Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 16, 2022.

Breakaway Catholic Churches[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 deleted by The Anome. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Breakaway Catholic Church. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Should've been got the first time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 23:00, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Catholics not in communion with Rome[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 24#Catholics not in communion with Rome

Catholicism.[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. Complex/Rational 22:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to the full stop at the end of the redirect. For the most part, at RFD, consensus has been to delete such redirects as WP:COSTLY, especially if someone erroneously links this word at the end of a sentence and included the period. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per. Nom. Duckmather (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: REDYES. Veverve (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REDYES doesn’t apply since an article at this title would be highly implausible. Duckmather (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not see the ".". I think it is implausible, so my opinion is still to delete. Veverve (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE typical WP:AFFINITY: "Some unneeded redirects ... Titles with punctuation, obscure errors, additions, or removals that have no specific affinity to one title over any other". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 17 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

French rationalism[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. Complex/Rational 22:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the word "France" or "French" in the target article, leaving it unclear where in the article (if anywhere) a reader will be able to find the information as referenced in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDYES. Víctor Eusa Razquin mentions the topic, but doesn't elaborate. A number of articles cite the book Spinoza Contra Phenomenology: French Rationalism from Cavaillès to Deleuze, but don't necessarily discuss the broader topic of French rationalism. Three articles use the redirect, but they don't discuss the topic either; they just link it in an infobox. There does not appear to be any adequate coverage on Wikipedia yet, so this title should remain vacant until content is added. – Scyrme (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: REDYES. Veverve (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:46, 18 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Henry and the barn façades[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 💬 10:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what the connection is between the redirect and the target article. Due to the fact that this redirect has a section or anchor target in the article, there was most likely content in the target article for this redirect to target, but the content is no longer in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target did exist in 2018 at [1] but was removed since. By all means delete the redirect! Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The redirect references a thought experiment that was described at Epistemology § Reliabilist response until it was removed by an edit by Phlsph7 in a revision at 11:07, 18 June 2022. The edit summary mentions that content was moved to Definitions of knowledge, but I wasn't able to find it there (neither in the current revision or in past revision from around the same time). I wasn't able to find the content looking elsewhere either, so I don't know what Phlsph7 did with it. – Scyrme (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Looks like the creator of the redirect beat me to it while I was typing all that.) – Scyrme (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scyrme and thanks for bringing this to my attention. The barn façade example is discussed in the article Definitions of knowledge in the section "Gettier problem and cognitive luck". It does not mention the name "Henry" anymore. Many reliable sources in epistemology talk about this example but the exact term "Henry and the barn façades" is not common. I think deleting the redirect would be a good idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now. Thanks! It seems this same topic is also discussed at Gettier problem § The generalized problem. The redirect was created with the summary Rediret for Category:Thought experiments in philosophy, and Gettier problem is in that category, so the original aim is still achieved without this redirect. Given this, delete per everyone above. – Scyrme (talk) 22:54, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Larrys Text/Epistemology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 24#Larrys Text/Epistemology

Faith in Science[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 24#Faith in Science

Nonexistence of God[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#Nonexistence of God

Mathematics and God[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#Mathematics and God

The rationality of atheism/Needs to be NPOVed[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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, nonsense title for a redirect. It seems the edit history hiding underneath this redirect was somewhat of an opinion piece written by an editor in 2003, but it does not look like anything that is in the edit history was ever integrated into the article specifically since the redirect's edit history seems more like a talk page than anything. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Radical atheism[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 12:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mention in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. However, this redirect is mentioned in Atheism a few times, but not in a way where it is defined in the target article, but rather stating how atheism compares to the subject of the redirect. On Wikipedia, the only other article where this phrase seems to be mentioned is Martin Hägglund as a written work by the subject of the aforementioned article written in 2008 and titled "Radical Atheism". Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to let the search function do its work. If this should become an article, create a few redlinks. Jay 💬 09:05, 24 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Secular world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 24#Secular world

Snake handling in religion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 31#Snake handling in religion

