Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2022.

Bytesex[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) CycloneYoris talk! 17:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this redirect is supposed to refer to. There is no mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "bytesex" (or "byte sex") is a jargon-file era term for endianness: [1], [2], [3]. Probably could/should be kept if can be added to the target.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skynxnex (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose it is jargon, but it doesn't seem that we need to link every jargon word. Also, I haven't known it used all that much. Gah4 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the term be explained at the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a valid synonym of the awful term endianness. It is found out in the wild, see here for instance. Although not mentioned in the article, it is taking readers to the correct place. There is no downside to keeping this and no advantage in deleting it. SpinningSpark 11:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a sourced mention of the term. Duckmather (talk) 01:45, 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).

Comparison of video 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be any such list or comparisons at the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. It used to link to Comparison of NVIDIA Graphics Processing Units but now there's one for AMD and another for Intel as well... ··gracefool 💬 21:50, 11 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).

Device ID[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Device ID

Video hardware[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Video hardware

Color graphics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Color graphics

Deputy sheriff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Deputy sheriff

Diffuse term[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Diffuse term

King of Germany[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#King of Germany

Killed myself[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 03:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, unnecessary redirect. 22 views since creation. Editor since blocked for vandalism. Anarchyte (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly some people find this helpful, and this is the most plausible target given killing oneself is the exact definition of suicide. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Killed" is in the past. Someone who killed themselves cannot search for this page. Kill myself has 2700 views in the last 30 days, that is a useful redirect - although I'm wondering if a soft redirect and a direct link to suicide prevention would be better. We have a couple more: Kill oneself (0 views/30d), Killing yourself (7 views/30d), Kill your self (16/30d), Killing oneself (7/30d), Killing Yourself (2/30d), Killing Oneself (3/30d), Killing myself (8/30d), Killed yourself (2/30d). The 2-3 views might be in relation to this deletion discussion, they are often around December 3. --mfb (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mfb. Their line of thinking about past tense matches mine, but due to it potentially being considered dark humor, I refrained from being the first to say it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 10 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).

Falcon 9 Flight 29[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 Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 11:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of MOS:CAPS violation and because this redirect should automatically be created normally anyway. See Falcon 9 Flight 33 for an example of where this was done.Ergzay (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who creates redirects automatically? I don't care about this particular redirect, but I would like to point out that you broke the redirect before nominating it for deletion. --mfb (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't break the redirect, I put it back to how it was originally written after the move (it should have been deleted when it was originally moved). Ergzay (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was redirecting to the right article. Your first revert redirected it to the 2020+ list which is no longer the right target, your second edit re-introduced a wrong year, and then you redirected it to a redirect. All three edits made it worse (although the second one technically doesn't do anything because the first one already changed the redirect to the wrong article). Just nominate it for deletion as it is, don't screw up the redirect first please. --mfb (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination was such a convoluted mess that I had to make some changes to it. For one, I bypassed the double redirect that was caused by Falcon 9 Flight 29 targeting its previous target, and updated the nomination to show which target the redirect currently points towards. In addition, I have bundled Falcon 9 flight 29 with this nomination so that way whatever happens to one redirect affects the other. Ergzay, I would recommend either updating your nomination statement or withdrawing this nomination based on the current structure of this nomination; Mfb, I would recommend updating any comments you may need to in response to the change-up of this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. We have a few of these redirects. The lowercase versions are fine, I don't care about the uppercase versions. --mfb (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to withdraw it, but consider it withdrawn. Ergzay (talk) 11:15, 10 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).

Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah

Chanderpaul[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18#Chanderpaul

Trump riots[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16#Trump riots

AC/DC adapter[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. Participants agree that maintaining the status quo for both redirects is the best choice, and no other possible target was discussed for neither of them. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't AC/DC adapter be targeted as AC/DC converter? fgnievinski (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (unless I'm missing something) - why would that be a better target? As it stands, the current target lists AC/DC adapter as a synonym (it's my understanding that this is a "more correct" but less used name for these), whereas there is no mentions of adapters at AC/DC converter except in the see also section. A7V2 (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @A7V2: is the difference between "adapter" and "converter" sufficient for justifying AC/DC adapter and AC/DC converter pointing to different targets? If so, then at least "AC/DC converter" should appear in boldface in the lead of Rectifier (MOS:BOLDREDIRECT), and a disambiguation hatnote should be included: "AC/DC converter redirects here; it should not be confused with AC/DC adapter." {{redirect-distinguish}}. fgnievinski (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fgnievinski Now that you mention it, I noticed AC/DC converter is also currently listed as a synonym of AC adapter, so AC/DC converter could/should be changed to target AC adapter. A carefully worded hatnote to Rectifier might be helpful though. A7V2 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: I've taken the liberty of including AC/DC converter in the nomination above, after your remark that it "could/should be changed". Now the problem is, there are many similar redirects: [4] Should they all be formally nominated, too? Are there any tools to assist in this task? Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AC/DC adapter → AC adapter. It would be mistaken to retarget this to Rectifier. An AC adapter might contain a rectifier, but it is not synonymous – several other components are required to be in the device. Adding AC/DC converter to this discussion is confusing things. That term is actually ambiguous. It might mean an AC adapter, it might mean mercury-arc rectifiers on a power grid, or it might mean a motor-generator set. All in all, keeping the redirect pointing to "Rectifier" is probably best since all of those things can be found from there. SpinningSpark 09:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on AC/DC converter since it may be ambiguous, but not for the reason the nominator stated. It may not be assumed that "AC/DC" means "AC to DC" and could consequentially mean "DC to AC"; well, "AC to DC" converters are rectifiers, but "DC to AC" converters are power inverters. (I'd not entirely sure if "AC/DC" specifically means "AC to DC" and "DC/AC" specifically means "DC to AC" in the realm of electricity terms, thus I'm "neutral".) Do not retarget AC/DC converter to AC adapter as they are not the same at all; an AC adapter converts AC to DC (in most cases), so it could be confused with a rectifier, but that's all. (On that note, I will probably be placing hatnotes on both of the aforementioned articles here in a bit.) Keep AC/DC adapter because it is apparently an alternative name of AC adapter, in addition to basically everything SpinningSpark stated. (Sidenote: It's interesting that DC/AC adapter does not exist, but DC/AC and DC/AC converter, redirects to Power inverter, do.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so surprising that DC/AC adapter does not exist. Using the word adapter implies a self-contained, possibly domestic, piece of kit. Grid power delivered to end users is almost universally AC so there is no requirement for such devices. Many battery run devices do contain DC/DC converters to up the voltage rails. It's possible to do this in two stages; DC/AC then AC/DC, but in any case, the electronics is contained as part of the supplied device, not a separate adapter for the user to connect. SpinningSpark 08:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, per above reasons. --ChetvornoTALK 22:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have removed "AC/DC converter" as a bolded alternate name on AC adapter for failing verification. There is a patent which may be a similar device which is named this way ([5]) but I'm in no way familiar enough with the topic to say if this is enough to warrant a mention. So I am neutral, leaning oppose, on retargeting AC/DC converter to AC adapter, and have no opinion on any other potential targets for that redirect. A7V2 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The patent is describing a Universal power adapter. SpinningSpark 23:43, 11 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).

Notre Dame Campus[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 Campus of the University of Notre Dame. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be better targeted at Campus of the University of Notre Dame; the university campus is often referred to by this name, and it is so much more prominent than the small college in Melbourne so as to be the WP:PTOPIC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:58, 9 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_9&oldid=1128200325"