Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 13, 2024.

EasyEnglish[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21#EasyEnglish

Le stay inside man[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 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> browsing wikipedia instead of having a life
> le funny shitpost greentext redirects have arrived
> chuckle to self
> realize that they're inevitably gonna get RFD'd and deleted at some point
> cry inside
> idea
> send them out in style befitting the shitposty nature of them
> smile
> remember that it's all meaningless and won't change the outcome anyway
> continue to cry inside whilst bemoaning my lack of a life

Anyway I suggest we delete these. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le deletion as per nom. No sense in keeping an ancient, no-longer-relevant meme redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pwn - delete as unnecessary meme redirect with 0 views in the last 90 days
StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:35, 14 March 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).

Controversy over study buddies for international students in China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21#Controversy over study buddies for international students in China

St. Stephen's International School[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. As an R from former name. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 23:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen's School Rome is not known as "St. Stephen's International School". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:05, 13 March 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).

Contemporary capitalism[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 new participation despite multiple relists. However, there was no support for the status quo, hence retargeting to History of capitalism as the next best target. Jay 💬 15:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is mentioned in the target article at Capitalism#Modernity, but not in a way that will probably satisfy anyone looking up at this phrase to locate a definition for this redirect. The phrasing of the redirect hints some sort of WP:REDYES potential. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to History of capitalism which has the most relevant information. In theory, you could write an article on "contemporary capitalism." But how would that be any different from the sections of the suggested retarget which discuss our present era? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:02, 13 March 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).

"Job creator(s)" and "Job creation"[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. Participation was limited to two editors only. There was opinion that Job creator and creators should point to the same target, and there was no support for the current target of Capitalism. Hence, targeting Job creators to Employment as a compromise. Jay 💬 16:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unclear what the target of these redirects should be. Honestly, I'm surprised that their target is not Company, though I guess an Economy could, in theory, create jobs as well. Hmm, even a Government can create jobs... Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The first two should definitely lead to the same page, I can see arguments both ways for the third. Company is not that target - government departments, charities, universities, museums, armed forces, etc can all create jobs as well as companies. Capitalism is also wrong as other economic systems can also result in the creation of jobs (e.g. the Civil service of the People's Republic of China has created many jobs). Unemployment#Remedies is the wrong target for job creator(s) and not wrong per se for job creation (but I have just refined Job creation scheme to point there rather than the top of that article) but it reflects only one use of the term. I'm not sure about employment as a target, it's a better fit for job creation than job creator(s) I think, but not perfect. More thinking required. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can find reliable sources that define idiomatic uses of the term, and we find somewhere to target the redirects. For "job creator(s)", I'd be fine with soft redirects to "job creator" and "job creators", respectively. Paradoctor (talk) 14:05, 14 March 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).

Contract labor[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. There was no support for the nomination's proposed target of Employment contract. A refining of the current target, as well as disambiguation were also proposed. Jay 💬 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subjects of these redirects probably refer to work done on a contract basis, I do not believe the current target or its section Employment#Independent contractor to be the best target for these redirects. From what I found, the best fit for these redirects is probably retarget to Employment contract. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, weak delete if there is no consensus to move away from the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:58, 13 March 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).

2,6-Dinitrotoluene[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 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Redirect is circular when starting from target dab page; arguably squatting on article namespace and certainly matches RFD category 10. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 21:06, 13 March 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).

Power of Two[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Power of Two

List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24#List of "Cops/COPS/C.O.P.S." episodes

