derived from cyclus with nothing backing it up) should be considered complete WP:OR. Indeed, the redirect would only confuse readers who find it in the use David Eppstein mentioned, 2π divided by the number of teeth of the gaterotor. eviolite (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 19 March 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.

Gayest[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) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 04:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think a superlative should be a redirect to an adjective. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 16:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonAQuest: It's not a common search term. The daily average redirects from this is 0. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question; it's an unrelated argument. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most redirects get <0 pageviews per day. Some valid redirects get <0 per year. This one, however, got 137 last year, so a bit more than 1 every 3 days. That's definitely a useful redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, redirect is getting a non-trivial amount of traffic. The term is also relatively common, I think it makes sense to redirect to Gay as Gayest by itself would not warrant an article. Bonoahx (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite precedents like this one, I believe redirects like this aren't helpful. There are limits to how many of the conceivable forms of a headword we can realistically strive to create redirects for, and I'd rather we drew the line before superlatives (-est) or adverbial forms (-ly): with a few exceptions like Coldest or Tallest, we don't normally have such redirects (these are all red: Nicest, Prettiest, Heaviest, Creepiest, Most boring...). One problem specifically with this sort of superlative redirects is that they're unlikely to lead readers to what they want: if someone has made the effort to specifically type out the longer, less common, form, then chances are they aren't looking for the same thing that they could have easily reached by the shorter and more obvious route. If they type "hottest", for example, they're likely interested in finding out about entities with the highest value of the property (hottest things in the Universe? hottest places on Earth?....) rather than an article about the property itself (in this case, Temperature). – Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 19 March 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.

Fruiting Shrubs[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 00:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit is not exclusive to shrubs, and Shrub is not exclusive to fruiting types, leaving this redirect essentially an unsolvable WP:XY situation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 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.

Pod types[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 to Pod. MBisanz talk 01:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pod is a disambiguation page, and righteously so. Having this redirect target the current target is misleading best. (However, I would not recommend retargeting to the disambiguation page since the redirect is not a title match or variation for the disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pod. I agree with the nom that we generally should not have "Foo types" redirects to dab pages at "Foo", but there was an article at this page for ~2 years from 2007-2009, so feel like it should be kept somewhere. At least anyone searching for information about types of pods will be brought to the right place. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 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.

Queen of Controversy[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 00:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Also, third party search engines looking of this term provide results for various subjects such as Kangana Ranaut and Anne Boleyn, but none for the current topic. For this reason, the association between the target article's subject and the redirect doesn't seem strong enough to pigeonhole readers into being redirected to the redirect's current target, and it would best serve readers to have Wikipedia's search results handle any searches for this term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague at best as several people can be labelled as this according to Google --Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 22 March 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.

Madonna's controversies[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 00:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a section or specific place in this article which these titles could refer. For this reason, readers may search up these titles expecting to be forwarded to some direct section/article regarding the subject of these redirects only to be forced to skim through the target sticks to figure out anything about the various mentions of "controversy" in the article. (Also, the redirect Madonna's controversies was previously an article that was redirected as a result of an WP:AFD in 2008.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP rule 1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate, or otherwise, this comment has no context. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Never mind, I get it now, and I disagree with that stance per my nomination statement, and since the previous article's content was apparently redirected and not merged into the target article after the AFD concluded. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a misleading redirect, as the article has no controversy section (which is good), and it would be inaccurate to say that the whole article is about Madonna's controversies. Someone following this redirect from a search suggestion or similar will likely not find what they are looking for. As to Presidentman's point, I don't see any indication that this was merged, so we're not required to preserve the authorship (even if we were, we could move the redirect to a talk subpage, or, per WP:NOTBLAME, just copy the list of contributors to the target's talkpage). And the usual concern about deleting a redirect with content in its history isn't applicable when there was already consensus at AfD against keeping that material. So delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:41, 19 March 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.

High Princess (Stache)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#High Princess (Stache)

The Numismatic fund of the History of Azerbaijan[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 delete. ✗plicit 00:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page existed at this incomplete title for 3 days before being moved to Numismatic Fund of the Museum of History of Azerbaijan (and it should probably be moved again to match parent National Museum of History of Azerbaijan). Not a likely search term. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:16, 19 March 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.