Victory (2009 film)/1[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 12:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant to refer to the Victory (2009 film) and started out as a duplicate stub in 2009, then the page about the film was moved by Anthony Appleyard to the current title three years later (and this one to the current title by Bovineboy2008 to make way for the move). Not sure we still need this lying around, so I'd say either delete it or retarget it to Victory (2009 film) if it's kept. Regards, SONIC678 17:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It doesn't seem like there's any edit history that needs to be returned for attribution purposes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel. The page lasted as an article for 3 minutes before the creator may have realized there is an already existing article, and so redirected it. Three minutes after that, he edited the original with some of the content from the one he had created. It need not be seen as a merge, and user credit is not an issue as it's the same author in both articles. Jay 💬 08:40, 24 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Mayor of Calais[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#Mayor of Calais

Trump riots[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 22:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was boldly retargeted after the said event occurred, but not sure if the current target is appropriate due to the plural form of 'riots' in the title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Champion: are you saying the current target can have redirects that are singular (riot) but not plural, or are you saying that with the plural title, there are multiple plausible targets? Jay 💬 14:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of both, but more so the latter. But I guess if it gets too complicated it is best to just delete it, the title does not imply whether it is pro or anti-Trump, so a dab page would be inappropriate. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • DABify per Champion. Veverve (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't Champion suggest deletion? "a dab page would be inappropriate".
    Regardless, what other articles would a disambigution page list? I assume it would include the old target, Protests against Donald Trump. That article does refer to "riots" and "rioting" a number of times. However, that seems like it would fall under "anti-Trump riots" rather than "Trump riots". I suppose if there are sources that refer to them by the latter, it could work per WP:TWODABS. If not, I'm not sure what would be listed. – Scyrme (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. What Champion said was it's more of a case of multiple targets. He suggested deletion if the dab becomes complicated (which may be the case). Delete if there are no dab suggestions. Jay 💬 15:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No articles link to it. It's unclear whether it should redirect to pro- or anti-Trump riots. The term isn't relevant enough to create a disambiguation page for it. We don't have Trump riot either. Deleting the page appears to be the simplest and cleanest solution. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:28, 19 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The Queen Consort[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#The Queen Consort

The Prince Consort[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#The Prince Consort

John Grimm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#John Grimm

One of the People called Quakers[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 12:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the target, there is mention of a work possibly written by Defoe: A Friendly Epistle by way of reproof from one of the people called Quakers, to T. B., a dealer in many words. However, I am not sure if the redirect is very useful. Veverve (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, delete. If the redirect was called A Friendly Epistle, then it was a different case. Jay 💬 11:36, 23 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Heliostropolis, Etc.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#Heliostropolis, Etc.

William Smithies[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 11:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 08:01, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

A Jobber[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#A Jobber

Captain George Carleton[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Captain George Carleton

Ukrainian crisis (2013-present)[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 , leaning keep. Disregarding comments by Gliwrit and Caenus per WP:BANREVERT, there were arguments for keeping all the redirects, for deleting the first three, and for either retargeting or deleting the last two, without strong consensus for any of those actions. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects came about as a result of page moves of an over-arching article that was meant to cover the crisis in Ukraine that started with demonstrations in Kyiv in 2013. See Ukrainian crisis: Revision history. The edit history of Ukrainian crisis is worth preserving. The redirects that were automatically created by the various page moves are not. Anyone actually typing one of these in a search will find Ukraine crisis → Russo-Ukrainian War anyway. Gliwrit (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you'll see that my suggested targets did not have Russo-Ukrainian War which is what you mentioned in the nomination that readers would ideally find. Jay 💬 13:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation page was effectivly deleted (redirected to the Russo-Ukrainian War) per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian crisis. I still think that the deletion of proposed redirects here is the best solution. Gliwrit (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the outcome of that AfD. The difference with the discussion here is that these are redirects, not dab pages, and are qualified by the year 2014 unlike the generic "Ukrainian crisis". Jay 💬 08:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very vague terms. --Caenus (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the analogy to the prior RfD is flawed, as the primary problem with those redirects was their asserted end-dates of the crisis; the -present redirects are unambiguous and helpful. While there are subtopics that may be more precisely relevant to the reader for the 2014 redirects, the current redirect is still a helpful landing page with links to all of the other potentially-desired subtopics. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Begin-date should be 2014 then, 2013 is not correct. At least 2013-present and 2013–present should be deleted, I think. Caenus (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first three, weak delete the last two. There's some ambiguity with the last two, and a reader using those search terms is probably looking for discrete events, as opposed to something that's been ongoing for nearly a decade. And while I'm really not sold on the idea of there being a single war that's been ongoing all this time, so long as that's how we have the articles set up, these first three are fine search terms for it. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Junior Rector of St. Michael[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 11:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this alleged pseudonym at the target. Veverve (talk) 07:58, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

