Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2021.

Future-in-the-past[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 Future in the past. Thanks Uanfala! -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the easily fixable issue that the section does not exist at the target, I think that redirecting this to the article about the English grammar phenomenon is biased. Grammatical tense seems to be a good alternative. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tense is neatly defined in the middle of a paragraph of Relative and absolute tense, but I don't like the idea of redirecting there as that article otherwise has very little relevant content, and expanding it would lead to balance issues. And the future in the past is a clearly defined separate topic anyway. I've scribbled a rudimentary stub at Future in the past, so I propose retargeting there. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 10 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.

Creepy puzzle[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is not the only creepy puzzle, and the mention at the target is just a quote. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 11B-X-1371, Cicada 3301 (which it links as a see-also), and similar seem to deserve a new article and/or Category:, something like [public] [media] [presumed] cryptological (or cryptographic) ((though 11B-X-1371 is mostly steganographic)) puzzles [including puzzlers] (as distinct from the overgeneral [Puzzle]). ((Better name needed.)) If that article and/or Category: existed, the discussion might be whether make Creepy puzzle redirect there, or delete it. -A876 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it was named so in several articles, that's why the redirect was created. If you find other things called "creepy puzzle" in reliable references, you are welcome to turn the redirect into a disambig page. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the editor who did most of the work on the article when it was new. At that time the name of this short film hadn't become established (It was on the CD, encrypted; someone else decrypted it after Krahblicher made it known), and it was referred to by some commentators as the "creepy puzzle". Now that its name is generally established, I don't see the need for this redirect anymore, especially since there are likely to be other "creepy puzzles". Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill 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.

Jeanneretia[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 05:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the name of a snail genus (see Cepolidae (gastropod)), and should not lead to an article on a plant genus. Animal lover 666 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Jeanneretia" appears to also be listed as a synonym at the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only incoming link in article space is from the snail family. It would also be perfectly fine to turn the redirect into an article on the snail genus rather than deleting it (and if an article on the snail is created it perhaps should include a hatnote for the plant). If nobody wants to step up right now to create an article for the snails, deletion is the best outcome. Plantdrew (talk) 04:19, 5 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.

