Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2023.

FILE pointer[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 refine to C file input/output#Member types. Didn't bother to read the comments of one person in particular, but they seem mostly irrelevant, and out of the two still standing consensus is unanimous. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 06:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it makes more sense for this to target its current target, be retargeted to Pointer (computer programming), or be deleted. Either way, this redirect is not mentioned in the target article. I mean, FILE pointers in C usually represent input/output, but that's not specified or explained anywhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to C file input/output#FILE pointer (an anchor in the C file input/output#Member types section) per Randi Moth's clear explanation. I was unable to find this information previously since the exact phrase "FILE pointer" was no where at that location: I have fixed that issue by adding a mention of "FILE pointer" there. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel there's something unclear about the statement that stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"), then please take some time to consider whether you should be participating in, let alone initiating, the "discussion" part that's intrinsic to the "Redirects for discussion" process. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore button hit. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted my nomination strike out and struck this out per my edit being reverted to mention "FILE pointer" in the target page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out inaccurate statement made by myself. See comment below. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator comment) Delete per Dylnuge. The personal attacks and other editors' refusal to fix the current situation that can help the layman readers has resulted me defaulting to this position as the one that makes the most sense. In addition, the revert of my attempt to mention the redirect in the target article, specifically the revert's edit summary, makes me believe the subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, regardless of other editors' claims that it is mentioned ... considering the phrase "FILE pointer" is still nowhere in the target article, and all instances of my experience using C when using the "FILE" data type is as a pointer, such as the syntax FILE* variableName (with the asterisk representing a pointer, for those not familiar with the C language.) Anyways, my participation in this discussion is over since I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with ... people who think they run the place. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "when used as a pointer" part as redundant in the edit, rather than removing the mention of "FILE pointer" in entirety. A mention still exists in the article, and it's a very plausible search term even if this exact name wasn't mentioned. Randi Moth TalkContribs 07:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randi Moth: My apologies regarding my previous comment as it wasn't accurate. I did not see that your edit retained a mention of "FILE pointer"; I probably did not notice it due to my emotional state when I saw your edit. Thanks for pointing this out! At this point, I'm back to refine to C file input/output#FILE pointer. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term "file pointer" is generic and describes related concepts in a number of different languages and OS APIs. FILE in all caps makes it more likely to refer specifically to C or C++ but it still could be ambiguous and the term doesn't appear in the article itself (where it's called a handle instead of a pointer), I lean towards getting rid of it. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what happened here to cause this to blow up and I didn't feel strongly enough to spend time sorting it out. It's a redirect, they're WP:CHEAP, and the target doesn't strike me as controversial. It's also barely ever hit. Keep it, delete it, change the target, whatever. I'm out. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests. C file input/output is the article that readers land when passing through the fopen redirect, so FILE pointer should lead them there, too. The suggestion to retarget to Pointer (computer programming) is so strange that I wonder how it even seemed like a good idea. This new refrain "not mentioned in the target article" that I've seen pop up several times in the last month or two is so obnoxious and has undergirded so many poorly reasoned deletion requests that I guess we're going to need to put a new guideline in Wikipedia namespace telling people to knock it off with starting RFDs on this basis. In this instance, it's hardly even true; stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"). This request could have only arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith, and please avoid personal attacks as I am not a bot. That, and it shouldn't take someone having to write like a paragraph of information not in the article to validate why a redirect exists. The target article should make it clear to those not familiar with the subject material why they were redirected to the article in the first place. Redirects are meant to help our readers, not throw them into obscurity trying to figure out where in the heck the information they are looking for is in the article. In addition, as another editor and I have pointed out, the redirect could be considered ambiguous due to having multiple potential existing article targets. (Oh and one last thing: "Please stop wasting contributor time with these spurious and poorly reasoned deletion requests." You know, you chose to participate ... you didn't have to.) Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a personal attack to say that a naively implemented bot could have created this RFD.
      • In that vein, please do not (perversely) cite the Wikipedia:AGF page while simultaneously implying that I am operating in bad faith.
    • You have, for reasons unknown, repeated for the second time that the subject is not in the article. This is not true; it is in the article, as has already been stated.
      • It's not true now, and it wasn't true at the time that the RFD was made.
    • Observing that that someone has written a thorough response to a bad RFD and implying that their doing so is an argument that the RFD makes sense, in a word, baffling. This is "throw the witch in the water to see if she floats"-level reasoning (only it's worse than that, even; it's "let's say we'll throw the witch in the water to see if anyone comes around to say that we shouldn't or tries to stop us").
    • Proposing that the redirect be deleted is certain to be more harmful to readers and cannot be squared with a subsequent contradictory plea not to "throw them into obscurity"; should the redirect disappear, that will be a strictly worse outcome in the event that they come across the subject, so opening an RFD on that basis defies logic.
