Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2022.

Do It (Empire Cast song)[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 20:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target page. Richhoncho (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is a real song with listings on Shazam and a few lyrics databases, but I can't find much coverage in prose. Should we list songs from this musical on the article anyway? Glades12 (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, recently created redirect with no information in any article. I also checked Empire discography and all their season and volume articles. Jay 💬 09:37, 12 August 2022 (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.

Avocado (color)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Shades of chartreuse#Avocado where it's currently mentioned. If the target for this information is to change, please update the redirect(s) accordingly. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per the redirect's history, it looks as though at one point, it targeted Olive (color)#Avocado instead, but the topic is not mentioned there either. Also, for what it's worth, the French Wikipedia's article seems to claim the "avocado" color is a shade of green. (If a section for this redirect's topic is restored, I have no idea which base article the section should be located.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems to have been removed from shades of chartreuse as well. TartarTorte 14:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was removed with comment remove unattributed content, copied from various Wikipedia articles. Diannaa, which article was it copied from? I can add it back, this time with attribution. Jay 💬 09:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thunderbrine moved (without attribution) a big chunk of Chartreuse (color) to Shades of chartreuse on February 7, 2021. — Diannaa (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have added a chunk from the history of Chartreuse (color) again, and this includes Avocado. I hope they are not duplicated in any other article, or they may be removed again. Jay 💬 13:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've started a broader discussion of the situation extending beyond particular redirects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 9#"Shades of" articles. – Scyrme (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, as by now the obvious solution, to whatever article section discusses the colour. Currently that happens to be Shades of chartreuse#Avocado. Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to where it is mentioned. Peter James (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2022 (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.

Bed death[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 00:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "bed death" can refer to lack of sexual intimacy between peoples of any gender, not just women (although "lesbian bed death" is where the term originates). Sexless marriage would make more sense, but even that is inaccurate. As the page sexless relationship or anything comparable doesn't exist (yet), I suggest deleting this redirect altogether. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of redirect. "Bed death" does not exclusively affect lesbian relationships. It is an intimacy situation that can develop in heterosexual, homosexual (male or female), and bisexual relationships. From The Phenomenon of "Bed Death": Bed death is when two people in a committed relationship no longer have sex as often as both or either would like. Sometimes it is referred to as a “sexless relationship” because of the infrequency of intimate relations. Here in the U.S., it is estimated that there are approximately 20 million people in sexless relationships. This issue of bed death is a very real phenomenon among couples for many reasons.
"Lesbian bed death" refers to the decrease in, or end of, sexual activity in a female homosexual relationship, which can result in the breakup of the affected lesbian relationship, or the relationship continuing without sexual activity. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and because they'll get there anyway if they're searching for *lesbian* bed death, as it is #1 for the term bed death in Advanced search. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete until a sexless relationship article is made. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:30, 9 August 2022 (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.

Non-veg joke[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Non-veg joke

Mint (credit cards)[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 restored article and send to AfD. Even though consensus is not entirely clear, participants seem to agree that maintaining the status quo would not be appropriate; so I've decided to restore the article since there are no arguments against this suggestion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Mint, and therefore no substantive information, at the target Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Intuit Mint. Not the original use of the term, which is an apparently defunct UK brand of credit cards,but is a plausible disambiguator for the proposed target. Otherwise, given the multiple past BLARsAfds and the WP:BLAR, the only other viable option would be to restore article to its most recent version and send to Afd. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, keeping would be valid if a mention of the brand can be added at NatWest Group#History. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Intuit Mint is known in part for credit scores and such, not cards per se, so heeding Shhh's objection below. I think this should therefore default to restore/Afd unless a mention can be added at NatWest Group#History, in which case it could be retargeted there. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple possible options here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 03:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Intuit Mint. They're more probable for credit cards, and add hatnote if information about these mint credit cards can be added to a section. CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not acceptable to me. Intuit Mint is not a credit card and (credit card) is not a plausible disambiguator here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2022 (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:Apocalypse[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 restore template before it was redirected by a sockpuppet. Anyone in good standing is free to nominate the template at WP:TFD. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Men character is not the main topic for the word Apocalypse ★Trekker (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Template:Global catastrophic risks which has links to both apocalypse and apocalyptic literature --Lenticel (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no clear use for navbox redirects. Retargetting will make some old page versions weird, so I would prefer keeping to retargetting. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert (keep) per below, consider at TFD if desired. —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and send to TFD per WP:BLAR. This previously was a navbox template, and there's been edit warring about whether it should exist or not. That's an issue that can be discussed at TFD. - Eureka Lott 13:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, strike that last part. All of the users involved in the edit war have been blocked as sockpuppets. I think we can simply reinstate the template. - Eureka Lott 14:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no use for this template, everything is better handled by the individual X-Men templates, this one is just filled out with random character articles creating over templating.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom has turned this into a delete nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems about right here. It'd be a confusing redirect imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A final ping to Lenticel, Kusma and EurekaLott who had voted before this was turned into a delete nomination. Jay 💬 05:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you have pinged me, but my answer to this continues to be that this is mostly the wrong venue for this deletion nomination. Un-BLAR and send to TFD if desired. —Kusma (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the reason I mentioned - users who voted before this was turned into a delete nomination. Jay 💬 06:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: The discussion started out as a delete nomination, received one retarget and a delete comment (mine was the first), then turned into a discussion about unBLARing, followed by some delete votes that seemed to ignore the previous discussion. I don't understand at what point this "turned into a delete nomination". —Kusma (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I do not wish to turn this into a parallel discussion though. Jay 💬 08:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay Thank you for the ping. Given that this is a contested WP:BLAR, Revert and send to TfD --Lenticel (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position hasn't changed. - Eureka Lott 08:47, 13 August 2022 (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.

