Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 30, 2023.

Ground invasion of Gaza[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 Invasion of Gaza where it is disambiguated. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this might equally point to 2023 Israeli ground offensive in the Gaza Strip (or whatever the page winds up being called; there's an open move request). Regardless, I think it would be better to turn this redirect into a dab page, as there doesn't appear to be a single primary topic any longer that this term would refer to. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Lauren Boobert[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 IAR. We're not doing this for a week for a BLP. Star Mississippi 00:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New redirect, potentially offensive, given that target is a female politician. Relatively unlikely misspelling. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Microbial methylation[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 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or repurpose as disambiguation -- newly created redirect which is confusing; there are many different forms of microbial methylation (eg DNA methylation but there must be many many others) and it is confusing to link to just one. A disambiguation would be possible but would take an expert to compile. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, at the time it made sense to me JayCubby wants you to check out his vIsUaLlY aPpEaLiNg uSeRpAgE. cHeCk It oUt! iF yOu aRe BoRiNg, cLiCk (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC) 22:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disambiguation is inappropriate, as methylation carried out by microbes is a WP:BROAD concept referring many types of methyltransfer that do not share names. It might be OK to target this to Methylation#In biology, as that could be the best place to split off such a broad-concept article. Though at the moment it is not a perfect match as it does not place any emphasis on methylations carried out by microbes (and I would argue does not help understand the concept; splitting by the function methylation plays or by substrate is more helpful). I favour deletion to allow for easier searching. ― Synpath 00:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Desperation Move[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 8#Desperation Move

Haunted Mansion (upcoming 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Released film, redirect has virtually no page views. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination should have waited a week or two as it's unclear from the page views (the only reliable measure we have) at the moment whether it is still useful or not, but it's not worth my energy to fight the deletionism exhibited above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Historic Palestine[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 Palestine. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a good redirect, or would Palestine (region) or Mandatory Palestine be better? GnocchiFan (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

From the River to the Sea (album)[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 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Album is not mentioned at target; delete GnocchiFan (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

The Little Mermaid (upcoming 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per WP:UFILM. Film released months ago, and the redirect has next-to-no page view noise. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is premature, but not by a lot, as the page views are decreasing but haven't ended yet - it's still getting hits on more days than it isn't, which is definitely not "noise". Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The current page view average of less than 2 views/day is virtual nothing. Getting 0/day is like a baby step away. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Virtually nothing" is averaging on the order of less than 2 views a week. 0/day may or may not be a baby step away, but unless that step is made deletion is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM, the film was released more than 30 days ago. -- Tavix (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please actually read UFILM. It doesn't say it should be deleted after 30 days, it says it shouldn't be deleted before 30 days because that allows the page views to taper off. The purpose of this is so that we aren't harming the encyclopaedia by making it hard for people to find the content they are looking for - we cannot do this if we delete the redirect before the views actually have tapered off. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'll recall, I supported using a pageview metric until you refused to define what you considered significant page views, after which I struck that suggestion in favor of a 30-day grace period which is what was adopted. They were two separate suggestions. You are somehow reading an 'and' where there isn't. The "allow pageviews to taper off" clause is simply an explanation of why there is a 30-day grace period rather than deleting immediately after release. -- Tavix (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I refused to do was use a threshold number to represent a subjective situation. The reason for the grace period is because you refused to accept that when the utility of redirects end is subjective, so instituted an objective lower bound. We have to look at the reason why we allow page views to taper off - to allow people still using the redirect to find the content they are looking for. When the page views have not tapered off after 30 days we would be be harming the project in exactly the same way by deleting then as if we deleted after 3 days. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are more than welcome to have that opinion regarding page views, but that is simply your opinion. Your opinion is not the wording of WP:UFILM, nor is that the consensus that was agreed to in the aforementioned discussion. To illustrate, I am of the opinion that as soon as a film is released, the redirect becomes misleading and should be deleted (regardless of pageviews). However, per the consensus agreed to, I am not forcing my opinion that any redirect post-release should be deleted and instead only advocating for deletion once the 30-day grace period agreed to has expired. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM and result of discussions such as Special:Permalink/1104998108#Target subjects no longer "upcoming". ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Pan Shusi[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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Apparently is the name of someone who was executed. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A mention was added to the article in July by redirect creator (Duan Zuolin) and removed without explanation on 30 September by Min968. There is presently no mention of anyone with this name on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added it back to target. Duan Zuolin's addition was sourced, it is unclear why it was reverted. Jay 💬 15:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Thayamma(Serial)[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely search term, especially as it is missing a space and with weird disambiguator ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Jewish religious violence[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 Judaism and violence. ✗plicit 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am ambivalent about this title as a redirect because religious violence can mean something as minor as a shoving match in the street, and does not automatically equate with terrorism. I think that there must be a better solution for this title. BD2412 T 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the closure of this discussion is likely controversial, I’d like to see additional comments from users other then the nominator alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Aata Houn Jau Dya[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6#Aata Houn Jau Dya