    • To approach another dead horse (because you insist on it): both handle (computing) and Pointer (computer programming) are generic concepts, whereas the subject of this redirect, "FILE pointer", is both common parlance and specific to the C ecosystem, and redirecting *away* from a more specific article where the subject is actually covered to a generic one where it is not is a bad idea.
      • If you are going to make a show of trying to appear to respond to the argument against your RFD, please actually respond to the argument that is being made, rather than just restating or referring back to the original bad suggestion without further elaboration. It was bad then and it's still bad now. Try, you know, elaborating if there is an actual basis for the suggestion that will hold up under scrutiny.
      • As before, opening an RFD on the ostensible basis that the subject does not appear in the target article while suggesting that the redirect point to some other article (NB: where actually is true that the subject does not appear), again defies logic.
    • You are wasting contributor time—by prompting responses to RFDs with untrue premises and obstinately restating them even after having had it pointed out that they're untrue. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, my WP:TLDR limit was severely lowered after the personal attack and unnecessary defensiveness ... so I just read the last part and skimmed through some of it ... and it seems you don't understand how community discussion works since editors literally have to spend time responding to anything. Also, it doesn't seem like you really absorbed what I relayed in my nomination statement, considering that I literally presented other subjects which this redirect could refer to and thus I apparently responded to some, if not all, of your concerns before you brought them up (which makes me think you didn't accurately comprehend my initial statement, considering concerns/questions usually come before their resolutions/answers, not the other way around) ... thus I see no further reason to continue this conversation since I don't find it productive. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and the subject was not in the article since it wasn't mentioned in the article by name. I resolved that ... after a different editor explained it clearer than you did. May want to suggest a resolution next time rather than figuratively continue to pour fuel on a figurative dumpster fire. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "The person who opened this RFD lacks the attention span to read five sentences that directly address the claims they made in the RFD." That's a sentence. It doesn't include the verbatim character sequence "Steel1943" anywhere. Does that mean it's fair to say that the subject is not Steel1943?
      Ignoring that, I can't agree with you that Wikipedia readers following a link to FILE pointer and end up in an article that mentions "A pointer to a FILE" multiple times and then immediately defines the FILE struct are so hopeless as to be unable to connect the dots well enough to see what's going on — and even if they were, it still wouldn't make the proposal to delete the redirect (rather just editing the article to use the wording that you insist on instead) a good one.
      I'll repeat: this process has been a monumental waste of time. Please do not create any more RFDs like this. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...Then find some other way to integrate the phrase "FILE pointer" into the article since apparently you are some expert or something ... which is literally all you had to do. At least I tried to fix the problem I identified, whereas you just seem to continue attempting your darndest to valid the current situation though it has already been pointed out to you why the situation is problematic. You are treating Wikipedia as some sort of Fandom page for the C language, which Wikipedia is not ... Wikipedia is the place where it is best to provide clear information in the articles they read, and not make it confusing or unclear at all why redirects target where they target. Also, this is the first time I've seen you on RFD, and I've been active here for over a decade, so get off your pedestal and stop acting like you have decades of experience on RFD or something. Seriously, back off and go back to whatever editing niche you came from. (And nice red herring about my user name; I laughed for a good 10 seconds trying to comprehend how that statement could have been so ridiculous ... then I remembered who said it ... the person who fails to recognize when they speak personal attacks and keeps speaking them.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Right. Changing the target article to say "FILE pointer" was all you had to do. Instead you opened an RFD to delete it, resulting in, as I said, a monumental waste of contributor time. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The burden of validating why a redirect exists falls on its creator, not editors who didn't create it. Which means ... the fact that you didn't fix the issue yourself caused the very "monumental waste of time" that you've been complaining about. Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "The issue" was never articulated. You didn't say, "I am looking for the exact word sequence "FILE pointer", and right now it cannot be found". You said you wanted to delete the redirect. And even if you had said that, then it still wouldn't have been a good idea to open an RFD on that basis. That's a misuse of RFDs. Adding a subst template notice to a couple pages to open an RFD is cheap and easy. Actually having the RFD process is expensive. It's no exaggeration to say that it's probably 100x more expensive than either making the edit, or (for reasons that still wouldn't make sense, but would at least be less costly) opening up a discussion on the talk page to see if someone else ends up editing those words in (or proposes to have them edited in).
      And in the case of an RFD that proposes deletion, it is potentially destructive.