Male (gender)[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 Gender. I'm seeing a narrow consensus in favor of retargeting to Gender following the draftification of Female (gender). It seems like editors are also fairly confident that a full article could be written at this title, so no prejudice against someone removing the redirect to attempt that. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Male gender redirects to Gender. What's the best target? — Tazuco ✉️ 05:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either one seems ok. No strong opinion either way. Andrevan@ 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any article that includes "... (gender)" in the title should redirect to Gender. Any material (i.e. content) about gender should be a paragraph or section in the Gender article -- therefore, "Male (gender)" should be included in the Gender article (which by virtue of its title and purpose should encompass whatever a version of gender may be). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to redirecting existing articles, that's a concern that RFD is not equipped to handle, and should be taken to WP:AFD instead. In addition, it could be determined while discussing some of those articles that the disambiguator "(gender)" could be erroneous in describing the subject of the respective articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target Male (gender) to Male (disambiguation) as the disagreeing persepctives here show the term is somewhat ambiguous and this would allow the reader to choose between articles on: masculinity, men, gender (current prevailing sense), the male sex (briefly called 'gender' euphemistically in the C20) and the male grammatical gender/noun class. Llew Mawr (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to oppose this based on the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Besides consistency being useful for our readers, that aforementioned AFD discussion was figuratively a 3-book epic, so I'd imagine going against that precedent may not be wise. Steel1943 (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Male (disambiguation) or Gender. I suspect/hope that if Draft:Female (gender) survives once moved back to the article space, the counterpart male article will also be created. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2022 (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.

2014 Ukrainian Civil War[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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violate WP:NPOV, the term is not commonly used in reliable sources. BlackBony (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The title is captured by the disambiguation page Ukrainian Civil War anyway. These redirects with paranthetic disambiguation are unlikely to be typed as a search and serve no purpose. —Michael Z. 13:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 03:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nomination raises an invalid reason to delete, as the term has been used by scholars since the beginning of the conflict. There are proponents and opponents of the classification, but that is not the issue in the nomination. There are various reasons why this is important, the most consequential is perhaps in solution building and working with the true participants. In this case with interference from the West and Russia it might be easier to want to rename to include "proxy war." If you look at the death tolls from the period in question, we don't find the foreign powers represented, despite the long border with one of them burials occur where one would expect if this were a civil war.
A couple of examples: 1) Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda, 2016 deals with the conflict as a civil war while discussing a number of the external factors; and 2) see the Serhiy Kudelia contribution in The War in Ukraine’s Donbas: Origins, Contexts, and the Future by Central European University Press, 2022. Project MUSE: muse.jhu.edu/book/94684. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to the Russo-Ukrainian War. The war was not only in Donbas. This was was obviously not a civil war, but Russian propaganda actively used this term to avoid mentioning its participation in the war. --Крывіч (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not obvious to me, can you show me what you mean? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify Ymblanter's comment: This nomination was brought forth by a sock-puppet of a now blocked user who committed Wikipedia:Long-term abuse of the English Wikipedia project. Louis Waweru  Talk  19:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Russo-Ukrainian War. I agree with Крывіч, but I would prefer the retarget based on his comments. If the Russian propaganda is still extant, then searches for the terms are likely and a redirect to Russo-Ukrainian War would be useful. But I would delete the third one (with 2014 in parenthesis), which is not as likely to be useful. Radzy0 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is Russian propaganda, "civil war" or just that there is propaganda so this must be too? You should look up trackers of burials for fighters and civilians. Louis Waweru  Talk  03:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "But I would delete...[Ukraine Civil War]...which is not as likely to be useful."
     Highly likely
    Terminating in parenthesis invalidates the leading part of the search. If propaganda was not rampant "Ukraine Civil War" would not appear, also supporting the parenthesis effect. That's why propaganda is still rampant so "Ukrainian Civil War" needs to be erased. Louis Waweru  Talk  10:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is not Russian propaganda, and the appearance of users with insignificant contribution voting delete is highly suspicious.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like an eminently reasonable redirect. Simply that foreign powers are supporting a particular side in a conflict does not cease to make it a civil war; the Russian Civil War notably had quite a great deal of direct foreign intervention. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 8 August 2022 (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.

