Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 3, 2021.

Cinderella (2021 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 retarget to Cinderella (disambiguation)#Films. ✗plicit 00:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cinderella (2015 film) and WP:NFC. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:50, 3 October 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.

Green fungus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Green fungus

Big Black: Stand at Attica[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Big Black: Stand at Attica

Str rightmost[edit]

The remaining Str * deletion requests are here.

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. Please nominate the other redirects separately. ✗plicit 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, fairly new cross-namespace redirect, although not eligible for CSD R2. There is no particular reason that I can think of why this template needs a redirect from mainspace (it's not a very important template), and unless there is a legitimate reason for them CNRs should not exist. User:GKFXtalk 19:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, only created on 23 September.
I don't know why CSD R2 includes "Template:" in its list of exclusions; I've pproposed rewording a bit at WT:XNR § "Organisational" wording. I appreciate XNR is "only" an essay but it is one that is regularly invoked here. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This redirect crosses namespaces. ―Susmuffin Talk 11:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the reasoning. I guess Str crop, Str index, Str left, Str right, Str rightc, and Str sub old should be deleted too, then? As for why the redirect was created in the first place, it's because I was stumbling my way to documentation of the string manipulation functions and I figured a redirect would be discreet enough (since no one would look up "str rightmost" except when looking for the string manipulation function). Urhixidur (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd delete them too. Pro tip is that you can use {{#invoke:string|sub}} as a substitute for all of those templates and then not have to, as you put it, stumble around the documentation of the rest of them. User:GKFXtalk 17:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any documentation on these functions as a set, either, until I stumbled across the navbox at Template:String-handling templates. Perhaps it would be useful to create Template:str as a redirect to it – or even a transclusion of it with all sections expanded? I think it is reasonable to assume that an editrix wanting to use a template knows enough to write "Template:" in the search box (and she need know nothing of modules as they are wrapped in templates), so redirects from main article space are too much. But searching for these functions is hard, and has been forever. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote up a bit of documentation at Help:Manipulating strings which is hopefully helpful in finding out what options are available, and I've expanded all the sections on that navbox if you view it directly. Feel free to create a redirect from Template:Str to either of those pages. User:GKFXtalk 19:06, 6 October 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.

Give me your rent[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 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_25#Give_me_rent, where a similar variant was determined to not be useful. Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we have already deleted the redirect for the actual line so I can’t possibly see any reason to keep this misquoted variant.--67.70.103.244 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We do not need to have a redirect for every obscure Toby Maguire meme. ―Susmuffin Talk 11:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 13:28, 4 October 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.

Chosen, Japan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 21#Chosen, Japan

Fire danger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Fire danger

Transfeminine and Transmasculine[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 Transgender. ✗plicit 00:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transfeminine and Transmasculine include binary transgenders. Sharouser (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. They should be redirected somewhere it explains their definition. Perhaps transferring the section to Transgender would unify both things along with Transgender#Non-binary identity. Taci (tlk) 18:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be converging on redirecting these titles to somewhere, but no clear consensus on where yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my comment to support only redirection to Transgender. There is at least one place where this could be a useful wikilink to within Wikipedia, and probably more. Crossroads -talk- 20:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, support redirect -- I agree with Crossroads here, along with the arguments of Taci and ArglebargleIV. These are important terms, but should be within another article, rather than being deleted outright. Historyday01 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to transgender. (defining my stance more precisely) Taci ☎ (she/ey) 16:23, 9 October 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.

Shopping area[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 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over-specific redirect from a broad, vague term. To me it seems more likely to refer to a shopping district in a city, but since there's no article for that, I'm suggesting deletion. The Shopping mall article also states that shopping center is the broader term, so even that would be preferable. Paul_012 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created the redirect because I've always equated "shopping area" with an outdoor or open air type place, like a strip mall or what User:Paul_012 mentioned above. Feel free to delete if I'm wrong on this, though. Um, but before you do have you considered a disambiguation page at this title? If "shopping area" is, like User:Paul_012 said, a broad term maybe that would make more sense. Americanfreedom (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague, and no significant edit history. Coastside (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too vague to be useful. I agree that this is what search results are for. User:GKFXtalk 16:27, 9 October 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.