      This is not a good use of RFDs. This is not a good use of contributor time. It is extremely wasteful. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To reiterate: please do not open an RFD like this again. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ""The issue" was never articulated. You didn't say, "I am looking for the exact word sequence "FILE pointer", and right now it cannot be found"." Huh??? I literally stated in my nomination statement that the phrase "FILE pointer" was not in the article, so ... I guess now you are just grasping for straws, false as they may be, to continue this argument. Anyways, thanks for validating my statement about you causing the waste of time you are referring to: The RFD was created due to a situation you should have fixed ... I repeat, the RFD was in response to an issue you had the burden to fix since the burden of validating a redirect's existence is on its creator. Take responsibility for your actions, drop the stick, and unless you can say something productive that is not laced in either false accusations or personal attacks, find something more useful to do. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Re I literally stated in my nomination statement that the phrase "FILE pointer" was not in the article: no, you literally didn't. It's trivial to verify this.
      You've also completely sidestepped the issue that even if it were true, that would still not be an appropriate basis for using the RFD process to try to address it (especially with the proposed remedy of deletion) — rather than taking advantage of the multiple other far more appropriate mechanisms for getting that change made.
      Again: please do not initiate an RFD like this in the future. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I said "Either way, this redirect is not mentioned in the target article" in my nomination statement ... which is literally me saying that the phrase "FILE pointer" was not mentioned in the target article at the time I made this nomination. Regarding the rest, the RFD process is for addressing issues regarding redirects when they are found when the nominator cannot figure out how to fix them, and a resolution for the redirect comes from the RFD discussion and consensus formed from the discussion ... not from the redirect's creator attempting to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I see your motte-and-bailey attempt (i.e. equivocating) and observe that, being obvious on its face, it doesn't merit a response. -- C. A. Russell (talk) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's actually more like ... you have been proven wrong based on evidence, you keep standing by your evidentially erroneous stance, and are now trying to ... for some reason ... continue making accusations and rustle feathers. In discussions such as these, consensus is not dictated by ones who yells (figuratively) the loudest, commands others the strongest, or says the most; I had to learn such lessons over the years after some trial and error. I don't think you have realized such matters yet; I suggest you consider taking such matters to heart since you and everyone you interact with on here will benefit from it. Anyways, take care. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to C file input/output#Member types – While the exact name isn't used, FILE pointers are indeed mentioned and discussed in the article, and so the redirect would be helpful to a person searching for the topic. Since the FILE type is defined as being a pointer in the article, this shouldn't cause confusion to a reader. Not redirecting to the generic pointer article is fine as WP:DIFFCAPS, unless FILE with that capitalisation is used elsewhere. Randi Moth TalkContribs 20:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it wouldn't cause confusion since the phrase "FILE pointer" was not mentioned there (can't expect everyone to make that association) ... but that does seem to be the best target, so I added a mention of "FILE pointer" there, as well as made an anchor out of it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...And since that was reverted, never mind on that jazz. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Striking out my inaccurate statement, and restoring my accurate one. Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:PUFFERY[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6#Wikipedia:PUFFERY

Crab (Kirby)[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 23:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Wish I could bundle RfD nominations. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: You can manually merge them into a single nomination after doing all of them by copy and pasting them into the first one's section and deleting the others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy everything contained within the bullet point on your subsequent nominations and paste them below your first nomination's bullet point as additional nominations, then delete the other sections/rationales. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I don't think they even deserve a mention at the target considering how cruft it already is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Absolute (philosophy)[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 article. Unanimous consensus to restore the article to its former state and proceed from there, including from the original editor who redirected it. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 'absolute' in philosophy is not simply Hegel's definition. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The redirect having a history is irrelevant.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, as an editor of the Hegel page with doctoral-level expertise, I can confirm, for whatever it's worth, that this account of absolute spirit is very much specific to Hegel's philosophy. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article Its bold redirection was clearly too controversial to proceed. It should be subject to a real merge or deletion discussion or remain as-is. RfD should not be an end run around having an actual AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ --Lenticel (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article - I looked at the version that was quietly pseudo-deleted, and I don't see how [6] is unworkable. The editor that converted the article to a redirect did so with the comment "Applying WP:TNT to a WP:FRINGE article full of esoteric interpretations and WP:SYNTH, it probably doesn't even need to be a separate article but if it did it should proceed from some actual understanding of Hegel. Redirecting to the relevant part of Hegel's page for now." But the article is pretty heavily cited to books with supporting quotes, so I can't see how that's synth. It established a definition of the term, again, with sourcing, so I really can't see how this needs WP:TNT. The article, at a 10,000 foot glance, looks like it is accurately describing something that some people believe, and it has been sourced by publications with editorial oversight, so it looks like this meets the notability guidelines. I'm going to ping @Carchasm: to explain his reasoning because I don't see it. Fieari (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that the attempt made by the article to draw similarities between