A Scots Gentleman in the Swedish Service[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 11:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this alleged pseudonym at the target. Veverve (talk) 07:57, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

A Shropshire Gentleman[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 11:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 07:56, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

120mins[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. Now that there's a disambiguation page, there doesn't seem to be much need for this redirect. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This retargets currently to Overtime (sports) because a soccer match with added extra time is 120 minutes long, but there seem to be a number of other plausible targets. There's Thirteen (Teenage Fanclub album) which is where 120 Mins redirects as that's a name of a song on the album. There is as well a television show called 120 Minutes. It seems this redirect could point to either of those just as reasonably, but I don't really have an idea as to which it should point to. TartarTorte 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Turn into a dab page Seems to me the most logical thing, where there are multiple reasonable targets, is to turn the redirect into a disambiguation page. --Jayron32 12:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's evidence that any of these things are ever referred to as "120mins". Disambiguation pages exist to disambiguate plausible searches, not to list every thing something could possibly mean. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate - I can see a use case for creating a disambiguation page for 120 minutes, and redirecting both 120mins and 120 Mins there. In response to Tamzin, I think "120 mins" could very well be a plausible search term for any of the three targets Tartar listed above. That's exactly the purpose for dab pages. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the abbreviation is not especially branded for soccer. Searches bring up food products and massage options. Leave 120 Minutes alone to point to the MTV show. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have created a 120 Minutes (disambiguation), but did not add an entry for the title under discussion. Jay 💬 17:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete or retarget to 120 Minutes (disambiguation). Jay 💬 02:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - internet search and Google ngrams results do not suggest that this phrase is consistently used to refer to anything in particular and the dab page would appear to be a solution in search of a problem. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As nom, I'm at this point in support of delete explicitly. I'm not listing this as a delete !vote because I nominated said redirect. TartarTorte 03:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Washington D.C. press corps[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#Washington D.C. press corps

Rokker[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. ✗plicit 05:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a random word in this language. Searching indicates it is a word in other languages, a German surname and the name of a motorcycle clothing company. Delete. MB 03:23, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Death of everything[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 23#Death of everything

Ukrainian partisans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Ukrainian partisans

3D material[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 24#3D material

3D acceleration[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 Graphics processing unit. Jay 💬 06:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connections are unclear; "acceleration" is mentioned nowhere in the target articles. (However, 3D accelerator targets Graphics processing unit, and the aforementioned redirect is mentioned in the target article, but not "3d acceleration".) Steel1943 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget - I assume this connection is in the use hardware acceleration for rendering, as described at Graphic processing unit § 1990s (at the mention of 3D accelerator). Hardware acceleration mentions "3D accelerator" under hardware acceleration § Applications, but Graphics processing unit currently seems to have better coverage regarding 2D and 3D hardware acceleration so would probably be a more helpful target. 3D acceleration and 3D accelerator should point to the same target for consistency. – Scyrme (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Scyrme. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as this term could also refer to Acceleration in physics, which is a 3D vector. Duckmather (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could it though? Is it ever actually referred to as "3D acceleration" as opposed to simply "acceleration" in the scientific literature? I know acceleration is sometimes distinguished from four-acceleration, but as far as I know this is not done by referring to accleration as "3D" acceleration. I would expect that if the distinction were stressed, the term used would be "three-acceleration" or "3-acceleration", without the "D". (This is exactly what the four-acceleration article does.) If there are reliable sources that make the distinction with "3D" I could support disambiguation, otherwise that seems like a stretch. – Scyrme (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 16 December 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_16&oldid=1131920403"