ISO 3166-1 N3 Multiuse regional user templates[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. I checked every one of the WLH (!). A few appeared to have a few uses, but were just transclusions of alerts. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are useful. While Category:ISO 3166-1 A2 Multiuse regional user templates and Category:ISO 3166-1 A3 Multiuse regional user templates are potential abbreviation codes that people might use for countries, this isn't a system people are going to use for adding their userboxes. These redirects therefore serve no purpose and clutter template-space. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: These redirects are kept so that users may use the ISO 3166-1 N3 country codes to invoke the Category:Multiuse regional user templates. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buaidh: yes, but from what I can tell, no one is doing this (I did not check every redirect but all the ones I checked were unused). How is this a useful thing to keep around? I don't see it. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Almost all of the redirects have no uses outside of this page, and even the User in 840 template only has 4 uses outside of this page. ( AFAIK users from the United States make up at least a plurality of all English Wikipedia editors, if not a majority, so if the user in 840 template only has 4 uses then the user in templates are not worth keeping overall IMHO.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike this ridiculous debate about their utility, these redirects impose no burden upon Wikipedia. If these redirects are eliminated, the documentation for this feature will need to be modifed to reflect the loss of this feature. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buaidh: Where is the documentation for this feature? I don't find this discussion ridiculous, but it is possible they are unused because of the lack of awareness. For example, I didn't find this information where I thought I would. -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, default to Weak Keep. They're not a particularly plausible way of searching for these user templates in my opinion and I personally wouldn't have made them, but now they exist they're harmless, relatively unambiguous, properly categorised and I don't see any value in deletion. They've been around since 2015 so some of these might have made their way into historical page revisions. Since template space isn't user facing I think we can be more lenient with redirects as readers aren't going to be running into them by accident. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is crazy, who would ever create these? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh?  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chicdat: The creator of these redirects has particpated in this discussion and explained why they were created, making your comment a bit, well...ridiculous, to use his word from earlier. As someone who is undecided about these redirects, and wants clarification from the editor you're calling crazy, your comment does not help the discussion at all and may actually be hindering it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirects are useless and might actually be unhelpful. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How would they be unhelpful? -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've won. I am not commenting further in this discussion. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if a very simple question yields your argument becoming invalid, then maybe you shouldn't have commented at all. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's fair to say that I've won, there is no celebration to be had with your withdrawal of participation here. In a broader sense, I don't "win" by having these redirects kept—in fact I'm still unsure how I feel about these. That being said, Buaidh perhaps gains a Pyrrhic "win" by having a comment indirectly calling him crazy striken. If anything, I problably "lose" because a question I had for Buaidh may go unanswered because he had to deal with your ignorance rather than looking into how (or if) these redirects are documented for me. If these redirects are in fact useful, the deletion of them will be a loss for all editors who want to use them in the future. On the other hand, if the number of editors that would find use for these redirects is zero (or negligably zero), it would be a win for these redirects to be deleted, as we tidy up clutter and remove whatever maintence burden exists. -- Tavix (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - They aren't reader facing, they don't seem to be ambiguous or to be gumming things up internally, and they have potentialy uses, especially in old revisions of pages. Historical project/userpage stuff can be kept around if it's not otherwise problematic, and I don't see any evidence of these redirects being harmful. Hog Farm Talk 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: just to clarify, these are a minor maintinence issue. I've been trying to clean out Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates - a large task - and these redirects were a signifiant number of entries there. Obviously some template redirects should be kept, even without any use, but I don't see a good reason for these ones to be kept. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replace any transclusions with the target template and delete - Don't seem to be highly used enough to warrant the maintenance burden. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some of these are North American area codes, so confusing -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1) I still have not seen evidence that these redirects are documented anywhere, so there is no reason to assume they will be used in the future. 2) I partially buy the overhead argument from Elli given these redirects are listed on a database report. That being said, I think a better solution would be to exclude redirects from the report because of the fact that redirects are not actually templates. 3) 67.70 has a good point about confusion. If a user said they were "in 214", for example, I would think they were in DFW, not the Dominican Republic. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 11 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.

Elexa[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 Ondrej Elexa. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a product not mentioned anywhere on enwiki, the only uses here are various surnames and given names, mainly in passing mentions spread throughout many articles. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel. - Eureka Lott 01:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: there are several people with the name mentioned in articles, and they're best reached using the search results, which place Ondrej Elexa first anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A redirect from a surname would require Ondrej Elexa to be the primary topic for "Elexa". While he is the only Elexa with a main article currently, he is not the primary topic. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ondrej Elexa, noting that when another "Elexa" gets an article or a substantial mention it's time for a surname page. No-one else is even a red link. PamD 10:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 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.

Template:Taxonomy/Strigosella[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) 14:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to be deleted. Misleading, see DAB page Strigosella Estopedist1 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing recommendation, I no longer think it is worth disambiguating because it is not likely to be searched. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my original nomination was partly true, because link Strigosella (animal) is not accepted. Explanations here: User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation. We only have to delete the misleading Template:Taxonomy/Strigosella and everything is OK then--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:21, 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.

Planetary or gender symbols[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 12#Planetary or gender symbols

WebView[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 due to no primary topic and to encourage the creation of a page for this concept. ✗plicit 03:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination; redirect was blanked by LMB with the following reason:

WebView is NOT Microsoft Edge! Perhaps Edge is based on WebView, but it's a way more general technology than Edge.

JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My basis for the redirect:
I agree that there is not much information regarding WebView in the Microsoft Edge article (yet). Any better ideas where else to redirect instead? You may also want to start an article on WebView. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added WebView2 as suggested by the IP and since both were created by the same editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to JavaFX#WebView, where this is described. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that when there is more than one thing called WebView then we need either a separate article describing the general concept or at least a disambiguation page. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: WebView has become almost a sort of generic trademark for an OS component that allows embedding a web browser engine inside an application, especially within Android and iOS. I think that this topic in particular could work as an actual page. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen Google Play provides Android System WebView runtime app, and Android Developers website have a portal for WebView API. --Great Brightstar (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of a better option and possibly to encourage article creation. I think ViperSnake151 is on the right track that it's a generic term, for something that embeds web content in an application (although I don't think it was ever a trademark). Android has a thing called WebView, so does iOS, so does Microsoft, so does JavaFX apparently, and so do various libraries. None of these are primary. Also, most of these don't even have their own article or section of an article. That's why I think retargeting or disambiguating don't work well. Something like a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article might make sense, as others have suggested. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adumbrativus. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adumbrativus. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 11 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.

Seeking Sister Wife[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 Turned into stub article. Redirect discussion is moot, since a viable stub has been created. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This TV series is not mentioned at target or anywhere else on WP. Delete to encourage article creation if sufficiently notable. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just make a stub... ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 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.

Rickrollers[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 Rickrolling. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. Obviously just there to "rickroll" people. Eridian314 (talk) 19:47, 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.

Giuseppe Sardi (1624–1699)[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. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to article on an unrelated Giuseppe Sardi. That article says the two should not be confused, and a redirect will do just that. A red link is preferable in this case. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 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.

Tell Me About Everything[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 Tell Me About Everything; delete the others. Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All are songs from an EP that, due to lack of notability, now itself redirects to the artist's article, where these songs aren't mentioned. I suggest deleting them. Lennart97 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "Tell Me About Everything" to Let Your Body Take Over which has a song by this name. Delete the others as we don't seem to have any mention of them anywhere. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Tell Me... A redirect is supposed to take the reader to a relevant article. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Tell Me About Everything to Let Your Body Take Over per Richhoncho and our 86 friend above, which would be more helpful to readers than taking them to somewhere where there's no mention of a song by that name. Delete the rest per nom as not mentioned. Regards, SONIC678 19:26, 4 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.

The Ordinary Life[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 00:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both are songs from an EP that, due to lack of notability, now itself redirects to the artist's article, where these songs aren't mentioned. I suggest deleting them. Lennart97 (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. "The Ordinary Life" turns up a load of uses of the phrase and is a partial title match for a video game, but I couldn't find a good target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:59, 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.

Histereza[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Histereza

Fragilité[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Fragilité

Elastomeri[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Elastomeri

BMZ GmbH[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#BMZ GmbH

GeneralLee (disambiguation)[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. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should target General Lee (disambiguation), but actually none of the entries there use the unspaced form, so I suggest delete. Pinging @Red Slash: as the only human in the edit history. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Could be retargeted as a {{R from misspelling}} but I don't think we should keep such redirects for pages with the (disambiguation) qualifier, as they will make it more difficult for searchers seeking the primary topic to reach it. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unspaced entry linking to the main topic page (which, as per the recent RM, is indeed the Confederate general) could be justifiable. However, one which is less likely to be used by readers directly (and for which, if the reader doesn't notice the missing space, already brings up the correct one in the first entry [after the one that links to this exact page]) is not really helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 3 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.

One in a Billion[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 Satnam Singh. signed, Rosguill talk 05:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billion is not Million. This guy has a One in a Million album, but so do three others - see One in a Million#Albums. There's also a second redirect, One in a Billion (album), which also points to this guy's discography. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Satnam Singh for being a documentary produced on him. Half the time there's a valid retarget for things like this. I believe at a point somebody had Matoma's album down as One in a Billion before it was corrected, hence why I made this redirect (and also subsequently made the album article). Ss112 07:26, 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.