Officer-involved shooting[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) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this point to the Lists of killings by law enforcement officers (to which Police killing redirects) or to Copaganda (which has a paragraph condemning the wording), or perhaps to another relevant page, such as Deadly force? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep current target for now. The term is rare enough in non-journalistic speech/writing that anyone searching/linking it is probably looking for content discussing the euphemism itself, not the subject it describes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) edited 18:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current redirect does not indicate a neutral point of view. Copaganda is about police abuses. An officer-involved shooting may occur for many different reasons. "Officer-involved shooting" is a neutral term and should point to a neutral explanation of the term. I agree that "Deadly force" would be a better target and comply with Wikipedia's policies. Comfr (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is deliberately "neutral" (abstract, passive, blameless), but various sources, including journalistic style guides consider it jargon intended to obfuscate police actions (Vice: a careful construction which ... tends to point blame away from cops, HuffPost: copaganda language; AP Stylebook: "Cliches, jargon ... Avoid the term"; others: [1][2][3]), a significant viewpoint under WP:NPOV.
The Copaganda article is currently about all forms of pro-police PR, particularly in news, so pointing to the section about the phrase seems acceptable and supported by sources, at least under WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:NPOVNAME. Neutrality issues in the article text itself aren't relevant to this RfD (although should be fixed). Currently no article on Wikipedia provides a neutral explanation of the term (WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and someone looking for the concept of Deadly force is unlikely to arrive here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy, I think the point is that having a redirect that essentially says "This bland phrase is a bunch of sordid propaganda foisted on you by the prison–industrial complex and the marketing departments of self-serving American law enforcement agencies" is itself non-neutral.
Additionally, I believe that people searching for this term aren't really looking for an explanation of the linguistics. I believe they're looking for information about reality (i.e., cops shooting people and objects) and not about people's opinions on the words alone.
BTW, if you're interested in Copaganda, about a quarter of the people that view that page click a link to another article. I believe that's a little higher than average, which could suggest that more people than usual arriving at that page aren't really wanting to be there. (It could also suggest that the page contains links to a large number of interesting-sounding other pages. The numbers alone aren't proof.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually think the target article has issues, but I don't think that's something that removing this redirect would go towards improving. I am a little curious about the navigation statistics of the page though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Deadly force per Comfr. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (at current target). Much of the discussion in RS seems to focus on its use as an euphemism, so content pointing out its use as an euphemism seems an appropriate target. Democrat and Chronicle, CJR, etc. It's possible that there is sufficient content available that this be spun out into a standalone article, and I'm not sure copaganda is the common name of the topic of the target article, but I'd agree with RoxySaunders that these proposals would be out of scope here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, because it is not a euphemism for police misconduct. Comfr (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Officer involved shooting" appears in the San Francisco Police Department training manual, and it includes such things as accidental discharges, holstered discharges, shooting animals, and shooting inanimate objects. Comfr (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alpha3031. The question isn't how police training manuals use the term it's how RS use the term. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The term is also used in police reports issued by most police departments, and by law enforcement agencies. The press gets the term from there, and that is how the press reports it. It is not a euphemism for police misconduct, but for any time an officer's gun goes off. The redirect should not take the reader to an article about police misconduct. Comfr (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Heteronomity[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 but I have added a hatnote to the current target to avoid potential confusion. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing 5 of the letters, to the point where I would not call this a plausible typo of the current target. If anything, I'd think this is a closer fit to Heteronomy, to which this title has two EXTRA letters, although the addition of the "it" between the m and the y makes this also a stretch for that title as well. I'd suggest deletion as while it might sound like a normal word, I feel it's a bit too far off to be plausible, and unclear what exactly is the intended target.

