Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2024.

England YYYY (Association football event) redirects

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11#England YYYY (Association football event) redirects

Sheinhardt Wig Company

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and tagged as {{R without mention}}. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For fans of the show, this redirect's connection is obvious as Sheinhardt is mentioned throughout the show; however, a fan of the show would also know to search for 30 Rock if looking for information on the show. For others though, this redirect targetting 30 Rock without mention could confuse people who are looking for information on Sheinhardt only to see that it redirects to 30 Rock without an explanation as to the connection between the two. It seems that at List of 30 Rock characters#C. C. there is an explanation of Sheinhardt, but it's an odd target and if the page is restructured, which seems to happen often on list of character pages, then it could be back to not being helpful. I think it might be best that this redirect is deleted. TartarTorte 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm actually doing a rewatch of the show right now and it's hard not to notice how often the name of the company is brought up. It's the fictional subsidiary of GE / parent company of NBC in 30 Rock. My gut says it's a useful redirect because I actually planned on looking up whether it was a real company or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, I've been rewatching the show as well, which is how I came across this redirect and nominated it because there was sadly no information about Sheinhardt. I almost think that there should be a page for things in 30 Rock that aren't characters but are notable elements of the show to have their own article. Maybe Fictional corporations in 30 Rock and there could also be a section on Kabletown? I'm not sure if that would end up being able to be notable enough to be its own article, but the 30 Rock article itself is too large to fit it into in my view, so I think an article like that could be helpful just for readability purposes. TartarTorte 14:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be mentioned at 30 Rock in some capacity, which would be enough to justify the redirect. It's not like the company isn't relevant to the show with just how much it's mentioned. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not very clear what resolution is being proposed here, considering the nominator seemed to have changed their opinion about what to do with the redirect after another participant commented???
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are supposed to get people to relevant content when they can't remember the "right" name. Also, deleting the redirect now, on the grounds that the article content hypothetically might be re-written in a way that doesn't mention this exact name is borrowing trouble from tomorrow. Even if it did, "not mentioned" technically isn't a reason to delete except when the un-mentioned name is "novel or very obscure". It gives the example of the title being translated into a language that has no connection to the subject matter – this would apply, e.g., if someone created a redirect for the Amharic language from 30 Rock to 30 ሮክ, but not in this case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seeing how participants are on the verge of adding content, and tag as {{R without mention}}. Jay 💬 12:02, 10 February 2024 (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).

New Year's Day earthquake

[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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of major earthquakes which happened on January 1, such as Galilee earthquake of 1837, 1996 Sulawesi earthquake, 1980 Azores Islands earthquake, and 2000 Kipawa earthquake. The redirect might cause confusion and should be deleted. Prefuture (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 T--C 04:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: As stated above. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the above. Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I mean, it's just a day? There's nothing significant about the fact that it's on a day of the year. It becomes incredibly inconvenient to maintain (every time an article is written on a January 1 earthquake, it needs to get added to the disambiguation page that people might not even know about). Earthquakes happen on New Year's Eve, Christmas and Valentine's Day too, but I wouldn't expect there to be pages dedicated to those topics, much less "January 2 earthquake", "January 3 earthquake", and etc. Then there's the other natural disasters, or even ANY recurring event that takes place on ANY random day. My stance is that there are no "New Year's Day earthquakes", just earthquakes that take place on January 1st, just as they take place on any other day in the calendar. I don't think this is a good dab-page precedent; search engines are built for these terms. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. Utopes' stance is a reasonable one for them to hold, but it's not one that is particularly relevant. What matters is that people, rightly or wrongly (and it is irrelevant to us which it is), do call an earthquake that happen on 1 January a "New Year's Day earthquake" and so that term is used to find articles on Wikipedia. They also do this with other named days, c.f. Good Friday earthquake, Boxing Day tsunami, etc. It is our job as Wikipedians to enable readers to find the content they are looking for as easily as possible when it is clear what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair as well, thank you for the links to parallel examples re:Good Friday earthquake and Boxing Day tsunami! I'm willing to retract my !vote in favor of a disambiguation at this title, as it seems that we do have other instances of disasters with the named date in front. Those look to be brought about by exceptional circumstances, and I can imagine this too being an exceptional circumstance as a major earthquake. Admittedly I'm somewhat worried about the implications that "as long as someone calls something [X], we must enable that term to find articles." because it justifies the existence of some nonsensical redirects for the sole reason that X people call something Y. People call things a lot of other things, but not all things need to be redirected. In any case, I can agree that disambiguation may be the safer play after all. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as primary target per Russell and hatnote if we have another page with other Jan 1 earthquakes. Jay 💬 08:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Disambiguate. The phrase is in use[1]. Several of the arguments here against are just odd, including one that amounts to an argument against disambiguation pages generally. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at consensus. Seems that "disambiguate" and "delete" are the front runners at this time. (Someone may want to consider drafting a disambiguation page.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (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).

