Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 23, 2021.

Insomniac (magazine)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 03:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target page has no mention of the magazine. The magazine site (https://insomniacmagazine.com/about/) gives no indication of an affiliation. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:25, 23 March 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.

Template:Attached KML//Missouri Route 96[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 G6. Sorry Fastily, but this is one of the clearest examples of WP:G6's unambiguously created in error that I've ever come across. The error was acknowledged with the move and the double slash is problematic, especially for Template space. There is absolutely no reason this needs a full discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @1234qwer1234qwer4 with the reason "moved an hour after creation" FASTILY 22:09, 23 March 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.

Template:Attached KML//River Tame, Greater Manchester[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 G6. Sorry Fastily, but this is one of the clearest examples of WP:G6's unambiguously created in error that I've ever come across. The error was acknowledged with the move and the double slash is problematic, especially for Template space. There is absolutely no reason this needs a full discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @1234qwer1234qwer4 with the reason "moved minutes after creation" FASTILY 22:09, 23 March 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.

Melania Lamarck[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 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted. Now the unused redirect (was invalidly used in Melania (disambiguation)). Unique naming. Idea probably from Wikispecies Estopedist1 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rename Delete (useful) redirects are kept if used or not, but this isn't useful and it's incorrect (edited comment). The article uses the name as an alternative, so any discussion on the validity of it is for that article not this redirect. Also regarding use in a dab page - see WP:PTM where they are also valid in a See also section. Widefox; talk 18:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you've got this wrong – these aren't alternative names, they are mashes of a taxonomic synonym and the taxonomist who made that taxonomic synonym's name. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup upon double checking - that's right, the redirect should be renamed, not deleted. It's still a valid alternative name and not even a WP:PTM entry for the dab (which was the original creation purpose). Widefox; talk 22:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've created the correct redirects and used them in the dab Melania (disambiguation) Widefox; talk 15:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:MOVEREDIRECT for why redirects shouldn't be renamed; it's best just to create a new redirect. Besides, what would you rename it to? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The infobox lists the synonym of this genus name as "Melania Lamarck, 1799", i.e. the synonym is Melania, named by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in 1799. This redirect (and the one above) seems to be a conjunction of the name and the person who named it. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've combined the two nominations as they are examples of pretty much the exact same situation; only duplicate messages were deleted. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:20, 25 March 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.

Sweetest Girl[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. Editors are invited to continue the discussion as an RM request. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews would suggest that Sweetest Girl (Dollar Bill) is the primary topic here. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See graph. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 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.

Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin[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 03:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section to which the redirect points has been deleted following an RfC at Frédéric_Chopin. The redirect is therefore inappropriate/ excessive. Therefore, delete this redirect page. Smerus (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Discussions of this topic has exceeded the article on the composer by many mb. Most agree there's not enough evidence to add; where we differ is in wording and nuance. - kosboot (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No authoritative noteworthy, let alone notable, sourced basis for this stuff. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, now an unhelpful redirect Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added a variant redirect to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The talk page should be preserved and archived under Talk:Frédéric Chopin. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above; the talk page of the first should indeed be archived. Crossroads -talk- 04:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both variants listed above, and archive the recent discussions of Chopin's sexuality. Nihil novi (talk) 07:49, 24 March 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.

Cenchrus (insect)[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! 00:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

misleading, not a taxon Estopedist1 (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: "not a taxon" and anyone who follows the redirect will find that out. Not harmful, quite a reasonable disambiguation although somewhat redundant given the actual target name. Lithopsian (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly plausible disambiguation for the target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; in addition to the above arguments, this was the title of the article for four years, so WP:R#KEEP#4. — The Earwig (talk) 00:15, 28 March 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.

General Editors: Christopher Roden and Barbara Roden[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 03:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any value in this redirect. Nothing links to it, so I propose it is deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was technically the "creator" of this, but only in the sense that somebody else originally created the article at this title and then I moved it to its more correct title. At the time, we had a rule that redirects resulting from this type of page move always had to be kept as a core part of the article's edit history, but that's no longer the standard practice — the page move is adequately documented in the edit history of the target article, and this has no important history of its own outside of that, so there's no overarching reason to keep it if it isn't actually serving a useful purpose. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcats explanation and implausible search term.Less Unless (talk) 22:01, 26 March 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.

Factitious Airs[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 Procedural Close. The subject of this discussion has been turned into a DAB page/article, so any further discussion belong at AfD. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Factitious Airs currently redirects to Nitrous Oxide. While "factitious air" has been used by Davy as an ancient term for nitrous oxide, it is actually a broader category of therapeutic gases. This redirect should be omitted and Factitious Airs should be a stand-alone page noting Thomas Beddoes and James Watt's pioneering work on hydrogene, hydrocarbonate, marsh gas, etc under the category of factitious airs SloppyTots (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Factitious airs? You made it into a disambiguation page, so this should be reverted to a redirect or speedy closed in favor of an AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:33, 23 March 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.