Google searching this typo "Includes results for Heteronomy". Utopes (talk / cont) 04:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Instead of speculation, let's look at the evidence. In my searches, 100% of the results used the term is a synonym of "heteronormitivity", and I see no evidence that it's a typo rather it's an intentional word choice. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We may be getting different results, because out of the 13 results on the first page, for me it hovered around 11/13 to 13/13 results about "heteronomy" exclusively, with the other 0-2 about heteronormativity. As for it being an intentional word choice, it cannot be in my eyes, as the word "heteronormativity" hinges on hetero normalization. The key functionary being "norm", which is misspelled as "nom" in the current redirect, and the suffix is over-condensed beyond that point. "Heteronormity" is likely more arguable, which doesn't exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Heteronomity" if it means anything doesn't mean the same thing as "Heteronormativity", and the term is mentioned nowhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Spelling notwithstanding, since "heteronormative" exists a number, likely a significant number, will look for "heteronormity". I'll bet that some will look for "heteronormaty". It's a likely entry point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google indicates that this is a misspelling that occurs from time to time, which is all we need. I even spot one hetreronomity. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Heteronomy as an alternate name, or Delete as WP:XY. Searching "Heteronomity" -wiki (and Google Scholar), I'm seeing results mainly referring to heteronomy, including in these, two papers, among others. It may be a misspelling there, but it's used in many scholarly sources, rather than the social media and occasional other use (the newspaper Tamzin provides is the only one of its type I'm seeing) the other gets. A hatnote is probably warranted if kept, whichever way. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the confusion between people's search results comes from the fact that most search results, when you don't search in quotation marks, are for heteronormativity. Once quotation marks are added, it becomes less clear and leans towards heteronomy. I would lean more towards deletion now on those grounds now, though I prefer a retarget to Heteronomy over keeping (and a hatnote should be added, no matter the target). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Heteronomy. There are not many examples of "heteronomity" but most that I found appear from context to refer to heteronomy. That target is also much closer to the spelling heteronomity, which makes it a less likely word to enter in the search bar for someone looking for heteronormativity. Sjö (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, heteronomity is definitely being used as a synonym for heteronormativity from what I found online. --(Roundish ✡t) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Christ-Catholics[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 Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland. Jay 💬 05:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This refers to the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland, which is mentioned in the infobox at least. Keep or retarget there. —Kusma (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retargetting would be better. Veverve (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "Christ" and "Catholics" are mentioned at the target article, so depending on the circumstances I don't think this would be that surprising for readers to end up at a page talking about Christ and Catholics by typing "Christ-Catholics". There may be a better alternative target which Kusma suggests. If this topic refers to an excessive amount of things beyond the two at hand, I would agree with deletion, but this title appears to have a manageable scope so I don't think this would be the case. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Catholic Church page also mentions "Christ" and "Catholic". So does Eastern Orthodox Church. And so do probably many Christian denminations (see Catholic (term)). Veverve (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget A German-language source[4] for Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland refers to Die Christkatholische Kirche der Schweiz and to christkatholischen, suggesting that article would be a reasonable target and even likely to be the article the reader wants. NebY (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Stack (computer science)[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 Stack#Computing. Jay 💬 05:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should redirect to Stack#Computing as there is both the articles Stack (abstract data type) and Stack-based memory allocation. I personally don't think either are the primary topic, in fact, maybe they could be merged. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change There's a pretty good chance that a non-expert just searching for "stack (computer science)" is actually looking for either a specific instance/application of the data type (e.g. call stack), or for the largely unrelated sense of "abstraction layer architecture" (e.g. protocol stack), so they should be sent directly to the full list of relevant possibilities on the dab page. Hqb (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Notintendedtobeafactualstatement[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 14:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without any spaces this is an unlikely search term that serves no navigational purpose. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D43:2887:B701:6DAA (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: While I don't know how likely it is for people to come across the Colbert Report reference from years back, as Colbert used it as a hashtag #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement makes the mash of all the words together not-completely implausible. Having said that, given that it's been 9 years since the show has been on, it's less likely each day that someone would come across this. TartarTorte 02:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TartarTorte Was the hashtag routinely lowercased? If used primarily in CamelCase as you did then this variant is still a bit unlikely, if routinely lowercased it is at least minimally plausible, and I can withdraw this and tag with Template:R from hashtag. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5061:9429:6E95:1C04 (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure if it was consistently lowercased since many news sources use the camel-cased variant. However, considering people often don't capitalize any letters in a hashtag, and given the lack of other potential targets for this redirect, it seems plausible to me that it should be kept. Having said that, please don't withdraw if you're not convinced by my argument. I do agree that, if kept, it should be tagged with {{R from hashtag}} as you suggest. TartarTorte 04:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, lets just wait on some additional input for now. Most of these are CamelCased, but per Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from hashtag a few are not, even if the first lowercased example was a bit controversial. Actually the entire concept is a bit controversial. Judging by that list, this is also the longest R from hashtag, and redirects consisting of a long string of smooshed together words are rare in general.
    Which is really just a long way of saying I still lean delete, if only rather weakly. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:8EA:6D7C:5D6D:B33 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is clearly necessary... Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The version without spaces is too contrived to be used. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, but the capitalized version (matching the hashtag) may be created if desired. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this redirect has had 44 hits in the last 3 years, 37 of those since this nom... - Darker Dreams (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement considering the intention of creating the redirect was for the hashtag. Jay 💬 05:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence would show that capitalization would render more views, it has 2 in the last year from outside this discussion. Yoblyblob (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely, but a capitalized and hashtagged version would be acceptable. --(Roundish ✡t) 23:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't think it's a sufficiently likely search term for a redirect. A search for the capitalised version will already find the redirect so changing the capitalisation wouldn't make any difference to the view count. Hut 8.5 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Anime Vegas[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned at its target. It was redirected as the result of WP:Articles for deletion/Anime Vegas (December 2022) – the close mentioned RFD as a potential follow-up – and its row was removed soon after. List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions reads "These are notable conventions", indicating that standalone articles are required. Its entries are all blue links, and my spot-checks confirmed that they are articles.

