Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2021.

WBFS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore article at Wii Backup filesystem, disambiguate WBFS, with thanks to the IP for the legwork on the latter. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion as the target article no longer mentions "WBFS" or anything else related to Wii file systems. Original article would fail WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR and thus is probably not worth keeping in history. – voidxor 23:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wii Backup filesystem as not discussed anywhere. Retarget WBFS to WBFS-TV as the only other usage of WBFS in English Wikipedia. WBFS is also an acronym for "wellbore friction simulator" but we have no content about that. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert WBFS and send to AfD per WP:BLAR. The article content there is sourced and a quick glance shows that it doesn't obviously fail WP:V or WP:OR, whether it meets WP:N is a question that needs discussion at AfD. Retarget Wii Backup filesystem there. If the article ends up being kept then it will likely be worth moving it to the longer title and disambiguating WBFS, but it's not worth bothering doing that until the AfD concludes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going to restore the article, we should move the edit history at WBFS to somewhere else first and restore the article at that title instead (e.g. at Wii Backup filesystem, which would kill two birds with one stone). The file system is very clearly not the primary topic and shouldn't be squatting on an undisambiguated title. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of floods in India[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this remain pointing at this summary article that is very clearly a list or should it go to Floods in India, identified as the main article, but which is not just a list? Thryduulf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 29 July 2021‎

@Thryduulf: There are two redundant lists here, so the first list (in List of floods#India) should be merged to the second one (in Floods in India). List of floods in India should then be redirected to the main list at Floods in India. Jarble (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that they are redundant, List of floods#India should be a summary of the list portion of Floods in India, including only the most notable floods with little detail. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The articles are at least somewhat redundant now, even if they shouldn't be. The way things stand, I'd rather keep the "list of" redirect pointing to a "list of" article, but it would be reasonable to put the Indian list at Floods in India, and if we make that decision, we should certainly retarget this accordingly. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wherever the sublist is per BDD. That said, as a content matter, I don't think we need to move the sublist. There's already a hatnote to Floods in India and that should be enough. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

XXR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 13#XXR

Line feed[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Multics and Unix use a line feed to indicate a logical new line, the LF is used for other things and is defined as meaning something different. Somebody reading a protocol definition that mentions LF and CR could be confused if he attempts to look up LF. Uless there is a section of an article to which this redirect can legitimately point, the redirect should be removed. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Line feed absolutely must redirect somewhere (or be a stand-alone article), do you have a suggestion of an alternate target? Seeing none, I must vote keep. My brief thought on the structure is that Carriage return might also be merged to newline; any further thoughts on that topic will be on article-talk. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Line feed" is mentioned in the lead and 5 sections of the target. "LF" is mentioned in the lead and 6 sections. A reader looking for Line feed or LF has all the information he needs. If it is used for other things and has different meanings, include those as well in the target article. Why should this redirect to a section? Jay (Talk) 04:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there a good reason for the ASCII CR character to have a carriage return page but the ASCII LF character not to have a "line feed" page? Newline isn't a page specifically describing the LF character; it mentions the LF character because it's the second character in the CR-LF newline control character sequence, for systems using CR-LF as the end-of-line indication, and is the single newline control character, for systems using LF as the end-of-line indication (and is not part of a newline at all in systems using a character or character sequence not including LF as the end-of-line indication). Guy Harris (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CR vs LF: Both CR and LF pages were created on the same day in 2003. The references needed tag was added to LF in 2006 and CR in 2008. One reference (and it has been the saviour) was promptly added to the CR page, but LF continued to be unsourced and was merged-and-redirected in 2007. Here is the version of LF before the redirect. If there are good references, it can be draftified. Jay (Talk) 06:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lundein[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 13#Lundein

Lundene[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 13#Lundene

Dzjugasjvili[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 Dzhugashvili. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are just alternative spellings of Dzhugashvili (and the two spellings Jughashvili and Jugashvili already redirect there), I suggest retargeting the redirects to that page. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Αἴαξ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 13#Αἴαξ

River Flows In You[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 13#River Flows In You

Dave Smith (comedian)[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 07:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only place this link appears is 2024 United States presidential election, which is also the target of this redirect. A red link is more useful. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unhelpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful redirect as simply redirects to itself. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Assuming he's not notable enough for WP:REDLINK to apply, it seems like the better course of action would be to keep the redirect but unlink his name at the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A self-redirect, not useful or necessary. Sal2100 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_5&oldid=1040765544"