Viața studențească[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 00:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects translate to "student life", which is too broad of a subject to redirect to a locality. I also can't seem to figure out why they were created. There were no mentions in the article at the time these were created. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 19 March 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.

Timeline of Giurtelecu Șimleului history[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 00:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are a bit misleading because there is not a timeline of Giurtelecu Şimleului at the target. There used to be a timeline in the way-too-detailed article on the settlement, but that article was rightly redirected. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No longer a helpful redirect as the info was removed. eviolite (talk) 03:13, 20 March 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.

Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation

Les Dossiers Blair Witch[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. Jay (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no special affinity between the target and French. signed, Rosguill talk 15:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, specifically under the WP:RLOTE provision Direct translations where the native/original form of the title is in English (or a language other than the language of the redirect's title). eviolite (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 22 March 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.

Bigamy (in Civil Law)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Bigamy (in Civil Law)

Altgrad[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 no consensus. The mention shifts the result from delete to no consensus, but I hesitated to call this a full keep due to continued opposition of the term's inclusion in the target article and/or the term's status as an RLOTE. -- Tavix (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Bogengrad below: unnecessary WP:RLOTE from German. eviolite (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I could agree with the nominator's rationale if this would be a redirect from an "average" foreign language word. However, it is the name of a measurement unit, and therefore it is important to be accurate and to help keeping specific terms in sync regardless of language. A straight-forward literal translation of the term would result in "old grade" and therefore would not be helpful to find the relevant info. This redirect is helpful to reliably forward people running into this term in the (older) scientific and mathematical literature to the relevant contents in our encylopedia. WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As additional explanation for those who do not have the international perspective:
    Altgrad is a (meanwhile almost historical) term used for what is otherwise just called Grad in Germany (but degré in France), typically firming under the label "DEG" on electronic calculators. It was introduced to distinguish it from the Neugrad (grade nouveau), which is meanwhile also called gon and grad in English (and grade in France), designated as "GRAD" or "GRD" on calculators. As you can see, the seemingly simple term [G/g]rad, even if narrowing the scope of use to angular units only (so we rule out °C, °F, °DIN and many other uses), is highly ambiguous to an international audience and can mean completely different things in different contexts. On top of this, the literal translation of Altgrad would result in "old grade", not degree. Therefore, it is important to be specific and to make it as difficult as possible for users to confuse the units when they run into them in the (older) literature.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think, the redirect is helpful to anyone of our international audience capable of reading German scientific or mathematical literature. People, who are multilingual, read books for the information in them regardless of language and place of publication, and in the case of historical works they have no choice but to read them in their original language, anyway. They probably don't have problems reading the formulas, but might have problems to understand the prose. As an international encyclopedia for anyone, it is our duty to make information as easily and reliably accessible to anyone as possible. That's why it is important that they find the correct information about degrees when they enter Altgrad into our search engine. We can't and shouldn't do this for any average word, but I consider it important to do it in this case because it is the very purpose of measurement units to be understood globally (that's why many of the modern units (although not this older one) have identical or at least very similar names in different languages, sometimes even codified in the standards or specifications definining them).
    In regard to WP:RLOTE, I consider this case to be on a middle ground between what is appropriate and what is not, so it is up for us to decide. The question we have to ask is if the redirect can be helpful at least to some users, or not. I found it useful and not to be in the way of any potentially to be created article. Also, its existence cannot cause any kind of confusion, there are no "false friends" in other languages. Since WP:RLOTE is only an explanatory supplement, not a guideline, I consider our guideline WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 to have priority here.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...TLDR to the max, like usual. But either way, I read the first sentence, and RLOTE recommends the opposite of why you cited it for the reason I stated. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fail to see why a measurement unit has some special status that makes it different from other foreign-language redirects. I see 99 GHits in English for this term (filtering out some about an auto parts store), most of which are either dictionaries or not actually in English. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to see a reason" might not be the strongest of arguments if other editors do see enough reason to create the redirect, but it's definitely on a middle ground per WP:RLOTE. The reason why I lean towards Keeping is because I see the redirect's usefulness in reducing the risk of causing confusion among the many different types of "grades" and "degrees" as measurement units. For me, measurement units stand somewhat out of average words like "flower" (for which we certainly do not need a redirect from the German translation "Blume") because of their very purpose to enable reliable comparison and reproduction, anywhere and at any time. This requires that they are universally understood, or at least not be mixed up. And redirecting some older (in this case common foreign language) terms to the corresponding modern English terms can help in this endeavour. Our article has a number of prominent examples what can go wrong if units are mixed up.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to see a reason" was my polite way to say "You haven't given a good reason". You're just saying that units of measurement are particularly important, but the same could be said of many other things. Languages themselves are very important in international communication; shall we have redirects for every language's term for every other language? Furthermore, this redirect won't help avoid any measurement-confusion-based disasters, since it doesn't actually tell readers what an altgrad is. It just lets them know that it is a term in some way related to degrees, without telling them what that relation is. If a reader wants to use a Wikimedia site to find out what altgrad means, they can consult wikt:altgrad. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    shall we have redirects for every language's term for every other language? Of course not. You are exaggerating. Having a few selected redirects from foreign language terms where they are helpful or important for one reason or another (and not harmful in other ways like being "false friends" or hindering the creation of other articles) doesn't mean we should have them for anything under the sun. As I said, it's on a middle ground and it is up to us to make a case-by-case decision. I see the usefulness of the redirect because to me the names of measurement units are not "average words".
    Furthermore, this redirect won't help avoid any measurement-confusion-based disasters, since it doesn't actually tell readers what an altgrad is I have meanwhile added a paragraph providing some historical background, specifically mentioning the term Altgrad.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to keep now that the term is mentioned. However, I continue to reject the notion that there is anything special about units of measurement that exempts them from normal RLOTE treatment. For basically any RLOTE you could dream up a comparable argument, often a more convincing one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reconsideration, I appreciate it.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps to determine consensus/close this discussion, I note that since it is mentioned now I am okay with the redirect (but I can't withdraw the nomination because Steel1943 also voted delete). eviolite (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping. I'm sticking by my "delete" stance because after reviewing where in the article this term is mentioned, I'm not convinced that it should remain in the article since I'm both not convinced that it is essentially a loan word in English, and I almost feel as though it's inclusion in the article was essentially a way to say "hey, it's mentioned in the article now, so keep it" without considering how useful or reasonable it is to put the term in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 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.