Gaelic language[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Goidelic languages. It's nice to have a productive second relist to get that sounded out. -- Tavix (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Gaelic#Languages. There are many Gaelic languages, аnd none of the meanings prevail. Somerby (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Gaelic#Languages: There are too many potential targets for this to direct the searcher anywhere else. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the the redirects here will need to be considered as well. – Uanfala (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gaelic#Languages per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that there was a brazilian IP editor vandalising a load of Gaelic related redirects last year by pointing them all at Scottish Gaelic. See for example [1], [2] etc. There's a load of redirects in this topic that probably need fixing. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I got blocked by Drmies in the process for "Disruptive editing" but I think I've gotten all the vandalised redirects fixed, there were 50 something of them in all. That being said Retarget, but to Goidelic languages, rather than Gaelic#Languages. Apart from the various varieties of Gaelic languages that are covered in Goidelic languages The only pages in that section of the disambiguation page are Comparison of Irish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic and two lists of words derived from Gaelic Origin, none of which are ambiguous with the title Gaelic language. Since the only reasonable target in that section of the dab page is Goidelic languages or one of the individual languages in that group I think we should cut out the DAB page and just link directly to the page on the language family. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm OK with both targets whether Gaelic#Languages or Goidelic languages. But to point reader directly to Scottish Gaelic is definitely not correct. I want also to ping @Bastun: because that was probably he who added in the section Irish language#In English the statement sorry, it was O'Dea: [3] that many Irish people object to the use of the word Gaelic to describe the language, citing Alan Titley, who made an error saying that "Gaelic" refers only to the native language of Scotland. --Somerby (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was O'Dea I think. Thanks for the ping in any case :-) Retarget to Gaelic#Languages. The Irish language (which is a Gaelic language, not a Goidelic one!) is the primary Gaelic language, with approximately 170,000 L1 speakers, compared to approximately 57,000 L1 and L2 Scottish Gaelic speakers (so yes, the section will need a small re-write). On the issue of the use of "Gaelic" to describe Irish - yes, some people object to its use; but equally, some native speakers of the Munster dialect say "Nope, that's what we call it, alright." (I don't have a link to the Twitter thread where I read about this, unfortunately) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I don't know anything about these languages, but the articles Irish language and Goidelic languages say that Irish is a Goidelic language. Now I'm confused. The Goidelic article also says that Gaelic is a synonym. What's the difference between Goidelic and Gaelic? Winston (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad - I erroneously assumed 'Goidelic' to be a name for Scottish Gaelic, but you're correct, they're synonyms. I'm just much more familiar with 'Gaelic'. I've struck through part of my comment above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goidelic languages, which is the article about Gaelic languages (it says in the first sentence that the terms are synonyms, and further along that "Gaelic" may be locally ambiguous within Scotland, but we don't write Wikipedia only for Scottish readers). List of Gaelic languages shares this target. Whatever happens, the redirect should be permanently semiprotected due to the long-term IP edit-warring. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PEIsquirrel: The IP's that were retargeting the redirect are all socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helivelto, an editor from Rio de Janeiro who's modulo operandi is to vandalise redirects and links in articles by retargeting them to point at related but slightly wrong articles. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to try to sound out Gaelic#Languages vs Goidelic languages
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a nominator I should add that now I think that the best target would be Goidelic languages. Somerby (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goidelic languages as the only members of the dabpage not covered by the actual article are a comparison and lists, none of which really relate directly to a search for "gaelic language". eviolite (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goidelic languages per Eviolite. I think those bottom three entries at Gaelic#Languages probably shouldn't even be there. I would've felt comfortable closing, and almost did, but may be seen as WP:INVOLVED since I tried to move the Goidelic languages article to Gaelic languages about six years ago. If anything, I think I'd be biased against anything that further entrenches the Goidelic name, but I'll stay here to hopefully contribute to a more definitive close, rather than risk a round two at WP:DRV. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 19 October 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.

