Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 29, 2021.

The Town(film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 13:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect targets the 1945 film called "The Town" when there are other films with this name. However, it is malformed, and the correct redirect name for this is "The Town (film)". So delete this redirect unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible spacing error, fairly low page views. The main article was only at this title for 11 minutes in 2005 so it is highly unlikely there are any incoming links. If kept then retarget to The Town which lists both the 1945 and 2010 films. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I must have set this redirect up a million years ago during New Page Patrol. Delete for sure if it is seen as useless, even if it did exist in that form it would create a double redirect. Bobo. 22:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Town#Film and television because it has received decent views. I'm unsure if those views are from old links or from readers mistyping, but nevertheless retargeting to the dab page is the best solution IMO. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: How is retargeting a malformed redirect a good solution? I think you misread the nominated redirect name. The nominated redirect reads "The Town(film)", not "The Town (film)". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seventyfiveyears, you need to understand that a malformed redirect can be helpful. Please explain to me why we should delete this harmless redirect and thereby unnecessarily annoy these readers. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:UNNATURAL. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unnecessary clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this error in disambiguating (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No point in keeping it. AKK700 07:23, 5 February 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.

Noldorin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Noldorin

Existential threat[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. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, an existential threat also refers to threats to any entity which are not usually global catastrophic risks:

  • "Dementia thus represents an existential threat that creates profound emotional and psychological challenges for those who are directly affected by the illness."[1]
  • "Former CIA officer Marc Sageman concluded that “al Qaeda is no longer seen as an existential threat to the West”"[2]
  • "[deportations] rapidly radicalized monstrously into an opportunity to rid Anatolia once and for all of those peoples perceived to be an imminent existential threat to the future of the empire."[3]

Since there are reliable sources about existential threats in general as well as there rhetoric of existential threats,[4][5][6][7][8][9] I would say delete to encourage article creation. (t · c) buidhe 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There have been many and significant discussions about this term on the talk page of the main article. We are not creating a separate article on this topic, it will be a content fork. Attempting to end-run around those discussions "to encourage article creation" with this deletion request is not appreciated. If you believe there can be a new article that will not en up largely being a copy of the existing article topic, discuss on the article talk page first. -- GreenC 13:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oppose" what? Do you mean "keep", "delete", or something else? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions I'm seeing on the talk page are whether "existential risk" should be its own page, which consensus points to no. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, "existential risk" is used mostly as a synonym for "global catastrophic risk" (it's bolded in the introduction of the article) but "existential threat" is certainly not. (t · c) buidhe 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misleading redirect as it is often used for less than the world e.g. "Israel sees an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat".Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. This is the best target to which to point this title for now because there are global risks that are described as existential threats, and no better option has been offered. We could easily have an article on the concept of an existential threat, but someone would need to step up and write it. BD2412 T 06:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term is far too vague to target anywhere, as noted by original nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this really is a redirect with possibilities - one could probably make a set-indexy article discussing the various concepts of existential threats, but I'm not honestly sure that would really evolve to much more than a dictionary definition or a duplication. This is a phrase that does often mean "threats to our existence", but really just means the threat to the existence of whatever it is you're talking about. I think it's sufficiently ambiguous to not be a net positive. ~ mazca talk 19:13, 7 February 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.

Glanduin[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. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through a variety of redirections to targets that were later redirected, we get a redirect that's not mentioned anywhere. It wasn't in Gondor proper, IIRC, so the current target isn't appropriate. It appears in the map of Eregion at Geography of Middle-earth, but that seems to be about it. Not sure if retargeting to the minor mention in the (Spanish-language) map or deletion is better, but the current target doesn't work. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we can delete this one, though I agree we could point at Geography of Middle-earth if anyone can be bothered to add a name to the map and a mention to the text. I guess the general point is that Tolkien provided an impression of depth by creating and naming features never used in the tales, but there's only a limited extent to which we can hope to cover those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for firmer consensus given the page's history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 29 January 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.