Bogengrad[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 01:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German translation with no mention or justification in article; delete per WP:RLOTE. eviolite (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I could agree with the nominator's rationale if this would be a redirect from an "average" foreign language word. However, it is the name of a measurement unit, and therefore it is important to be accurate and to help keeping specific terms in sync regardless of language. A straight-forward literal translation of the term would result in "bow grade" and therefore would not be helpful to find the relevant info. This redirect is helpful to reliably forward people running into this term in the (older) scientific and mathematical literature to the relevant contents in our encylopedia. WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fail to see why a measurement unit has some special status that makes it different from other foreign-language redirects. I see 71 GHits in English for this term, most of which are either dictionaries or not actually in English. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:00, 19 March 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.

Electric Universe (physics)[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 no consensus. The underlying concern of a lack of mention has been resolved; the question of the connection between "Electric Universe" and "Plasma cosmology" less so. -- Tavix (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

There is no mention at all of "Electric Universe" at the target article "Plasma Cosmology".

Discussion at the Talk page of the target article also suggested that there is no direct link. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is probably more accurate to say that discussion on the target talk page suggested that there was no link verifiable by reliable sources, but it amounts to much the same thing. If we can't source a linkage between the subjects, we can't discuss it. And if we can't discuss it, we shouldn't leave readers wondering why the redirect exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The redirect was created when Electric Universe was deleted in 2007. There are very few reliable sources for either EU or Plasma Cosmology, and both are very WP:FRINGE. Evidence that the redirect should exist: the plasma cosmology people say they're the same (not a reliable source, except that the people who still care about this idea claim they're related), and a one-liner from Forbes (noting their "absurd conflict with observations" in an article about various alternatives to the big bang). What we don't want is the redirect replaced with an actual article: that would be a much worse outcome. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or rename to Electric Universe (pseudoscience). From all I was able to find on this, this term refers to one or even several plasma cosmology "theories", which are all esotheric and outside of normal science. However, as an encyclopedia we have a duty to remain neutral on this and just document what is, not "is" in the meaning of that it is scientifically backed up (which it is not), but in the sense that the term exists and is used by (some) people out there - and the fact that the term is in use in certain circles (since apparently the 1960s) can be easily checked using Google. According to one book cover, it is a variant of plasma cosmology, so a redirect flagged with {{R to related}} appears to be appropriate. My point is, we are not doing our readers a service when we do not have an entry for this term at all as people might run into it in the net or elsewhere and expect to find more on it in Wikipedia, and the minimum service we can do is to direct them to the most closely related content we have. Ideally, the term should be briefly mentioned in the target article, but this is not a requirement for redirects to exist, they just need to be helpful. Even if all we can or want to say about the topic is that it is esotheric and pseudoscience related to plasma cosmology, we are already doing our readers an important service instead of passing the opportunity to educate them and leave them clueless about it at all. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We only have to "remain neutral" within the bounds of reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources we could use? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The target article (Plasma Cosmology) currently lacks any mention of the incoming redirect from E.U. Any 'keep' needs to be accompanied by a proposal to write, cite and maintain something at the target article that acknowledges and explains why E.U. is redirected to it. What is the proposal for E.U. text at the target article? Without that, wouldn't the redirect be inconsistent? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Feline Hymnic. Veverve (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have added a one-sentence mention of EU to the PC article, with a link to the Forbes article, since that's probably the only reliable source we can link to. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good enough solution. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORBESCON is not a reliable source, but fortunately I found this through RationalWiki, and have switched the citation to that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 12:51, 28 March 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.