Oval Office astrologer[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 00:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere mentioned in target page, unlikely search term --TheImaCow (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per above. While Nancy Reagan did consult an astrologer on several occasions, to my knowledge there never was, nor has there ever been an Oval Office astrologer. Drdpw (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MB 04:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There has never been an Oval Office astrologer, and this redirect simply seems like a pointless dig at a long-dead politician.PopePompus (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading/confusing. PlanetsForLife 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing for those who don't know the context, and an inappropriate jab for those who to get it. dannymusiceditor oops 16:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Joan Quigley, who communicated with Reagan in some sort of unofficial way regarding astrology (e.g. see here). It seems she was dubbed in manners similar to this redirect by the press at times. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further consideration of the late retarget proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 3 October 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.

UKOGBAI[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Db-redirtypo}} Blue Riband► 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This speedy deletion has been contested here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_24 . You are welcome to debate there. Angelgreat (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note neither this page (the RfD discussion, which was the page tagged for speedy deletion) nor the UKOGBAI redirect are eligable for speedy deletion under criterion R3 as neither are typos. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This redirect should not be speedy deleted as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... (It can make things easier. UKOGBANI is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so UKOGBAI would be short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922.) --Angelgreat (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC) copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -A WP:CSD under WP:R3 applies to "..recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers". While the text string "UKOGBAI" is not a typo itself it is unlikely that somebody would type "WKOGBAI" to look for the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland". Blue Riband► 19:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, UKOGBAI is not short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Delete really silly redirect. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 15:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that UKOGBAI is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NORTHERN Ireland. Please check before posting accusations. Angelgreat (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a simple acronym. There are two acronymns UKOGBANI and UKOGBAI pointing to two different articles. There is an existing article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and this acronymn redirect points there. Why have the one redirect and not the other? Coastside (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)copied from the talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whilst this might strictly be an abbreviation it is not a common one and I cannot find a reliable source that uses it. The same is true of UKOGBANI. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let alone UKoGBaNI and TUKOGBANI and Deyrnas (Welsh for "Kingdom") and several others... redirect titles don't have to be RS of course, but some minimal evidence of real-life use can be decisive. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find a reliable source that uses it - there's occasional jocular usage of UKOGBAI in printed sources in the 1900s [4][5]. (No opinion from me on whether that makes it worth keeping or not). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a helpful search term for someone who does not want to type out the full name. I don't see how this could possibly cause confusion as there's nothing else it could refer to, and the lack of reliable sources is outweighed by the fact that it is extremely useful and intuitive shorthand for a very long article title. As noted by WP:RGUIDE, "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect." Mlb96 (talk) 00:54, 5 October 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.

Foreman Spike[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Foreman Spike

State of Takasago[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#State of Takasago

Australia/Lord Howe[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. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly note that I have nominated just these Australia/ redirects from the huge list at Category:Redirects from a tzid although I think all of them may need to be dealt with eventually (also note Australia/Eucla is not nominated and is not listed in that category, and has a different target). I am only nominating this small group so as to not cause a trainwreck, and so as to keep the nomination a bit more focussed.