Hydrocarbonate[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 noting that editors also intend to start an article about a related topic and to discuss further what the primary topic is. signed, Rosguill talk 05:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete redirect to bicarbonate. Currently, hydrocarbonate is considered by some to be synonymous to hydrogen carbonate hence redirected to the bicarbonate page. Hydrocarbonate is a unique ancient chemistry term used by Thomas Beddoes, James Watt and other to describe a therapeutic gas derived from coal/coke. This is not bicarbonate. A new page for hydrocarbonate in this context warrants consideration. SloppyTots (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate My searches indicate that it could mean either hydrocarbon or bicarbonate, though the former usage is considered obsolete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the use as "hydrogen carbonate" is widespread even if you don't think it is strictly correct. The use to describe Beddoes therapeutic gas is obscure, obsolete, describes something that doesn't really exist, and has almost no mentions in Wikipedia. Certainly nowhere useful to point a redirect or dab page. If you're really really desperate to educate people and can find a sensible redirect target for the historical usage, then add a hatnote at carbonate. Lithopsian (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the study of carbon monoxide as a neurotransmitter in the field of gasotransmitters and therapeutic application of carbon monoxide as through inhalation protocols and delivery of carbon monoxide-releasing molecules has stimulated research in innumerable academic labs and two pharmaceutical companies (proterris and hillhurst biopharma). With this in mind, as hydrocarbonate gas is essentially carbon monoxide, it is an important origin for modern biomedical pursuit. It is now understood carbon monoxide is an effective treatment for inflammation and tuberculosis; this was first recognized in the 1790s but had been lost in archives for 200 years due to the tendency to neglect older literature and discard it as obsolete. SloppyTots (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uses throughout Wikipedia and scientific literature as a synonym for bicarbonate, albeit admittedly one with somewhat improper/obscure nomenclature. A stub for the gas topic has been reverted twice, hence this discussion, yet no need to delete the redirect if the issue is whether or not it should be turned into an article about a different topic. If sufficient reliable sources exist for the gas topic for it to pass WP:NOTABILITY muster, I think an article could be constructed at a qualified title like Hydrocarbonate (gas) then a requested move discussion could sort out whether or not there is a primary topic and how to best handle disambiguation. Alternatively, if the gas is really just carbon monoxide derived from coal, it seems like this could be discussed in a few sentences in an appropriate section at carbon monoxide with an {{R to section}} redirect at hydrocarbonate (gas) or similar. Either way, once there is content on the gas topic on WP with reliable sources, a redirect hatnote would then be appropriate at bicarbonate. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. There are many papers on the therapeutic potential of Hydrocarbonate (gas) between 1794 and 1802. Carbon monoxide was discovered in 1800 hence Hydrocarbonate (gas) disappearing soon after. With that said, in recent years Hydrocarbonate (gas) primarily appears in papers by historians, but appearance in science literature is scarce. Its thought to be a mixture of CO and H2 (and probably other impurities being Coke (fuel)-derived) nevertheless CO is probably the most relevant bioactive agent. Therefore your suggestion to make note on the carbon monoxide page makes sense once the hydrocarbonate (gas) page has been developed. I should be able to develop a stub in a few days. SloppyTots (talk) 17:04, 27 March 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.

Wikipedia:×[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 withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it confusing that these point to different targets, given that an editor might search for either of these with the same in mind. I would prefer Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols as a target, though that could include a reference to the MOS:MATHS section. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it confusing that you're confused. What I mean is, they both seem to take me to the exact same place. Or are you confused by the differences of the R pages themselves (MOS mentions project pages, WP doesn't)? Possibly I'm overlooking some teensy (or ginormous) difference between the targets, but I'm not seeing it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add me to the list of confused people. Both of these redirects point to the same target. which is same as the target you propose, and have done since 2014. I'm obviously missing something, but I can't work out what? Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 23 March 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.

Template:Socialist Party (Ireland) Elected Representatives[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 05:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused from 2014 move - no longer scope of the template so potentially misleading. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the March 11th log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 23 March 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.

Template:Silver Republican Party (United States)/meta/color[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation; unused and will not be used; {{Silver Republican Party (United States)/meta/shortname}} deleted for a similar reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the March 11th log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 23 March 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.