Gaius Julius Caesar I[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. There is a fairly even disagreement in the early part of the debate as to whether these ordinals are useful as redirects given their apparent appearance in certain old sources. However, the later participation broadly focuses on the fact that, in addition to being rarely-used, these do not appear to be even accurate in some cases. The overall balance of consensus leans towards deleting them, as their confusing ambiguity seemingly outweighs their possible use as search terms for readers of certain old sources. ~ mazca talk 12:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anybody, let alone a reliable source, distinguish general Romans by numbers. It all seems arbitrary and gratuitous, not to mention that some of these numbers do not correspond with their chronological order of appearance in history. They should all be deleted. Avilich (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The only one of these I think I've ever seen used is Drusus II and even then that's in very old sources and rarely.★Trekker (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of them are likely search terms; to the extent that a dictionary or encyclopedia might use numerals to distinguish between homonymous individuals, it doesn't mean that those numerals are meant to be part of their names, and it's unlikely that readers will assume otherwise because of a few occurrences. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – The ordinals occur in 19th-century sholarship, e.g. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, copies of which (several editions) are widely spread on the internet – a reader might try to find more updated info on these persons of Roman antiquity in Wikipedia, and that is hampered if it isn't clear exactly who indentifies with whom from the outdated sources to the more modern sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These numberings are outdated and inaccurate, I'm not sure if Wikipedia should encourage that. I also don't believe the majority these terms are common enough to make them plausible search terms.★Trekker (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably this 19th-century (!) source used ordinals as an ad hoc method to distinguish the relevant persons of the same name, and did not intent to follow or establish a general procedure. Further, as Treker said, they're outdated (scholarship on the Julii Caesares has changed since then) or outright wrong and inaccurate (Tiberius Gracchus and Marcus Porcius Cato). Finally, ordinals are just not commonly used in a way that justifies redirects: already they were probably seldom used in the 19th century and are virtually non-existent in the 21st. An internet search returns basically zero results other than wikipedia mirrors. Avilich (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these occur in the work now repeatedly cited or blamed for them—apparently without anyone bothering to check whether it had anything to do with this—it doesn't contain biographical articles at all. To the extent that any dictionary or reference work uses numerals to distinguish between homonymous individuals—a practice still seen in the present day—it's invariably clear that these aren't part of the subject's names, and exist only to distinguish between the entries in the work. It's equally clear that these numbers in Wikipedia are largely the invention of the article creators, who bear the sole responsibility for introducing a confusing and largely useless set of distinctions. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Neologisms unsupported by reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally a spread of arguments like the above would be enough to close as delete, but given the amount of pages affected and the lack of unanimous consensus, one relist seems in order.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Francis Schonken. Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Francis Schonken. None of the attempted reubuttal of their vote addresses the reasons why these are useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To give one example: Marcus Portio Cato (II) and Marcus Portio Cato (III) both redirect to the same article, on the son of Cato the Younger, who is in the sixth generation of that name from Cato the Elder. (There are eight articles on men of that name, since the men in the family shared the same names for generations. See Porcia gens#Porcii Catones.) I am unable to find any reliable sources referring to that man by these names. If these names are "widely spread", as is claimed, why are there no journals, books or academic websites where these two names are used to refer to this man? Hits like this one [10] do not use a numeral as a generational marker. That is a paper about Cato the Elder not the son of Cato the Younger, or the third generation of men called Marcus Portio Cato. The numeral denotes that it is the third paper in a series. That is the problem with the supposed source above: even if the numerals exist in the book (even though I am unable to see any), the numerals are not being used as generational markers. These names are entirely made-up. They do not exist anywhere in the academic literature, either now or in the 19th-century. DrKay (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is obviously the best course of action here. @Mikehawk10 and Thryduulf: this is why you should read what others post and do research on the historical individuals in question before stupidly disrupting the work of those who have already done so. Aside from the highly deceptive remark that "none of the attempted rebuttals address the reasons why these are useful search terms" (all of them obviously do), it has already been shown above that these ordinals are outdated, inaccurate, misleading, and chronologically incorrect. One of the persons in question even has multiple ordinals assigned to him, which you'd have known had you simply bothered to look at the list you're giving an opinion on. The ordinals are not supported by the very source cited above and, even if they were, using numbers for a simple ad hoc chronological sorting in a very specific source does not make them appropriate for wider application (I'll say it yet again: internet search results only return Wikipedia mirrors). Avilich (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is essentially correct, if a bit brusque. Francis Schonken's reasoning is based on a false premise: these particular ordinals do not occur either in antiquity or in modern literature on the subjects. While I cannot rule out the possibility that some reference source provided parenthetical numbers for convenience, they would never have been used in the manner applied here. These numbers are the well-intentioned creation of long-ago Wikipedians who felt they would be useful for distinguishing between homonymous individuals. They are now outmoded and confusing, since there are other ways of achieving the same ends, and the continued use of these numbers risks creating confusion for readers. They have no existence independent from Wikipedia, and so are unlikely to be used as search terms; and there are much easier ways of identifying particular individuals now that we have articles about most important Roman gentes, better guidance for distinguishing between homonymous Romans in article titles (and subsection headers), and clearer redirects than any of these numbers provide. P Aculeius (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were quite brusque yourself in your first reply above, only now the two respondents had the information on the plate in front of them and still failed to eat the evidence. I wasn't putting much faith that the two would even return here to respond, since they're obviously the type which comments on just about every discussion, and so their votes would just cast needless doubt on what should be done here. The weakness of their position needed to be outlined clearly, lest this be prolonged for yet another week. Avilich (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's putting things a bit strongly—the writer cited a good scholarly work for something absurd that it didn't support in the first place, and I didn't call anybody stupid, disruptive, or deceptive. P Aculeius (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Mikehawk10 has commented on just one other open discussion besides this one. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Avilich, please don't !vote twice. Your nomination counts as a !vote, and whilst you are free to make further comments, prefacing the comment with a bolded delete can be misleading to other participants and the closer. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The numbering is highly misleading and confusing. Less Unless (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all based on the arguments provided by the nominator and the debunking of the opposing arguments. Lennart97 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) — 2601:241:300:B610:98FA:33BE:AECE:BBA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.