Finnster[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 earlier target. WP:NOTBURO self-close; resolved amicably below. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally targeted this to F1NN5TER. Wbm1058 has retargeted with the argument redirect to the more likely misspelling – only one extra letter is there, no digits. I would agree with that if this were an arbitrary typo, but, as established in the prose of the article itself, this is a known misspelling of the subject's screen name—not borne of fat fingers, but people deliberately converting the leetspeak canonical name to regular characters—even occurring in marginally reliable sources like Game Rant. If you search Twitter for finnster you'll see the misspelling is ubiquitous, with F1NN5TER being the subject of an outright majority of tweets containing the string. Googling the string—even Incognito, on public wifi, with before:2024—the clear majority of hits I get are about F1NN5TER; the handful of exceptions are about non-notable animals and a one-off SNL character who had no lines. On the other hand, none of the articles about people named Finster reference this misspelling. Based on all this, I think F1NN5TER is the clear primary topic for the misspelling, and the least astonishing approach for our readers would be to redirect to his article with hatnote to Finster. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 13:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you're making the argument that this is a commonly-used alternative spelling. If it were truly a misspelling, you would not find sources commonly using it. Just tag it as an alternative spelling, and done. We don't put misspellings in hatnotes; that communicates to readers that the term is a valid alternative spelling rather than a misspelling. Misspellings should be corrected, i.e. the misspelling in the hatnote should be corrected to be the correct spelling – but since that's the title of the article, then a hatnote isn't needed at all. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your argument that "we don't put misspellings in hatnotes". Where does it say that anywhere? Per WP:HATNOTERULES we use hatnotes any time a notable topic X is commonly referred to as "Foo", but the article "Foo" is not about X. There's nothing in there about whether "Foo" is a misspelling or an alternative spelling—which in many cases is an artificial distinction. Here, I don't think it can be called an alternative spelling, because the correct spelling of a screen name can only be established by the person it refers to. And, on Twitter at least, the only time F1NN5TER has ever used this spelling is to complain about people searching for it more than his actual screen name.
Alternatively, if this is really all about rcats, just remove the rcat entirely. There's no policy or guideline requirement to categorize redirects. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to remove the {{r from misspelling}} that will keep it from populating my patrols as a problem demanding to be fixed. I suppose indicating that it's an {{r from other spelling}} is optional. Somehow these individuals using "leet" names manage to bypass the MOS:TM rules we impose on big corporations for similar "cuteness" they might use for their product names. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this might be an actual misspelling if the name was pronounced F – One – N – N – Five – T – E – R (as an initialism), but it's not, is it? It's actually pronounced the way it's "misspelled", isn't it? wbm1058 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: So are you good with removing the cat and reverting? If so I'll close this. I do have thoughts about the other things you've said, but I don't want to waste either of our time if there's an easy compromise in sight. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Tamzin is right. F1NN5TER is a better target in the short term (and a hatnote should be added). The surname very likely has more long term significance, but that's not all that important when we have articles about memes and social media influencers. Kk.urban (talk) 16:24, 13 March 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).

Jonathan Medina[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 23:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from an an actor who doesn't have a page to a random tennis player Heyallkatehere (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or covert to DAB page. Google search shows results for this as an alternate name for the tennis player. Actor, footballer and an athlete all link to page, so could also convert to disambiguation page. Jevansen (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because of ambiguity with an actor, athlete and footballer. May be hatnoted if we have at least one new article, and disambiguated when we have at least two. Jay 💬 06:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the ambiguitiy. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:26, 20 March 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).

Draft:Skånska Socialdemokratiska Partiet[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 23:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus draft redirect. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was a draft article in Swedish about the same topic as the target page so WP:DRAFT seems to apply. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was a draft that was tagged for speedy deletion that I turned into a redirect because I thought it might be a possible search term. I also wasn't positive about the status of the content as a hoax and this was my solution because it preserved the content that could be reviewed later by an editor with a deeper knowledge of the subject matter. I have no investment in this redirect but you might notify the draft creator if that hasn't been done yet. They aren't very active but they did edit in February. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A google search turns up with nothing, and there is no party or branch of the Swedish social democrats with this name. It quite frankly does not exist! The name also does not indicate any supposed affiliation with FI, but with the social democrats. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 13 March 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).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda/Overview of results[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda/Overview of results

Ownership of articles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Ownership of articles

South Central region[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) Utopes (talk / cont) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this an implausible search term per se, but there are zero incoming links, 0 pageviews in the last 30 days, and this was created in November. Unneeded redirect. asilvering (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:18, 13 March 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).

