Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 8, 2021.

Genocide of Christians in North Korea[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 04:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title that is unencyclopedic (there's a difference between "genocide" and "religious persecution") and unlikely to be a search term... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is an absurdly inflammatory search term that implies that the treatment of Christians in North Korea is on the level of a genocide. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert Park (activist) has repeatedly ([1] [2]) referred to the treatment of Christians in the DPRK as genocide, and the (non particularly neutral) Washington Examiner has done the same (mirrored by Yahoo! Sports for whatever reason). Given that Park's article extensively discusses his use of the term "genocide", a case could be made for retargeting there. But my initial feeling is that this is a plausible search term (based on its usage in reliable sources) and one of those cases where we'd be best off taking readers to the less hyperbolically-titled argument without comment, much as we do with any "Murder of" → "Killing of" redirect. Thus weak keep, but open to being convinced otherwise. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak delete: there is certainly no freedom of religion in NK, as among other things religion is seen by the regime as "ideologies" that would compete with the primacy of NK's communist own ideology. This includes oppression of Christians. I have been studying NK for several years and editing about it in Wikipedia. I have never heard of these humman rights violations rising to the level of genocide of Christians. There might be a minority of authors who assert that, but I don't believe this to be the consensus of the field/authoritative sources. For example the UN's most authoritative report (Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) did not come to a conclusion of Christian genocide. And the report is based on a wide range of inputs from direct witnesses and human rights organizations. Therefore, this title should be deleted. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon re-reading @Tamzin: sensible points, I am also more open to being convinced to keep, as a way to re-direct those searching exagerated claims, into more neutral articles. Al83tito (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if we do not have a mention of genocide at the target. There was a similar RfD a few months back. Jay (Talk) 07:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL and also largely per Tamzin. If a reader comes here looking for information on a "genocide" of Christians in North Korea, the current target is (expected to be, when it's improved) where they will find information about that topic, in a similar way to how white genocide redirects to a factual discussion about that topic. For titles like this, one editor's "absurdly inflammatory" is another's "matter of opinion". Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's used to some extent in various sources. Plausible search term. Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 3 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 22:31, 8 September 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:PROPOSE[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. After this long and multiple relistings it seems unlikely that another relisting will result in consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has led to a hatnote at the top of VPR, which it'd be nice to get rid of. It's not clear that the Village pump is the primary target of someone who uses it, as proposed deletions are also quite common. I'd like to see it made into a disambiguation page instead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: per Sdkb. Qwerfjkltalk 20:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is you try to disambiguate this you're going to run into the issue that there are literally hundreds of processes on this site that involve people making some kind of proposal, everything from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to Wikipedia:Proposed moves to Wikipedia:Proposed policies could sensibly fit on a dab page. Could you put together a list of what you think this should contain? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Is being nice to get rid of a hatnote really a good reason for disposing of a redirect? Surely usefulness is more important than tidiness, which is a virtue that I'd love to have, but in practice certainly do not, and have not suffered any great ill effects from not having. And proposing deletion is specifically proposing one particlar outcome, not the same as making a general proposal which this redirect is. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate because WP:VPR is already a more widely used (I think?) and shorter shortcut for the pump proposals page. An editor typing in "wp:propose" might be looking for any number of pages. That there are a lot of possible entries (the pump, prod, rfc, wp:proposal... which, btw, also has a hatnote saying wp:propose leads there) persuades me that a dab page would be the most useful target for this redirect. Levivich 05:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notice at the top of the page already has a disambiguation:
  • Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
  • Proposed speedy deletion criteria belong at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
  • Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
  • Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
  • Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles. - Qwerfjkltalk 09:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivan's squirrel. Jay (Talk) 13:25, 1 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 22:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the possible targets found at CAT:PRO. These shortcuts are ambiguous, and as is commonly the case, various versions point haphazardly to different places. WP:PROPOSE, WP:PROPS, WP:PROPOSALS, and WP:PROPOSAL target several places. Target all to a dab page at WP:PROPOSE and update hatnotes at targets. Not ideal, but an improvement over the status quo. I agree retargeting to Policies and guidelines#Proposals would also be an improvement, but I think a dab page would be a superior solution at this point. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps sdkb or someone else so inclined could draft a dab page underneath the redirect? Mdewman6 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a very functional disambiguation here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a dab page, it has a set of hatnotes that just lead searchers to AfD and PROD. There are many more types of proposals on Wikipedia. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Qwerfjkl. I see how the status quo isn't perfect, but it's not so broken that it needs fixing IMO. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 24 September 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:R from initials[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 04:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:R from short name. The majority of redirects tagged with this template are the names of people, which should use "short name" rather than "initialism". Indeed, the canonical example of using "short name" rather than "initialism", JS Bach, uses "initials", and hence is wrongly categorized. Some redirects using this template should go to "initialism", but this will involve less work than changing "initials" to "short name" on all affected pages. Tevildo (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This rcat template redirect is ambiguous in that it could apply to both short name and initialism redirects, as evidenced by those that are miscategorized. I think it would be better to have redirects not categorized than to have them miscategorized, and regardless of where this is targeted, misuse it likely to continue. Absent that, I agree with the nom that retargeting would result in less miscategorized redirects, so alternatively retarget per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:34, 2 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 22:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mdewman6. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mdewman6. I've made a start on recategorizing the affected redirects. Tevildo (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All mainspace links to this redirect have now been replaced. Tevildo (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of U.S. state theaters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 16#List of U.S. state theaters