TERF-related redirects[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 target all to TERF. There is a clear consensus against keeping the status quo of these redirects pointing to different targets. There is rough consensus for pointing all these towards TERF rather than Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Supporters of TERF mention that these expanded terms are almost exclusively associated with the acronym "TERF" and hence targeting the TERF article would not be surprising to readers, and that there is no non-neutral title for this topic between "TERF" used by critics and "gender critical" used by proponents. Supporters of Feminist views suggest that readers who search for the expanded term are more likely to be looking at the concept referred to by the acronym rather than an article about the acronym itself. Further discussion on content distribution between the two proposed targets should take place on article talk pages. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC) (closure revised at 07:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC) per request on my talk page)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These terms are very similar and often used in virtually same context, but they currently point to different redirect targets. It might be fine to unify the redirect target of these terms, but I am not sure which target is better in this case. C933103 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the arguments made in the past, I guess the question is, does the phrase "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" (or any variant thereof) have a significantly different meaning than the acronym "TERF"? On the one hand, the article TERF is about the acronym itself, not the concept. On the other hand, the phrase "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is rarely used as anything other than an expansion of that acronym (actual GHit count: 147). Indeed, most people who object to the term "TERF" also object to the term "trans-excusionary radical feminist", as they tend to see themselves as protecting cis women rather than excluding trans women. So this isn't a case of a redirect for a neutral term going to an article on criticism of that concept. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is a decidedly non-neutral term, almost exclusively associated with the word "TERF", and thus I think we should synchronize at TERF. The only remaining objection I see is that "TERF" is sometimes used to describe people who are not actually radical feminists (not meant in a No true Scotsman way, like, people who are not and do not claim to be), but I'm not sure the expanded forms are immunte to that either. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that, I find the term "trans[-]exclusive radical feminist[/ists/ism]" being a bit more commonly used than "trans[-]exclusionary radical feminist[/ists/ism]", but they currently have no redirect links. C933103 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have only tagged Trans-exclusionary radical feminism so is that the only redirect you are proposing be changed? Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism except for TERFism. It seems to me that if people are searching or linking to the full term, they would want the article that discusses the ideology, not just the term itself. "TERFism" can stay at TERF as that one explains the meaning of the acronym. Crossroads -talk- 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an ideology called "trans-exclusionary radical feminism"? Or is that a term only used in the same contexts as "TERF" is, to describe an ideology (or set of ideologies) whose adherents usually reject that label? In the latter case, it's generally better to "cover the controversy", i.e. redirect to an article that covers a term's usage rather than what it's used to refer to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think (and this is hearsay so I might be wrong) that the term TERF was invented by people who called themselves TERFs and then it gained a negative connotation and they stopped using it. casualdejekyll 01:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article on the matter says that it was "popularized" by a trans-inclusive radical feminist, but doesn't say where it originates. Either way, my point stands that neither "TERF" nor its expanded forms are labels people tend to self-assign (although there are of course exceptions). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I support @Crossroads. "Gender critical" and its variations redirect to that sections of "Feminist views on transgender topics" and so should "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" and its variations. AndyGordon (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to TERF, since this is literally what "TERF" stands for, and there is a hatnote (and wikilink) to the other candidate article. Keep it simple. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This highlights once again why we need a dedicated article that discusses trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) in its entirety, both the ideology, the reception of the ideology, and the terminology. Having the material on the ideology in one article (where it only constitutes a smaller part of the topic) and the terminology in another article is a hopeless situation. Some readers may be interested in reading about the ideology itself and the reception of it, some may be interested in the terminology, but most are probably interested in both. Other Wikipedia language editions seem to include both ideology and terminology in the same article. This would be the simple, sensible solution. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an English-language acronym and phrase, so I wouldn't necessarily put too much stock in what other language Wikipedias have done. And there are prominent wikilinks from one article to the other. The "feminist views" title is nice and neutral, and the acronym TERF is independently notable. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to TERF. This is a sticky situation both in real life and on the project, as there's no neutral description of the ideology labeled TERF or gender critical. I think targeting the acronym these all share is the least astonishing option. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is currently split 3-2 between TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism, with well-reasoned arguments on both sides.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target all to TERF, then expand TERF per Amanda A. Brant so that a single article contains both the usage of the terminology, and the ideological information about those to whom it applies. The sub-section in Feminist views on transgender topics should then be turned into stub pointing at TERF, as the Feminist views article is quite clearly about all feminist views on transgender topics, and not specifically those belonging to trans exclusionary feminists. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to TERF, which is what all of these term variations are discussing. If the article in question doesn't cover enough of the background, then that's a content issue for improvement, but not a reason to redirect to some other article. SilverserenC 23:04, 21 March 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.