I feel that these redirects are not only unhelpful, but also ambiguous. The only internal links to any of these come from List of tz database time zones, and from the target Time in Australia, thus creating a considerable amount of self-linking (there are two other links to Australia/Currie but not from articles). Further I feel these are more likely to be search terms for the places in question, especially given the old practice have articles be subpages (see Wikipedia:Subpages#History of subpages) and also wonder if there are some technical issues with having all of these subpages? In any case, I am suggesting delete all of these. A7V2 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are both relevant and valid enough as redirects, especially as codes from a database, even if they may not be very widely used. tz codes are linked to on a few Wikipedia articles, such as list of tz database time zones and Time in Africa (for African countries), which is helpful and convenient for being able to link directly to the relevant article about the country's time zone(s). Wikipedia has similar redirects as these, such as redirects from e numbers, ATC codes even Unicode codes (the majority of which are completely unused) and I personally believe it is the same for the IANA tz database's codes. Best wishes, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEatsTuna: I mentioned where these particular redirects are linked from... I specifically listed these Australian ones since they are only linked on the list article and on Time in Australia. Ignoring the other issues with the list article (eg I can't work out what the notes in the notes column mean), there's no reason you couldn't simply bypass with a piped link to Time in Australia. If someone were to actually search Australia/Melbourne I think if anything, they are more likely looking for Melbourne, Victoria than the timezone. The other examples you give I don't feel are as relevant since they aren't ambiguous in the same way that these are. A7V2 (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point – they may not be linked anywhere else yet but I think it would make more sense to keep them so that they can be used elsewhere later rather than just deleting them now and recreating them later if they end up being used. I do not really see why it should have to use piped links as a redirect is relevant and much more convenient. Secondly, they work well as redirects to time zone articles and I am not sure if they are really ambiguous enough to be deleted all together. I do not really think many people would type that into the Wikipedia search bar when looking for a city, but they are officially used by the tz database (and I do not know of anything else that uses titles stylised like those). Some of such redirects used to redirect to the corresponding cities, but they were deleted at an RfD in 2016 as being unnecessary (though I do note other reasons by editors were also listed in the discussion, like what they originally redirected too). Best regards, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refine or retarget where more specific targets exist. Unlink to avoid any circular links, e.g. America/Vancouver targets Time in Canada but is not linked at Time in Canada#IANA time zone database. These are useful redirects for whose who discover these terms outside of Wikipedia and want to learn more. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf and LunaEatsTuna. All of these redirects are useful and harmless enough for keeping. I honestly don't see how deletion would be beneficial. CycloneYoris talk! 05:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern was that these terms may be ambiguous with the relevant places (and so confusing to someone searching these) but it appears I'm in the minority (which is fine!). A7V2 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 3 October 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.

2/0[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. I could easily get away with closing this as delete, but after reading over this a few times, I've come to the conclusion that (almost?) all of the delete !votes are resolved by disambiguating. Some of the delete !votes are specifically in opposition to the current target (questionable relationship, absurd situation) and others mention ambiguity. Others still are due to a lack of mention in wire gauge, which AngusWOOF's draft resolves by instead linking to both wire gauge articles where this is mentioned. I realize that the consensus for this decision (like the disambiguation itself) may be a bit flimsy, so feel free to nominate the page at WP:AFD if you'd like further discussion about it. -- Tavix (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A completely arbitrary example of a number being divided by zero. I think this is also potentially ambiguous, the situation where I've most often come across 2/0 is Wire gauge, where it's used as shorthand for "00". 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, I think? An unexplained redirect to either of these targets isn't great, but a dabpage could give a short description to explain what "2/0" means in either context (and there are likely more). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This redirect's relationship to its target is questionable. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wire gauge. This isn't just some arbitrary math: as 192.76 observes, 2/0 is a standard wire gauge measurement in both the American and Imperial/Standard systems, although the sizes are slightly different between the two systems. Wire gauge has a link in "see also" to a Commons-hosted chart of wire gauges which includes both systems, but the article doesn't include measurements so the term is hard to find there. On the other hand, American wire gauge#Tables of AWG wire sizes and Standard wire gauge both have charts which list the specific size, and both have a description somewhere in the article. I think redirecting to the main wire gauge article is still better, but it would be better still (and better for MOS:ACCESS compliance) if the PDF table were converted to wikicode and hosted in the main article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's ambiguous between those two gauge systems, but as far as I can tell it's not ambiguous with any unrelated topic. For example, this is not a possible rail grade, and there is no reason that 2 has any special significance when divided by zero. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget current situation is absurd; if people think there's a non-absurd choice of target then that's fine. --JBL (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Wire gauge per Ivanvector or, alternatively, delete. I don't like there is currently no mention of this at the proposed target, but perhaps this will eventually come to fruition. It would at least alert searchers that this is a wire gauge. Note that 1/0 also targets Division by zero while also being a wire gauge; too late to bundle here but I think that at least is a plausible search term for the division by zero article. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarget to Wire gauge per above. It would be good if the n/0 nomenclature were better explained here as it is in AWG. MB 19:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is 2/0 not mentioned at Wire gauge, 00 isn't either. This seems extremely unlikely to be of use to readers not already familiar with wire gauge, and those readers won't need this redirect to get to that article. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 3 October 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.