Aulus Postumius Albinus Magnus[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. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first has a wrong surname, the second has a wrong office and wrong year, and the third has his name misspelled and also a wrong office. Delete as incorrect and not particularly plausible. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 1 and 3, keep 2, as it was just closed as a plausible redirect yesterday following a previous nomination by the same nominator for the same reasons. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not include the other 'propraetor 110', but it's still pushing too far to have a 'praetor 89', no less than having a 'consul 89' just b/c he was of consular rank that year. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my comments in the AfD. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, again, as nom. The linked discussion dealt with other things as well, and, with regards to the scope of this current one, actually supports deletion of the one outstanding redirect. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the nominator and have already advocated for deletion. Adding a separate bolded vote, especially without "as nom", is misleading. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The recent AfD seemed to struggle with this a bit because these duplicate pages with, in some cases, completely inaccurate disambiguators are so confusing. For that reason they are all poor redirects and unlikely to help readers. ~ mazca talk 15:08, 11 February 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.

Concussion substitute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Concussion substitute

US Patent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget to United States patent law. SNOW close, with everyone, including the redirect's creator, supporting this retarget. (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be an XNR, but redirect to United States patent law, where US Patent also points, instead; however, EncMstr seems to have a different opinion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Retarget to United States patent law to match U.S. Patent and United States patent. I can see no reason at all that this should be a cross namespace redirect, It's a very plausible search term and should not be sending readers into template space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed. The redirect originally targeted that page; I don't understand why EncMstr retargeted it unless it was a pure mistake. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per everyone above me. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. I don't recall having done that, or even the reason why I would have considered it. That was a very dark time for me personally—my wife died eight days before. Apologies all around! —EncMstr (talk) 16:48, 29 January 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.

Shia Islam/On this day/Jumada al-awwal/24[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be in mainspace. R3 does not apply as this is not recently created. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G6, "unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". This redirect is left over from a page move after the page was created in the wrong namespace. it was only at this location for approx 3 hours. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as creator. Moved page as it was in wrong namespace and I forgot to tag for deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:13, 29 January 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.