Windows SChannel[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 20:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider deleting this page. It does not appear to be a common name for "Secure Channel" which doesn't have a page, but is mentioned in a list of similar packages at Security Support Provider Interface. Also, if it should remain, the correct page would have "Schannel" instead of "SChannel" in the name. The former being how most sources refer to the package. It is not linked to at the moment. Louis Waweru  Talk  08:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Louis Waweru: It is linked to from Transport Layer Security multiple times. I guess the corrections have to be made there, and while the text "Windows Schannel" there will still be valid, only the word "Schannel" will be linked to Schannel, also a redirect that you created just before you made this nomination. Also, when you say "Secure Channel" doesn't have a page, I believe you are specifically referring to a title with C in uppercase, because we do have Secure channel. Jay 💬 08:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jay, yes, someone created links since July 28th, I'll make sure to revert them as part of the page clean up or prep, I don't know why it was so prevalent on here.
Only linking from "Schannel" is intentional, there is no "Windows Schannel" so we shouldn't want to create a links from it.
Finally, Secure Channel is a product without a page, but is mentioned in SSPI, while a "secure channel" is a concept. (Maybe the dual meaning is why it wound up abbreviated as Schannel, I did look for how that came to be a few times, but just a guess still.) Louis Waweru  Talk  09:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I think I got sloppy on TLS and linked "Windows Schannel" instead of just "Schannel." Thank you for pointing that out. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 5 August 2022 (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.

Knegro[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. Jay 💬 05:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common misspelling based on internet search results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - very unlikely misspelling. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gusfriend (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2022 (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.

N (math)[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 disambiguation pages. While deletion received a significant amount of votes, in discussion the issues raised regarding the disambiguation appear to have all been addressed, and a nontrivial amount of the standing deletion votes were made before retargeting was proposed. . signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a user who has been warned for creating redirects based on a subreddit involving GPT2; these particular redirects are likely based on [1]. The latter has been retargeted, but I'm not convinced that it's a good target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm It's not a terrible target for searches, and it wouldn't be terrible for N either. On the flip side, you'd hate to have either of them linked from an article. Does anyone have stats on people entering something like "N (math)" directly into the search box? If that's ultra-rare, I wouldn't mind deleting both. --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC) On second thought, even if you enter it into the search box, it still doesn't really take you directly to what you want — you'd have to ctrl-f in the page, and that would hit all sorts of n's and p's. Doesn't seem worth keeping. Delete both. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague. Many different Ns and Ps in math -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely to be used and somewhat ambiguous. Lowercase n is used for all sort of things, including a general integer, and for both P and p, there are too many options and they are not easy to find at the target. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep N (math) - ℕ is of course what you want to write, but nobody except a few geeks like me knows how to enter that in a keyboard. BFG (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence field norm is possibly a better target. —Kusma (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, field norm is way more esoteric than natural number and would help very few people in finding what they actually search for. But I would not oppose a disambiguation page. BFG (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be N (disambiguation)#Mathematics. I would be ok with retargetting there. —Kusma (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added field norm to the disambiguation page. I was not aware of that page before. I'm not sure if we should keep a link to a disambiguation page and it's quite easy to find N (disambiguation). So for that reason I changed my mind to Delete BFG (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the redirect target for ℕ is blackboard bold--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ℕ currently targets Natural number#Notation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stating that a "a link to a disambiguation page" is "easy to find" assumes that everyone in the world both 1) knows how Wikipedia works and 2) knows what a disambiguation page on Wikipedia is, both assumptions which are not true and cannot (and should not) be an expectation of non-editor Wikipedia readers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or Delete P (math) if we want to keep this, it should be retargeted to Probability space. The current redirect makes very little sense. BFG (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P can also be the set of primes, p an individual prime, there is the Weierstraß p-function, p-series, ... —Kusma (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right and I'm leaning even more towards delete now. But a disambiguation page is a possibility here as well. BFG (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P (disambiguation)#Mathematics is the natural target (a bit incomplete though). —Kusma (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, as for the same reasoning as above. I think a redirect to a disambiguation page is superfluous. BFG (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a redirect to a disambiguation is more helpful than relying on Wikipedia's search results on this instance; these two letters have too many distinct meanings to rely on search results, and really should have a specific place listing the meanings of these letters, such as the locations referenced earlier in this discussion chain. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to N (disambiguation)#Mathematics and P (disambiguation)#Mathematics as perfectly fine redirects from incomplete disambiguation. If either of those is missing entries the solution is to add them. A7V2 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added all possibilities mentioned in these discussions to the relevant disambiguation pages. There may be more. While I still think it is a bit superfluous to redirect to the relevant disambiguation pages. I do not oppose retargeting there. BFG (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this again they would not be "redirects from incomplete disambiguation" but (if such a template existed) "redirects to incomplete disambiguation", not that it changes my view that there is no reason to delete for being ambiguous when a clear disambiguation section already exists. A7V2 (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, Trovatore and 64.229.88.43. Also, I think P can also be the projective space.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Good point regarding Projective space, so I added a link to it at P (disambiguation)#Mathematics. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per A7V2. Plausible search terms that can be easily disambiguated, despite the unusual provenance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to N (disambiguation)#Mathematics and P (disambiguation)#Mathematics seems sensible. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget N (math) to N (disambiguation)#Mathematics and P (math) to P (disambiguation)#Mathematics per above ... and since I was about to say the exact same thing, but then noticed it was already suggested. (I'm knowledgeable enough in math subjects to know ... "N" and "P" of all capitalizations have several different meanings in math to a point where it can be confusing, and these terms should go somewhere helping our readers find the definitions, provided there is no such alphabetical index article listing the subjects in alphabetical order by their symbol; redirecting our readers to a section of a disambiguation page identifying the meanings is a ton more helpful than deleting these redirects and relying on Wikipedia's search results.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2022 (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:CHG[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12#Wikipedia:CHG