Redlink Fetish[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 00:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "fetish" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 3 October 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.

2015 TCU Horned Frogs women's soccer team[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 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the 2015 team at the target. This redirect was proposed for deletion during a recent similar RfD for the 2015 Oklahoma Sooners women's soccer team. Jay (Talk) 15:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agreed there's no mention of the 2015 team specifically, but this link is used in three articles, and the redirect at least sends the reader to a description of the team in general. I don't see that deleting it, thereby creating 3 redlinks, would be an improvement. Quite the contrary. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous discussion. A bluelink signifies that Wikipedia has content on this term. The fact that there is no information on the 2015 TCU women's soccer team means that we are misleading all that click that link, which is definitely not an improvement over a redlink. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They won't find info on the 2015 team specifically, but they will find info on the team itself - which is more than they would have if we delete the redirect and create a redlink. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well this redirect is specifically for the 2015 team, so we need information on the 2015 team to sustain a redirect. Otherwise we are doing a disservice for those looking for that specific information. -- Tavix (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a likely/needed redirect. TCU Horned Frogs women's soccer team is sufficient. GiantSnowman 21:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: which of the possible grounds for deleting a redirect listed at WP:R#CRD is being invoked here? Colonies Chris (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:R#D10, and a combination of WP:R#D5 and WP:R#D8 (makes no sense and unlikely to be useful). Jay (Talk) 09:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    R5 and R8 are entirely inapplicable here. This redirect makes good sense and is neither novel nor obscure. R10 is inapplicable because the redirect refers a specific case (which we don't have an article about) to a more general writeup on the subject. That's a prime function and benefit of redirects. We don't know exactly what the reader who clicks that link is looking for - maybe they do indeed want info on the 2015 team specifically (and if an editor one day chooses to add such info, the target location is exactly where they should put it), or maybe the reader just wants more general background about that team, which they will find at tne target location. (See also WP:RKEEP#K5). The benefit of the redirect vastly exceeds any possible minor confusion that the target doesn't contain info about the specifically 2015 version of the team. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific-to-generic would have been applicable if the (generic) target had a mention of the (specific) subject. WP:R#K5 encourages to use page stats so we need not assume usability. The 123 pageviews in the last 6 years are because of the incoming links, and as long as the link exists, readers will continue clicking on it, hoping to find information about the 2015 team. {R without mention} should be exceptional - keeping or creating redirects in the hope that an editor one day will choose to add relevant info, will only end up in endless meaningless redirects, example, pages for 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2014, etc. There is no limit really. Jay (Talk) 11:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, it's even more fundamental than that: the lede of WP:R states that Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read. If I want to read about the 2015 TCU Horned Frogs women's soccer team, a redirect would be useful to guide me to a page where I can read about that team. 2015 West Virginia Mountaineers women's soccer team does just that, so it's a helpful redirect. The 2015 TCU redirect does not do that. I'll turn the question around on you, Chris: which of possible grounds for creating and maintaining a redirect listed at WP:RPURPOSE is being invoked here? -- Tavix (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix - The team's 2015 season is not discussed at the target. A7V2 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 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.

Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election[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 00:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leader of the Conservative Party (UK). This was the most recent, but it's WP:ASTONISHing for "next" to be 2 and a half years ago. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:21, 3 October 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.

Next Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election[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 00:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats (UK). This isn't the next election, it wasn't even the most recent (the deputy elected has already become and quit as leader). Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:18, 3 October 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.

Channel 13 Eyewitness News[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Channel 13 Eyewitness News

Channel five eyewitness news[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Channel five eyewitness news

Channel 3 Eyewitness News[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Channel 3 Eyewitness News

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_3&oldid=1051221331"