Speeedfins[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 article's undeletion. Hog Farm Talk 05:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the target nor any other article mentions this; there is some page history, though it only relied on one primary source and does not seem to be used in any current page. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 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.

HUMANCENTiPAD ddd[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 02:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the result of a page move test? Moved to this title and back a minute later. Does not look like "ddd" has any relation to the target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 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.

Areee[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 02:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Initial page content does not meet any encyclopaedic standards. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see a media title with this name to associate with Ahmed either. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:46, 9 September 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.

Craaaw[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 02:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither this nor "craaw", of which this title could potentially have been a typo, have any helpful mentions on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No notable folks with this nickname or using this as a catchphrase. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:48, 9 September 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.

Ejrusselllim123/Cult of the Cenote[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ejrusselllim123" appears to be the username of the page creator; not a plausible search term. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G6 obviously created in error. The editor who created the page moved it from a userspace sandbox into mainspace but forgot to remove their username from the page title. Was fixed a minute later. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • G6 per 192.76. We're getting so many of these lately, I kinda wonder if this should be its own R-series CSD, rather than being hidden within G6. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:R3 covers the situation where an editor creates a page and then immediately realizes it's an error and moves it to the correct title, but see the inline note on the CSD page for why it only applies to recent creations. The G6 criterion for "pages unambiguously created in error" predates that, and one of the criteria for new CSD proposals is that the situation isn't already covered by an existing criterion. In other words it's procedural wonkery but we could probably do better. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote would be for splitting G6 up into several smaller criteria, as it stands it tends to get used a lot for everything that doesn't technically fit into one of the other criteria, and "Technical deletions" is not a well defined criteria. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping from page move. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:48, 9 September 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.

Mystical Body of the Church/of Christ[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 all to Body of Christ. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about Catholicism, the expression does not refer primarily to the encyclical of Pius XII. For example Britannica and CatholicCulture, use the expression not to refer to the encyclical, but to the concept. A similar expression, "Mystical Body of the Church", is used in the Catholic Encyclopedia to refer to the concept. The expression is also used by E. Orthodox, e.g. here, here, here, here. Moreover, some Lutherans also use the expression.
Therefore, I believe the redirects should either redirect to the general concept, Body of Christ, or to a DAB. Veverve (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's better to keep these per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Mystici corporis Christi is the title of a papal encyclical, one which strongly denounced Nazism at the height of the Second World War, and is viewed as one of the most important Catholic writings prior to the Second Vatican Council. The use of the phrase by faith leaders outside of Catholicism seems to me to be more of a modifier, describing the general Body of Christ theological concept common to Christian demoninations as "mystical", rather than the descriptor actually being part of the title. At any rate, Mystici already has a hatnote referring to the general concept. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with WP:SMALLDETAILS, since you want to keep all capitalisation and variants to redirect to the same page. The rest of your argument is rather strange. The concept of the mystical body of Christ/of the Church was not invented by Pius XII, and certainly the expression does not primarily refer to his encyclical, even in Catholicism, e.g. here and here, here.
    The other sources do use it as a title, it can clearly be seen. From a new source: "The holy Eucharist serves as the bond of unity in love. The holy Eucharist unites us to Christ and to one another. This is the makeup of the mystical body of Christ: the Church. This concept of the Church as the mystical body of Christ is very dear to our Orthodox tradition because it expresses the reality of Christ in the world and the unity of the Church, which is real only when Christ is the central figure." Also, in John Anthony McGuckin (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity it can be read: "In the Church and throught the sacraments our nature enters into union with the divine nature in the hypostasis of the Son, the Head of His mystical body." (Lossky 1991, quoted on p. 128); "the church is the body of Christ" (p. 455). Veverve (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SMALLDETAILS was the wrong argument, I was meaning to say that the difference between "Body of Christ" and "Mystical Body of Christ" was a detail significant enough to treat separately. But I'll take your expertise over my Google-fu: these should all retarget to Body of Christ, and the "not to be confused with" hatnote there should be changed to one referring specifically to Pius XII's encyclical (because just giving the name is still confusing), i.e. ""Mystical body of Christ" redirects here. For the papal encyclical of Pius XII, see Mystici corporis Christi." Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:55, 15 September 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 Wrightnows[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 04:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A video and another of The Wrightnow Family who used to come in the Netflix ads. There is some content here but not significant enough to get into the Netflix article. I could not find an Advertising or Marketing section at the target where I could add this. Netflix § Membership fee, Blockbuster acquisition offer, growth start talks about an advertising case, but in different context. Delete if there is no mention on Wikipedia. Jay (Talk) 19:09, 8 September 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.