Wikipedia:SURVEY[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 Wikipedia:Survey. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 01:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point this to WP:SUBSTANTIATE, somewhere less mildewy, because I always forget it's "SUBSTANTIATE", and keep wanting "most scholars" or "survey". Remsense诉 17:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Survey. Although all the incoming links relate to the current target, it's unlikely that this is what most people using the shortcut are searching for these days. While I think WP:SUBSTANTIATE is even less likely, it would be possible to add it to the list. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh，I mean—if this is a me thing, then I happily retract/ I thought it might be a useful redirect for others as well. Remsense诉 19:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the one hand, Where else links to Wikipedia:Survey 2008, and how many of those links go through WP:SURVEY to do so? Probably will need to fix any that do. That said, I can't think of many reasons to link to the current target-- 2008 is like... 16 years ago, wow...
On the other hand, WP:SURVEY has an entire Wikipedia:Survey DAB page, and WP:SUBSTANTIATE isn't on it. It also feels like it's a bad include to put on it, given it... only mentions it once at the end as a potential source for "Most people think", instead of being about surveys itself?
For the record, SUBSTANTIATE isn't the only redirect to this section-- you also have access to WP:ATTRPOV, WP:Attribute POV, and Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Maybe one of those is easier to remember than SUBSTANTIATE? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:17, 13 March 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).

France 2024[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#France 2024

Pappoos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Pappoos

Barphic[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 💬 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "barphic" is not mentioned at the target article, nor is it mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: could be an incredibly unlikely double-typo for 'graphic', but I can't see any traces of this word existing anywhere 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 19:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See [1] for an attestation of the term's use in the wild from 1994. I'm not sure if that's sufficient to retain the redirect. Tevildo (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Other than that one Usenet post there seems to be nothing else suggesting this was used or refers to ASCII art. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:50, 14 March 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).

Look of disapproval[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Look of disapproval

List of common emoticons[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. Withdrawing, specifically due to being an R from move (without a tag); the AfD discussion implies the article was here for two years. If this was created today, deletion is a lot more viable, however there's a good number of old links here presumably. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 19:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this list is anything but common, an otherwise subjective and strange adjective to attach to a list, especially when "common" is not particularly definable as this can vary from person to person and community to community. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there may be some on this page that are not common, but the common emoticons are also here, and this is the benefit of redirects. Also the article literally starts with "This is a list of commonly used emoticons". Kk.urban (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair catch on the article opener; it's now been removed: the title describes the list's purpose as a "list of emoticons", so the first sentence should be "this is a list of emoticons". Commonality is not the deciding factor. The article also contains long emoticons, and short emoticons, and fancy emoticons, and silly emoticons that can be described several ways forward and back. That does not make this particular adjective any more ideal of a classifier. At least people can possibly agree what short and long is; "common" can be defined thousands of different ways and none of which are accurate to the current contents. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone looking for a list of common emoticons will find them at the target. That they will also find uncommon ones is neither here nor there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is unlikely we would create a separate list for "common" emoticons because, as the nominator themself says, "common" is not particularly definable. We might as well point readers who do search for such a list to the appropriate article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a 2009-era R from move (specifically, circa Feb. 4, 2009). The article opener describing the list as a "list of common emoticons" was an artifact left over from 15 years ago. Relevant AfD discussion here. HERE is where this comment belongs lol, not at Look of disapproval 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 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).

Le Lenny Face[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 the Lenny Face entry. Jay 💬 06:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is not referred to as "Le Lenny Face" anywhere at the target article. The grammatical article of "le" obfuscates the search term and is as useful as attaching "the" to any subject (i.e. not that useful). Utopes (talk / cont) 04:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lenny Face, Lennyface, and multiple other variations exist too. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Well, in that case, updating to Weak refine to List_of_emoticons#Lenny_Face to match those. If we keep this, it might as well go right to the emoticon actually described as a Lenny Face. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has made an argument for keeping the "le-" version, Lunamann says above that they don't know how much precedent the "le-" has while saying "if we keep this". Utopes (talk / cont) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. In terms of reasons to keep it - in both of the sources cited for Lenny Face in List of emoticons#Lenny Face, it is acknowleged as being "le lenny face". But in terms of reasons to delete it - it looks like most of the existing 'le' redirects out there either exist for reasons related to French or are blatantly RFD-worthy shitpost redirects. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:22, 13 March 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).

Desu face[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 💬 07:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. Contains very crufty 2008 edits (all unsourced of course). Utopes (talk / cont) 04:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the examples that show up in the 2008-era articles, •^• does not appear on the list, while :< simply shows up under the entry for Frown. ( >: is simply a backwards version of the latter.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 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).