Indian philosophy and Hegel was poorly justified and not a result of the citations, hence my citing of WP:SYNTH, as I do not believe that the cited sources justify these two being the same concept. My general 10,000 foot glance at an article that describes a philosophical concept that was introduced by a western philosopher and yet only has Indian philosophical examples is that something has gone very wrong. I think is the article is restored it should be rewritten to make the focus on Hegel more clear and not put WP:UNDUE weight on rather dubious work in comparative philosophy. - car chasm (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it should be rewritten to make the focus on Hegel more clear: but Hegel did not invent the concept of 'absolute' in philosophy, nor is Hegel's vision of the absolute the orthodox one in philosophy. Veverve (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concede that now and I admit my initial redirect was an error, but I see even less of a case for deletion? If this is a concept that's not specific to Hegel and there's meaningful things to say about many other thinkers, that's even more reason to keep the article! Perhaps WP:STUBIFY would be more appropriate if you feel that undue weight is put on Hegel in the current article? Or, if you think the coverage in the Catholic encyclopedia article you linked is decent and covers more relevant material, you can copy and paste that into the article to supplement, it's from 1907 so it's in the public domain. But overall it sounds from your arguments that you also think that there should be a standalone article? So the purpose of this deletion proposal is unclear. - car chasm (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also to be clear im not sure if the catholic encyclopedia article is actually good or not, but the fact that there's a whole article there seems like a good demonstration of WP:GNG to me - car chasm (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - if people want to revert my WP:BOLD edit, I don't plan to push back on it, but regardless I think the page history should stay and the redirect makes sense because unlike what was claimed in the nomination, this is an idea that's specific to Hegel, and this could be a WP:SPINOUT from the Hegel page if necessary. - car chasm (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks to be quite bad, but the term is not specific to Hegel. It first occurs in the work of Nicholas of Cusa, and Hegel's usage is a response to that of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling.[1] Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, and I'll defer to your expertise on this :). - car chasm (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! If the article is restored, as seems to be the developing consensus, anyone who wants to use the Inwood source I cite above, which supports the whole sentence, or anything from the Hegel page is, of course, welcome to do so. Copleston is generally a good source, but anyone attempting to summarize all of Western philosophy is bound to make mistakes, as he appears to have done in this instance. I don't know where Schelling picked up the term, but in his lifetime and Hegel's "absolute idealism" was much more associated with the former than with the latter.
The Christian material should probably be its own section, even if there are overlaps.
One could also consult with the OED. We're dealing with a term, after all, that has meant different things to different thinkers.
As to spinning something out from the Hegel page, @Carchasm, I think this should take the form of developing the pages on his philosophies of art, religion, and science of logic, which are the three modes of absolute knowing. On Hegel's position, there simply isn't much to say about the absolute as such. By definition, it is just whatever is not conditioned by anything outside of itself. For Hegel, only the active self-knowing of spirit fits this criterion, and it attains actually only in the three domains I list, apart from which there is little to say.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Inwood, Michael. (1992) A Hegel Dictionary. p. 27
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

World Sustainable Development Forum (WSDF)[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 23:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two redirects were created by page moves from implausible format errors. Their names have the format of parenthetical disambiguation, while their target has no ambiguity. The last redirect was created from an implausible misnomer and is not mentioned in target. Besides, the creator is a recently banned sockpuppet. All of these redirects should be deleted, although I'm not sure if some of them meet a criteria for speedy deletion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Additionally, there is a separate organization called "World Sustainable Development Forum," so the last redirect is harmful (see [7]). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

FE17[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 💬 10:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: too vague. Veverve (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See above. No objections to making it a disambiguation page if something else could believably be referred to as that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague for it to be useful. CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CycloneYoris: If you are not aware, it refers to the fact that Engage is Fire Emblem 17. The Fire Emblem series is very commonly referred to by gamers as "FE" and just as commonly spoken of by number despite not actually being a numbered series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Yes, I'm already aware of that. But still it's too confusing in my opinion. At least Fire Emblem 17 is more specific, and that's the reason why it was kept. CycloneYoris talk! 20:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CycloneYoris: I'm not sure how it's confusing, as there are no other obvious things "FE17" might refer to. If there are, I would recommend a disambiguation page, but I can't see any that come to mind. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's a clear explanation and no competing uses. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep – there's a competing use at Hino Ranger, but it's probably sufficiently minor. J947 † edits 09:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's ambiguous but not enough so for a dab (compare FE2 and FE8, which have no clear primary topic and as such are dabs), a hatnote could be placed at the target. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem to even be major enough for a hatnote. We're talking about a single model number of an antique truck from the 80s. I Googled "FE17" and didn't find anything of the sort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Ytel[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 speedy keep. The nominator was blocked and all substantive comments support the keep. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ytel is a completely different company than the newtel this redirects to. This is Ytel- https://www.ytel.com/ Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 01:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_27&oldid=1153771208"