Gulags[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. Redirects can be incorrect, as pointed out (see also {{r from incorrect name}}/{{r from typo}}) if they're useful; and that's what the consensus appears to be here. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulag is a proper name of the Soviet government agency, so any usage of this word in plural form is erroneous and should be eliminated. When they say "Solzhenitsyn's experiences in gulags", they really mean his experiences in labour camp and sharashka, both directed by the Gulag as higher authority. — Mike Novikoff 02:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: Bizarre nomination. 'Gulags' is common English use. Vaticidalprophet 06:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. While it may not be strictly correct "Gulag" is used in English to refer to the labour camps, not just the authority that oversaw them. At 2500 page views a year this is a very plausible search term and should be kept. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This has also been helping loads of people since 2004, and people might incorrectly use that word to refer to the camps. Regards, SONIC678 18:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep as is. The nominator is correct that the Soviet government agency doesn't have a plural, but the Gulag article as it stands doesn't just cover the agency, but also covers the system of camps (which this is a legitimate plural of). Second choice retarget to List of Gulag camps. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The plural is common English usage. Hog Farm Talk 13:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what the decision is going to be, yet I'd like to comment. "Gulag" is an abbreviation that literally means "Main Directorate of Camps". The plural form just reminds me of the "internets". "Nowadays, you can use internets even while being in gulags". Indeed, most of the sources I've seen, and most reliable of them, are in Russian (starting with the original works of my favorite author Solzhenitsyn and many more like him). It may well be that I just didn't follow the modern English usage. Still I don't see what's so special about the number of 2004, what makes it stronger than 1954 or 1934 – is it italic font that does such a magic? :-) Hmm, whatever. — Mike Novikoff 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you close it, you really should know what "развесистая клюква" is. — Mike Novikoff 02:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects don't have to be "correct", they just are meant to aid in searching. Gulags is undoubtedly a common search term and it redirects to the place that readers are after, thus it should be kept. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects exist to aid reader searches, they don't have to be grammatically correct as long as they take readers to the content they would be looking for. Common typos and misspellings, slang names, common incorrect names and common punctuation errors are all acceptable to have as redirects, for example. The page views of this redirect are high enough to demonstrate that this is a common search term, and it is fairly unambiguously connected to the Gulag article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:18, 2 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.

Crypto-libertarianism[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 05:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and libertarianism are different philosophies; although the given example here is anarcho-capitalism, which is...its own matter, libertarianism (including "libertarianism really focused on cryptocurrency") involves a lot of ideological range outside anarcho-capitalism. Also, 'crypto-' as a preface to a political ideology doesn't necessarily refer to cryptocurrency, but also to people who are perceived as hiding their political ideology. By extension, 'cryptolibertarianism' and variants are both ambiguous and overly broad for the target. Vaticidalprophet 00:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep from what I can see significant overlap across two, source examples from quick search: [1], [2],[3], [4]... Acousmana (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Acousmana (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this RfD. [reply]
  • Keep, unless there's a better target for redirection. "Technolibertarianism" may be a possible alternative target, but that may not be entirely accurate either.--Grnrchst (talk) 20:37, 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.

SiO2 Group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#SiO2 Group

Vacuum bag[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content these were supposed to be targeting has recently been spun out into it's own article (Vacuum bag moulding) so these redirects no longer point to the right place. I fixed the unambiguous redirects, but I think these merit further discussion. In my opinion the majority of people are more likely to be looking for Vacuum packing than Vacuum bag moulding if they search for these terms, so I propose retargeting these there. Basically every google result for these search terms relates to various forms of vacuum storage bags. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion. The two redirects I created Vacuum-bagged and Vacuum bagged only redirect from sailboat type articles, where those boats are constructed using fibreglass/composite vacuum bagging processes, so these should redirect to Vacuum bag moulding, not Vacuum packing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's only been 6 incoming links made to those two redirects in the 4 years these have existed, so it wouldn't take much effort to change them to piped links if these get retargeted. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I already fixed them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_26&oldid=1138583234"