Keyboard faces[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Keyboard faces

List of online emotions[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 💬 07:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target page is certainly not a list of emotions that you can experience online. Contains 4 edits worth of May 2008 history before evaporating into a redirect. Quite 2008 I'd say :v Utopes (talk / cont) 04:10, 13 March 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).

Kao maaku[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Kao maaku

Eastern-style emoticon[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 Emoticon#Kaomoji (Japan ASCII movement). Jay 💬 07:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "eastern" nor "eastern-style" emoticons that are named in this specific way at the target page. There is also no "Japanese style" section at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit: There is no section titled "Japanese style" at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found it-- the section existed, it just wasn't under "Japanese style". Re-refine to Emoticon#Kaomoji (Japan ASCII movement) or Retarget to Kaomoji. (Either works, given the former hatnotes to the latter.)𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoticon#Kaomoji (Japan ASCII movement). The Japanese, Chinese and Korean styles used to be grouped into one heading in the aticle but are now split over three, starting with the Japanese so readers looking for Chinese or Korean can just continue reading. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 13 March 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).

Thread emoji[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 Thread (yarn). Jay 💬 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of threads at the target article. Any emoji can be used in a thread, and is not automatically an emoticon. The refinement of Unicode is also not particularly specific to threads either. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:04, 13 March 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).

Awesome face[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 💬 07:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "Awesome face" at the target article, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this is what I think it is (the 2000s-era proto-emoji meme face), this is not an emoticon in the first place (as an emoticon is constructed using text characters). Barring a better target, just delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this version of Awesome Face and retarget Awesome face to it, without prejudice to AfD. I don't know that deletion is inevitable, as if sourceable it might make sense to merge it to Smiley (not a question for RfD). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Y'know, I don't think I'd normally be opposed to this. However...
    Noteably, the article (proto-article?) shown doesn't link to any sources, but does describe a few pages regarding the Awesome Face. Unfortunately, while researching in order to find them, I came across... this. The current Know Your Meme article on this topic has a near word for word copy of this proto-article as part of their own article on the subject, with most deviations from it probably able to be chalked up to the fact that our version was BLAR'd 12 years ago, while KYM's was updated and worked on. I don't want to say that KYM copied from us-- it's just as likely that this is copying KYM.
    If this article gets restored, it won't just need sources, it will require a complete rewrite in order to evade accusations of plagiarism. (At the very least, KYM has all of the sources implied by our version of the article.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After some further digging, I am now reasonably certain that that version of the article is blatant WP:Plagiarism of the KYM article. As proof, this is the version of said article from August 2011 (wow, thanks KYM for having zero formatting on your edit histories, makes things very readable (9_9)), and by comparison, the Wikipedia version of the article showed up out of the blue in 2012, with the article before that point being... a redirect to Emoticon. Huh. What?
    Apparently, this was ALSO an {{R from avoided double redirect}}, because it originally was created to point... to Awesome face, which itself had always been a redirect to Emoticon, before it briefly was redirected to Awesome Face during its brief stint as an unsourced PLAG stub.
    In any case, I am now doubly certain that if sent to AfD it'd get, very deservably, nuked with the force of a thousand suns. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the assessment that the only edit at Awesome Face is an exact copy-paste-without-attribution from KnowYourMeme with zero valid, original content. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Given that the article content would be speedily deletable as a copyright violation (KYM is not freely licensed so it's not something attribution can fix) there is nothing to restore. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 March 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).

Facial Expression Markup Language[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 Virtual Human Markup Language. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target page is not about Facial Expression Markup Language, and "markup language" does not occur anywhere in the body of the article. Perhaps in the past there used to be something here, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Virtual Human Markup Language which doesn't use the exact phrase but does mention facial expressions and is about the same topic that google hits indicate is the main meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 13 March 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).

Colon Bracket[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Colon Bracket

Less than three[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 Less than 3. The discussed page move may be done subsequently. Jay 💬 07:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While a heart can definitely be formed as <3, this is still a general statement that does not apply to emoticons alone. It's pointed here for a while, yet there's also Less Than Three with different caps. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify: Move the existing Less than 3 dab page (to which Less Than Three is a redirect), to this title, per MOS:SPELL09. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 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).