W. Buyford[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Delete to encourage article creation. Searching on-wiki for the middle one, I only found Richard Bowman (cricketer), which does not seem to be the person in question; the rest does not seem to have any related information on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. I can't find any mention of these cricketers on Wikipedia that these redirects could be retargeted to. For the Bowman redirect I found Alcon Bowman and Richard Bowman (cricketer), but they're Australian and English, and don't seem to have played for the Europeans team. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these inappropriate cross-domain redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 31 January 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.

America and new zealand[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 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an orphaned redirect. Also, this redirect is unnecessary for linking and searching purposes. Another redirect exists with the correct capitalization. JsfasdF252 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a harmless {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}, {{R from move}} and {{R avoided double redirect}}. Some methods of finding Wikipedia content are case sensitive and using all lower case is hardly uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Note that the nominator moved the redirect to the correct capitalisation, which muddles the history up. Rather than disrupting the history JsfasdF252, you should just create a new redirect with the correct capitalisation. Please keep that in mind in future. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:08, 30 January 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.

Never Too Much (song) (redirect)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused with only 2 page views in the last year. Unlikely search term due to unusual double disambiguator. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused, no proper purpose, whatever the intent was at creation. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's harmless (it doesn't harm searching, I've tried). This was made to test primary topic status, and while the experiment has concluded, the pageview stats are of use if a primary topic debate surrounding this dab page comes up. Given that it's a completely harmless redirect that has potential future use, why delete? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping, unlikely search term --DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 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.

10 Years (Armin van Buuren album) (redirect)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused with only 8 page views in the last year. Unlikely search term due to unusual double disambiguator. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping, unlikely search term --DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 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.

10 Years (Banco de Gaia album) (redirect)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused with only 12 page views in the last year. Unlikely search term due to unusual double disambiguator. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping, unlikely search term --DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 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.

Nosebleed section (redirect)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not being used - 6 page views in the last year. Unlikely search term due to unusual disambiguator. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping, unlikely search term --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 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.

Nosebleed (redirect)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more: no incoming links. @Seventyfiveyears and Tavix: Pinging the participants of the previous discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 9 page views in the last year not including those from the previous discussion, Unlikely search term due to non standard disambiguator. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping, unlikely search term --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 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.

Like a Virgin (book) (redirect)[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. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to have been created for testing purposes, but it isn't used as much now, and nothing links to it. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Like a Virgin (film) (redirect). Regards, SONIC678 06:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Basically unused with 10 page views in the last year, no incoming links and unusual double disambiguation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping, unlikely search term --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 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.

Trump terrorist attack[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Trump terrorist attack

Digitalization[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 Digitalization and retarget Digitalisation to the new DAB page. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digitalization and Digitization are, according to Gartner's IT glossary and other sources, ([11] and [12] for exemple) 2 different concepts. The first being the use of digital technologies to change a business model and the 2nd being the process of changing from analog to digital form. I believe a better target would be Digital_transformation#Digitalization_(of_industries_and_organizations). SAP actually mentions this redirect here saying that it reinforces the ambiguity between these terms Dom from Paris (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if the two lead to different targets then both targets need hatnotes to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I'm sorry I don't quite follow. When you say "the two" what do you mean? Digitalization is a redirect but Digitization is a main space article. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If entering "Digitalization" and into the search box and pressing go means you end up at a different place than if you'd entered "Digitization" then you should see a hatnote pointing to the other page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Digitalisation is currently a red link, but it should be created as a redirect to the same place as consensus determines the z spelling should lead. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a hatnote at Digitization to resolve any ambiguity. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I added the UK spelling variant. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Digital transformation. "Digitalization" appears zero times in the current target outside of the hatnote. Readers will actually find some information about the term in the "digital transformation" article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create dab, since apparently digitalization also refers to the administration of digoxin/digitalis. Sources discussing the digitization/digitalization distinction in this RFD, and others (e.g [13]) all concede that laypeople often use the two interchangeably. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to be this prescriptivist. With three definitions and a different hatnote already at digital transformation, it's probably best to have a DAB page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Patar knight's draft looks good to me. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:50, 29 January 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_January_29&oldid=1006408342"