Workability[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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. Disambiguation is not out of the question, but consider Rosguill's concerns below. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a generic term meaning "How easily a material can be worked", it doesn't exclusively refer to concrete. The term is also quite frequently used in woodworking to describe how difficult different species of wood are to shape, and in metalworking to describe how easy a given material can be machined or formed. I couldn't find an appropriate local target, so perhaps a soft redirect to it's Wiktionary entry would be appropriate? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The term is also used in the context of employment schemes for disabled people. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikitionary per nom. 053pvr (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R to section}}. This redirect has its own section of its current target. Also, add a hatnote that reads {{redirect|Workability|the Wiktionary entry for this word|[[wikt:Workability]]}}. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Seventyfiveyears: But why should this target this specific article? My point is that the concept of Workability is completely general and has no specific connection to concrete. There are loads of concepts in engineering where the concept of workability is relevant: Formability, Machinability, Weldability, Ductility ... just to name some of them of the top of my head. The word is also used in concepts unrelated to engineering (like carpentry and the usage mentioned by thryduulf) and the word is also a synonym for Feasibility/Practicality. We wouldn't target 1980s to Legal affairs of Donald Trump#1980s because it has a section in the article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I struck my keep vote now that I realized that "Workability" is too ambiguous. Yes, like I said, it does have its own section at the current target. However, how about disambiguating the redirect and adding {{Wiktionary|Workability}} at the top of the page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus is leaning towards disambiguating, a draft has yet to be created. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The soft redirect solution seems like the best option, as the attempt to disambiguate is going to quickly run into problem that virtually any physical material used in construction or manufacturing could plausibly include a "Workability" section. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 7 April 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.

Andersonia (Rubiaceae genus)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#Andersonia (Rubiaceae genus)

Template:W-p[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 03:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unlinked template shortcut; no longer makes sense since {{Welcome-personal}} was merged to {{Welcome cookie}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since this is a substitution only template being unlinked doesn't really say anything about how many people are using it. 1 page view in the last year does imply that it is kind of useless though. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but generally substituted templates and shortcuts that are actually used are linked somewhere, so people find the template. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the shortcut is obscure enough that I can't see it generating any use, especially since the merge. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 24 March 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.

Date of discharge[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 03:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE suggests that this mainly refers to military and hospital discharges, is is rarely/never used for this purpose. Hog Farm Talk 05:50, 23 March 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.

Supercalafragilisticexpiealadoscious[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. ✗plicit 03:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining misspelling redirect containing ie or -doscious. One of three remaining redirects with 4 spelling errors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 23 March 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.

Miscellaneous Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious redirects with 5+ errors[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. ✗plicit 03:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After processing the most erraticc errors, there were 4 redirects with 5 spelling errors, plus one (Supercalafragelisticexpialidoshis) with 6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlikely that anyone will ever spell it like THAT 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of these have substantial usage, the most is about 13 a year. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of these seem like reasonably phonetic guesses at the word. With a word this complicated, we should have some leeway on the spelling. -- Tavix (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. This is not a real work so it is reasonable to retain redirects from phonetic spellings even if they are incorrect. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Rlendog. CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 30 March 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.

Supercalifragilisticoespialidoso[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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only misspelling redirect not ending in s. It is also the only one where -fragilistic- is followed by o. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The sheer number of errors in here does not seem logical. Hog Farm Talk 05:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Hog Farm 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient page views to indicate this is a plausible misspelling. There are a couple paragraphs of article content in the history of this one, but it doesn't seem to have been merged anywhere and it's mostly personal commentary. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the Spanish spelling, which, believe it or not, is used in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix, as it is used in the article. Wouldn't never guessed that this spelling was meaningful. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix, especially if has been used in an article. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and others above. CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 30 March 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.

Supercalafregalisticexpialadociious[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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only misspelling redirect containing either ii or fr followed by e. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 23 March 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.

Supercalafajalistickespeealadojus[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! 06:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At an edit distance of 12, this is the absolute least accurate spelling. It is also the only one where f is not followed by r, and the only one containing either k or two j's. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This redirect got 45 page views in the last year (and has averaged 4/month over last 6 years), so it does seem like a misspelling that a not insignificant number of people actually use. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the spelling of the 1951 version by Gloria Parker and Barney Young. -- Tavix (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix; it's mentioned in the article. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Rlendog (talk) 13:24, 29 March 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.

Supercadrafristicexpealodocious[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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only misspelling redirect that botches -cal-, as well as one of only two (out of 45) where fr is not followed by a vowel and then g. It has the third largest edit distance from the correct spelling (8). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. basically unused, 9 page views in the last year. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems implausible to me, but I did find one other use [4], which I'm fascinated by. Spelling it with cad is faithful to the Adirondack spelling, but not much else matches that spelling. Moving past that part, the second half of the word is pretty close. -- Tavix (talk) 23:53, 23 March 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.

Suprercalafragalasticespealadoshes[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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only that contains a misspelling within the first morpheme. It is also the second farthest from the correct spelling in edit distance (11), behind only Supercalafajalistickespeealadojus (12). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N.b.: The full list of misspelling redirects is available at User:LaundryPizza03/Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically unused, 11 page views in the last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not replicated as far as I can tell. It's not a hard g, so ga is not a great guess. Combining that with last and doshes is a bit too far for me. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 23 March 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.

Wikipedia:CONTEXTUALISATION[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30#Wikipedia:CONTEXTUALISATION

Central Temple[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30#Central Temple

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_23&oldid=1138583205"