Μa

[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. No prejudice against individual renominations, but this clearly became a WP:TRAINWRECK. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the optimal outcome for this title is, but this redirect doesn't seem to make any sense. For example, it could also be referring to something at wikt:ma, or anything at MA. I think it would be best to retarget it to MA or delete it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget μa, μb, μh, and μt to Ampere, Barn (unit), Henry (unit), and Tesla (unit) respectively; μS should continue to point to Siemens (unit). My reasoning is that sometimes unit symbols are capitalized incorrectly, and that these units are the only ones listed (on the letter disambiguation pages) for which base-10 unit submultiples smaller than deci- milli- are either mentioned in the articles as valid terms or appear to be in common use (e.g. see Decibel#Definition regarding microbel). Note that the current target of μS already mentions that the unit symbol for the second differs only in letter case. Also, μa should match μA rather than point to Angstrom or a disambiguation page, because that other unit's symbol differs in more than just capitalization. PleaseStand (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I looked at Hectare and Tonne again, and centiare and millitonne are in fact mentioned. Also, Bar (unit), which is not listed on the disambiguation page, lists b and mb as deprecated symbols. I still think, however, that since microare, microtonne, and microbar are not in common use, it is more likely that the unit symbol is incorrectly capitalized. PleaseStand (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at consensus, given that I'm not sure that a "no consensus" close will resolve this discussion due to the minimal support for a "keep" option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

μA -> ampere, μg -> gram, μJ -> joule, etc exist so I don't get why we shouldn't delete these either. JoshuaAuble (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PleaseStand, does a (the lowercase) really get used for amps? I thought that was always the uppercase letter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2024 (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).

Seed Money

[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 Seed money. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 06:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this as a redirect, but I don't know if this is the primary topic. Opening up for discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the generic meaning article Seed money talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Swale. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Seed money. I've added a hatnote there for the film, which is a good idea regardless of the outcome here. DIFFCAPS allows redirecting to the film, but does not require it, and the film is a relatively minor topic. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more consensus attempt...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2024 (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).

Sofía of Spain

[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. Jay 💬 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify - WP:NOPRIMARY. We should consider both pageviews and long-term significance. I would agree that Queen Sofía undoubtedly wins the latter factor, but she does not have consistently more pageviews than her granddaughter [3]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:54, 2 February 2024 (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).

Deep state in Russia

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#Deep state in Russia

Ultra short-term memory

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10#Ultra short-term memory

Webware

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10#Webware

UEFA Euro Azerbaijan-Denmark-England-Germany-Hungary-Italy-Netherlands-Romania-Russia-Scotland-Spain 2020; FIFA World Cup Argentina–Morocco–Paraguay–Portugal–Spain–Uruguay 2030

[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 💬 06:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term that does not aid in navigation. UEFA Euro 2020 is part of this title. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2024 (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).

2023 Belgorod incident

[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. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 16:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous and euphemistic. There were many other things that happened in Belgorod this year, I don't see this being useful to readers. HappyWith (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people are looking up stuff like 1942 Stalingrad incident or 2001 New York City incident to read articles. The redirect is not practical and we don't have the obligation of accommodating it if it is giving us problems. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that people are not using plausible search terms to read articles? Why is this redirect not practical? Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"2023 Belgorod incident" is not plausible. "2023 Belgorod incident" gives a grand total of 2 Google results, both related to Wikipedia. "incident" is an ambiguous word which I seriously doubt anyone will use to find a certain event unless it is popularly known under such word. Which is not the case of anything that has happened in Belgorod this year. We can't gift everything to readers, they will have to put a minimum effort into looking up the article they want to read. 2023 Belgorod event, 2023 happening in Belgorod, 2023 Belgorod occurrence would be just as useful and they really shouldn't exist. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous and problematic redirect. Just delete it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the page and it was initially titled that because I wanted to avoid calling it “strikes” or “shelling” because it was not confirmed if that was what it was at the time, because both Ukraine and Russia have blamed each other for it. So instead, I titled it “2023 Belgorod incident”, so that is the reason why it redirects to the current page. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at forming consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an {{r from move}}. Deleting it will make certain bits of article history harder to trace in the logs. It may only be a little harder, but it would be 100% unnecessarily harder. We should just leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: Are you suggesting that any {{r from move}} should not be deleted for the same reason, or did you see something particular about 2023 Belgorod incident? How is deletion making it harder to trace the history in the logs? If you are referring to the move / rename history, it's all captured in the target page's history as edit summaries. Jay 💬 06:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support deletion of some {{r from move}} redirects, such as (but not limited to) typos and capitalization differences.
    The reasons for deletion (e.g., "euphemistic" and "made up") are reasons to not have the page at that title any longer. They are not reasons to delete a redirect, break incoming links, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Made up" could indeed be a reason to delete a redirect (WP:R#D8). I agree that it is unwise to delete R from Move redirects that are externally linked and getting good page views. But what I was more interested was the .. certain bits of article history harder to trace in the logs. and I think you have acknowledged that this may not be a reason to keep. Jay 💬 06:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Disambiguate: Either delete it as too unspecific or disambiguate per voorts. Keeping the history is normally a good reason, but I don't see any important history that would make keeping it for that reason make sense here. Nobody (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2024 (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).