Magnesium-L-threonate[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 Restore article at Magnesium L-threonate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article Qwv (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I have added athree related redirect to the nomination. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article at Magnesium L-threonate and retarget the others there, without prejudice to sending it to AfD. Seems that the article was merged without consensus and it should be restored. CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:20, 5 August 2022 (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.

"I invented email" guy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect is vague and not that useful as a search term because as far as I'm aware, no one person created email. If this is kept, it should be retargeted elsewhere or to the section that specifically deals with his false claims of inventing email. Thoughts? Clovermoss (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC), edited 02:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Not a likely search term. He is, however, the "I invented email" guy, insofar as he is (to my knowledge) the only person who insistently repeats the false claim that they invented email. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Protonk: My train of thought was more that if someone did type this, implausible search term that it is, they might be looking for a single individual (that does not exist as far as I'm aware) who actually did invent email, not someone who repeatedly claims that they did. Clovermoss (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah that makes sense; also to the best of my understanding you are correct and there is no other person who has claimed they invented email (nor could we find one, the development of tools which we would come to associate w/ email was highly staggered, collaborative, and distributed). Protonk (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I am the creator of this redirect) This article calls him the I invented email guy. Partofthemachine (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This might be a horribly bad reason to keep, but I would have used this redirect before because I have forgotten his name, but remember him as the person who claimed to invent email. I prefer to not have refined to section, but I would not mind if that's the result. TartarTorte 21:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't about truth, it's about getting to the article you are looking for, and clearly people are going to remember the expression, and not the guy. Hey, what's the name of that actress who says "Where's the beef" again? Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a valid point, Mathglot. Thanks. Clovermoss (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very plausible search term. It's all anyone can remember about the guy. Even fragments of it pull up the right stuff from the search box: [2]. Central and Adams (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2022 (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.

Ivy Road[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. Various alternative targets and disambiguation have been suggested, and it is clear nobody wants to keep the redirect as is. A number of editors explicitly suggested that deletion will reveal "uninhibited search results", which seems to be the most viable solution here. Deryck C. 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. I did find "Ivy Road is a new independent game development studio run by Davey Wreden..., and supported by Annapurna Interactive" here. Searching within en.WP finds a plethora of actual roads by that name. Recommend delete. MB 01:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Lenticel as the only target having an article. If the Ivy Road game studio had a section or even a reference at the founders' pages, then we had a case for a disambiguation page, however the founders don't have articles on them. The C418 relation to the studio is too minor as he is composing music for an untitled game being produced by the studio. Readers interested in the other roads having the same name can use the Search. Jay 06:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The previous name of Kenilworth Road is mentioned only in passing in the article's "History" section, leading me to think it unlikely that anyone looking for the stadium will use this as a search term. Better to let the search results show various possible meanings. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 5 August 2022 (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.

Smiledog.jpg[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 23:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in the target, likely because the associated section was deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two related redirects to the same target have been added as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 The associated section was removed in February 2022 because it was completely unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment: @LaundryPizza03, the latter two redirects haven't been tagged. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist as the two latter redirects weren't initially tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. I found no RS discussing this creepypasta, so there is no way to add it back to the target currently. Veverve (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2022 (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/2022_August_5&oldid=1180592154"