Roku Netflix[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17#Roku Netflix

Trillion Netflixes[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 02:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G3 - page move vandalism. There is some speculation that Netflix stock could grow to a market cap of $1 trillion within the next decade, but that's not discussed in the article, and these would be pretty vague search terms for that anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This redirect was created as a result of page move vandalism. - Aoidh (talk) 22:59, 13 September 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.

Frank Chavez[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 Francisco Chavez. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 15:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently also refers to Francisco Chavez. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 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.

Diet video[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; closest thing to a mention is a citation title referring to the target phenomenon as "anti-diet videos". Internet search results appear to be exclusively videos describing diets, and not "what I eat in a day" videos. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the words "diet video" are not directly used in the target, but my logic was that a "diet" is simply defined as the sum of food that someone consumes, and a video of what someone eats in a day is exactly that. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:14, 8 September 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.

Dabhari Beach[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 02:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, while near Surat it's not clear that this is due for inclusion or useful in the absence of a mention. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jay (Talk) 19:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. I'm not sure if the beach has enough sources to warrant an article (I only looked at English sources). --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 12 September 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.

Taisho democracy[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 Taisho Democracy. Hog Farm Talk 05:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE#2, this redirect should be deleted, as the Taisho Democracy has its own article. Loafiewa (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A retarget works too. I'm not exactly familiar with RfD, but that seems like an adequate solution. Loafiewa (talk) 17:10, 8 September 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.

Thom Yorke's live band[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 16#Thom Yorke's live band

Category:Baglan Shansharov[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Cross project redirect. Someone needs to check out the Wikidata page, too. Kleuske (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223[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 10:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept in 2013, but the relevant section in the target was removed as OR in 2014. Based on that RFD and Reddit, it looks this is a year where it is theorized by some that a Y2K type situation might occur, but as it seems unlikely that human life as we know it will exist when this year comes around, this isn't a plausible search term without a mention. Anyone searching this will already know the significance. Hog Farm Talk 05:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This number is far too large to be used by any reasonable person. ―Susmuffin Talk 08:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Susmuffin: How does the size of a number affect the plausibility of it as a search term? 10^10^100 is a large number, but it's a plausible way of searching for a googolplex. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is that Wikipedia has information on googolplex, while we have none on this specific number. Even if it would be a plausible search term, there is no target for the search. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @PEIsquirrel: That's exactly the rationale that I give in my delete vote below. My point was that "delete because the number is big" has no basis in policy and isn't supported by the link they provided - we also wouldn't delete redirects on the basis that a word was too long. at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#3.1415926535897932384626433832795 it was determined that long strings of digits of pi could be reasonable search terms, so I don't see why we should delete it on that basis alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a written criterion but we have occasionally deleted redirects for being too long. I recall a discussion years ago about the actual title of an old book that was so long that the title caused technical problems, although I don't remember now what those problems were. I think the upper limit was something like 260 characters, which would be a very large number indeed. I've also seen instances where an editor tried to create a redirect to a song from a title containing that song's entire lyrics, which would be too long but are also deletable as copyright violations. Just so you know, if you're using the {{ping}} templates you have to sign your edit or the ping doesn't work. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the target contains no information on or mention of this number. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no mention of this number at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems like the Wikipedia article was doing the original research of those theoretical year numbers, and the websites that mention that number are derived from there. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 September 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.

SCDP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 16#SCDP

11 Sepember 2001[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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 02:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: We do not need to have a redirect for every possible misspelling of a topic's name. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this thing, I'm usually against keeping stuff like this (and I agree with Susmuffin's point above), but since late March 2017 it's been getting a lot of pageviews for some reason (606 in the last year alone!). It might inconvenience a lot of readers if the redirect is deleted. Regards, SONIC678 05:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have already mistyped the date as Sepember 11, 2001 while looking for 911 three days in advance. Redirecting such mistypings will help others as well. 2409:4061:2DCF:43B5:4BE8:A8D3:8EDE:B551 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is one of those redirects where maybe you wouldn't create it yourself, but it's relatively harmless and perhaps a tiny bit useful and so probably should not be deleted. Winston (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep monthly average page views of ~ 50. Users are clearly misspelling this a lot. Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something mysterious with the stats. The pageviews spike on 9/11 of every year starting from 2017. Either the users are typing it wrong, or some article related to 9/11 had a link to this redirect, which has since been corrected. Wait for 2022 and see how it goes. Jay (Talk) 19:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and gets pageviews, possibly because of to the popularity of the target article. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     20:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling, probably linked from some 2017 article which made a misspelling. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:05, 10 September 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_September_8&oldid=1048134456"