Peakin'

[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 Peaking. Opinions were split between retargeting and deleting, but since there was a clear consensus against the status quo, this should be the most productive outcome of this discussion. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not helpful to redirect to a target that has no mention of the subject in question. These redirects do imply that these songs charted, so they may be notable per WP:NSONG. Deletion to encourage article creation may be desirable. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Peaking is a disambiguation page and could be a plausible target (and the song could be a plausible entry on the dab as well). No opinion on most of the rest. Duckmather (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this unless there is evidence of Peakin' at the Beacon being referred to in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Peaking as a harmless alternative to deletion; other song/album possibilities can be added in the dab's See Also section if wanted, but totally optional and doesn't affect the decision (equating peaking and peakin', with the latter being a variation of the former). Utopes (talk / cont) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it extremely unlikely a user would search any of the topics on the disambiguation page this way; they'd almost certainly be looking for a topic we don't cover, presumably this song. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at forming consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2024 (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).

Genderphobia

[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 Anti-gender movement. I think two months is long enough to leave this open. Though the consensus was very mixed, there were clearly more editors in favor of retargeting or deleting (i.e. a change in the status quo) than there were editors !voting to keep. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A term not mentioned at the target page. Thinking about this title from a literal perspective, I would imagine that genderphobia would be a "fear of gender" / "phobia of gender" rather than anything necessarily trans related. It seems as if these are completely different topics. Even if the definition of a "phobia of gender-nonconforming individuals" is taken into account, it's still not a very useful redirect if its use or definition is never discussed at the page. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at forming consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2024 (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).

P:HVNY/DYK

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 15#P:HVNY/DYK

Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan

[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. Complex/Rational 02:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a previous title of Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes, which was redirected to the target at AfD in 2006. That redirect is of marginal utility, but this one is outright misleading: There are many metrics by which one can compare post-war Germany and post-war Japan, of which attitude toward war crimes is but one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd redirect... I don't think it has any value in keeping. There doesn't look to be any serious comparison of Germany and Japan at the War crime article. Moreover, you're right - war crimes are only one of the ways a "Germany vs Japan" comparison can be made.
Delete this redirect. If someone wants to make an article with an actual analysis of post-war Germany and Japan, they could do so - and maybe with a more encyclopedic name... PhotogenicScientist (talk) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the others. I could not find a suitable target. The Germany section of Aftermath of World War II does not have a comparison with Japan. The Japan section has: .. the de-industrialisation programme in Japan was implemented to a lesser degree than the one in Germany. Japan received emergency aid from GARIOA, as did Germany., which does not add up to a worthy comparison. Jay 💬 07:11, 9 February 2024 (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).

Bonus hole

[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. Opinions were far too varied for one to choose a single option. However, I am creating Draft:Bonus hole to assuage the participants' worries about ambiguity and disambiguation. Duckmather (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as repost, but Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_24#Bonus_hole says the previous target was Vagina so I declined. In any case, I believe this is ambiguous and it has not been shown to be a reasonably widely used way to refer to the yaoi hole concept. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: if it's ambiguous, why delete then? The item on wikt:bonus hole would solve your problem with this being polysemous. Also, why salt if only two creations were made? The discussions are 6 years distant. Please check WP:NOTCENSORED. No abuse happened with such redirects. --MikutoH talk! 22:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MikutoH: ... because in a situation where a term is ambiguous and there is no clear target for a primary topic, Search is a better way of finding results, and Search is hindered by a spurious redirect. There are 4 mentions of the adjective-noun "bonus hole" in enwiki: three are about a computer game and pinball, one is about transgender sexuality. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2024 (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).

Airport MRT station

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#Airport MRT station

Domain separation (cryptography)

[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! 09:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this redirect should be deleted. It is unnecessary and unlikely to be used, given that domain separation is not ambiguous. Evgeny Kapun (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The term is very generic. The most popular use AFAIK is in machine learning, see, for example, [6]. There is a gazillion other uses, see the search in Google Scholar: [7]. The NIST use of the term is actually fairly limited once the big world is considered. There is no reason to usurp the "domain crossing" for anything but a future disambiguation. Dimawik (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Dimawik. Domain is ambiguous and so is Domain separation (just search for "domain separation" within enwiki). Qualifying the term with cryptography disambiguates it. Jay 💬 07:43, 9 February 2024 (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).

Green Bay Packers first season

[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 retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons. No consensus between retargets, most conservative. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 02:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, the redirect may cause confusion because the term "Green Bay Packers first season" could mean their first season ever (1919 Green Bay Packers season) or their first season in the NFL (1921 Green Bay Packers season). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to List of Green Bay Packers seasons? Or to 1919 Green Bay Packers season?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 2 February 2024 (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/2024_February_2&oldid=1210229472"