No color[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 to Colourless with a {{redirect}} hatnote to the album. There is a clear consensus against maintaining the current target. There is no consensus between three options: disambiguate at the No color title, retarget to Colourless, and retarget to No Color.
Either of the first two options would result in the search term "No color" leading to a disambiguation page. However, advocates of retargetting to Colourless point out that this option negates the need to create and maintain a separate disambiguation page, a point that is not refuted by those in favor of creating a new disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 05:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "No color" is an alternative name for "Black and white", and not a very popular search term. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to No Color I guess, assuming it's referring to printers but too broad a term. Bonoahx (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to colourless. Jay (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever you want I don't care I was a moron back in 2007 who didn't know what the hell he was doing. I made a lot of pointless redirects with no thought put into them at all and it wouldn't surprise me if this was one of them. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page to other aforementioned articles/pages. C933103 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to No Color. There's no need for a disambiguation page here: put {{distinguish}} at No Color. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus against the status quo, but no consensus on which target or whether to disambiguate this title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:19, 19 March 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.

Myall Creek[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 no consensus. Neither thing suggested here is really RfD's jurisdiction. A request to move Myall Creek, New South Wales to this title should go through RM. And as a matter of policy you don't need RfD's permission to turn a redirect into a DAB, and if someone wants to, they can; but as that would likely be controversial, it would be better to create Myall Creek (disambiguation) and start an RM. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to disambiguate or move Myall Creek, New South Wales here or redirect to Myall Creek, New South Wales. The 2014 RFD seemed correct to target the massacre but since then an article about the town has been created. The town article can probbaly serve as a WP:DABCONCEPT in respect to the massacre as its linked prominently. Given Dalby, Queensland and the streams in Queensland it may be better to disambiguate, see ceb:Myall Creek if the streams are notable. There are links at Quinalow, Barnard River and Queensland Women's Historical Association for the stream(s). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the primary topic. I don't see any of the other uses rivalling the massacre. I do appreciate there are more uses that have developed since the 2014 RfD, and would welcome a disambiguation listing them at Myall Creek (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 02:00, 19 March 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.

Diuranium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Diuranium

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_19&oldid=1080869051"