Searching "Anime Vegas" returns five articles: its current target; three people who attended/appeared/performed at it; and Cure (magazine), which arranged one of the performances. All are passing mentions, and none is an appropriate target. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

PING (PNG)[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. ✗plicit 14:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use anywhere, not standard Wikipedia use of parentheses, and "PING" is in fact not an alternative to "PNG". Dan Bloch (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per the first sentence of the target, "PNG" is officially pronounced "ping", which explains the connection. It's not the search term I would use to find the content, but I can see why some other people might so I'd definitely be recommending a keep for Ping (PNG) and the all-caps version is cheap but I can't find uses of it in that capitalisation (but it's very difficult to search for the capitalisation of a pronunciation, especially when all the search engines are case insensitive). Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this does seem to be getting an unexpected amount of page views. About 12 per month Yoblyblob (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was getting page views because until a few days ago it was linked from Ping (disambiguation). That entry has been replaced by the much better "PNG, a graphics format officially pronounced 'ping'". I don't expect it to get any further views. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect it to get any further views. is WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to bet money on this if you don't believe it. I'll even give you odds. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think CRYSTAL really applies here SWinxy (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why doesn't CRYSTAL, which is about unverifiable speculation, apply to this unverifiable speculation? Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of iraq I mean ukraine[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! 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Unlikely search term ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

When the president does it, its not illegal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6#When the president does it, its not illegal

Tjabbe[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 💬 05:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no connection to the subject was found. "Tjabbe" also appears to be a Swedish translation of the word "crap" so this could be a WP:NPOV vio. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard of him being referred to by such a nickname. Keivan.fTalk 01:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Tjabo, Tjabo is what he was called, a long time ago. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a nickname for him. Sjö (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches yield no connection between the two Yoblyblob (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Willem IX Alexander, Prince of Orange[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 💬 05:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused title and WP:OR. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Current head of state of Netherlands[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6#Current head of state of Netherlands

Willem IV[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Name speculated to be used, but never actually was. Also per my rationale at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 12#William IV of the Netherlands. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_30&oldid=1184684146"