List of smiley codes[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 Smiley#Unicode. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "smiley code" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and this page is certainly not a list of them. Has some 2005 cruft history to list the three primary emotions that humans can muster: Happy, Sad, and Money Smiley. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:49, 13 March 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).

Smarticon[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 💬 07:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Smarticon" not mentioned at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While this redirect was certainly correct in 2007 and I still use it the same way sometimes these days, a quick Internet search shows that the use of the word has changed over the last 17 years. Fine by me to change/delete/keep it. Looking through the other redirect discussions: thanks for your work. RichiH (talk) 07:12, 13 March 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).

Midget emoticon[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 💬 07:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Midget" is not mentioned anywhere at the page, much less "midget emoticon", which isn't mentioned anywhere. Contains one edit worth of 2005 cruft swiftly removed. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:45, 13 March 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).

Facebook Emoticons[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 💬 07:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is not discussed at the target page; emoticons exist on all platforms regardless of the host, so there's nothing to be gained from a specific redirect here. (Does contain some very 2009-esque history though). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No mention at target. The history is cute. :3 –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 01:02, 14 March 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).

Chalamius[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 💬 07:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Chalamius" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete GSearch just turns up Urban Dictionary and a bunch of user names for different websites --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 14 March 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).

Verticon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Verticon

Photocon[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 PhotoCON. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Photocon" at the target page, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. PhotoCON is a pretty safe retargeting option, but perhaps there's a reason for this redirect to exist that I'm not familiar with. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to PhotoCON for now as plausible caps variant. I think it could also point to a photography conference or contest article but we don't have those. --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 14 March 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).

Epic Face[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As Awesome Face was deleted. Jay 💬 07:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Epic Face" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:38, 13 March 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).

Japanese Emotions[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 13:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese emotions are not purely "emoticons", even if some emoticons are Japanese. Misleading and unhelpful redirect, not discussed anywhere at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Kaomoji, a Japanese emoticon-link art form that predates modern emoticons, was on (very old, c. 2006) versions of emoticon, and likely was the intended subject of this title. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this _onfusing misspelling. ― Synpath 23:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Japanese people can feel emotion and are not limited to text based representation. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:44, 14 March 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).

Graemlin[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 💬 07:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Graemlin" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google tells me that Graemlin is a computer model - "General and robust alignment of multiple large interaction networks" but I don't understand enough of results to say more. Whatever it is though it's not related to emoticons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 14 March 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).

Emotext[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#Emotext

Battle of Monocracy[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! 01:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to be an attempt at a pun disguised as a typo implying the battle was somehow related to monocracy, which it was not. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a pun or typo, but a common misspelling/mishearing/misremembering of the name that is used in multiple independent sources. For example, [2], [3], [4] (first picture caption), [5] (fourth picture caption), [6], [7] ("About this item"), [8] and plenty more. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and tag with from misspelling. Skynxnex (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took the liberty of tagging it as suggested by Skynxnex. Paradoctor (talk) 16:15, 18 March 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).

Terrorism in Israel[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 💬 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect might need a new target. Important because it is used in the {{Asia topic}} navbar, its deletion will probably mean it will be re-created later down the road. Created in 2007, it has been targeted and retargeted during its history. It seems that a better target is needed. See also Template talk:Asia topic#Edit request 25 February 2024 for more info. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create content here as suggested on the talk page by LilianaUwU and Sawyer-mcdonell this could be a disambig, list or overview article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it an actual page. This could very well be a summary of terrorism in Israel like Terrorism in the United States is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig for now, to be turned into an overview article - terrorism in Israel is certainly a notable topic with RS, and I agree with Liliana that it can be a standalone article. Also, there has been terrorism in Israel unrelated (or not directly related) to the I-P conflict, so readers aren't getting a full picture of the topic from the redirect. I have some concerns about NPOV with the redirect target as well, and creating a content page would help. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: RfD cannot order editors to create an article at a given title; such arguments are typically interpreted as a WP:REDYES argument for deletion. Alternatively, disambiguation has been proposed but it's not entirely clear which articles would be listed on such a disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Disambig for now, to be turned into an overview article - per Sawyer-mcdonell and Liliana. Marokwitz (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rosguill's earlier relist comment still applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create content as it is definitely of use to a reader, per the arguments made above. FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 23 March 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_March_13&oldid=1215285032"