Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 15, 2022.

Well duh![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 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not deleted, I suggest a better target would be a soft redirect to wikt:well duh. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Duh! Unless we want to create new redirects for “Well no kidding!” and “Well no shit Sherlock” and “Well obviously”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the wikt suggestion as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pointless. No need for wikt redirect either, it's obvious English. --Muhandes (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak soft redirect to wikt:well duh. If someone searches this up in good faith, then likely they are wanting a definition of an unfamiliar phrase that isn't so well duh! to them. J947 † edits 20:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article on the interjection, "Duh", and redirect this there. BD2412 T 21:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now because no one has written an article about the interjection and because the Wiktionary definition is exceedingly short. - Eureka Lott 17:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems that one more relist is warranted...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Anythingyouwant and Eureka. Jay 💬 15:14, 22 November 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).

Crime Ring[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Crime Ring

Stably isomorphic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Stably isomorphic

Switch lanes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Switch lanes

RP2C02[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#RP2C02

Wikipedia:CANCER[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 per WP:SNOW. There's overwhelming consensus to keep this redirect. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate and offensive (for anyone who has lost someone to cancer) cross-namespace redirect. I don't think we need this redirect (I've asked separately if the destination page could be renamed, see User_talk:Guy_Macon#User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer - but note the user is retired). It could be redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force - but given the pages that currently link to this redirect, I'm not sure that would be appropriate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I completely fail to see what's offensive about this. (And Guy Macon is not retired enough to not respond to that comment, as this is one of the essays referred to by I will continue maintaining certain essays that some users have told me they find useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pppery: It is used deliberately as a derogation term. Trust me, it's offensive. Will see if Guy replies. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see it as derogatory at all. It's just a metaphor for unconstrained growth that later proves to be harmful. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • >Trust me, it's offensive
Offensive is in the eye of the beholder, one can't declare that something is offensive as an objective fact. Frogging101 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's offensive to some? Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally everything is offensive to some people. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this redirect often and am not swayed by Peel's argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with compromise, oppose with no compromise From the beginning there were some objections to cancer analogy. I am sympathetic to that, but at the same time, this analogy was the output of a creative writer and metaphors are effective in communication. Previous discussions proposed that someone could develop an alternative metaphor for this problem and get some consensus for adopting that. Ones that I remember are calling the problem a virus, which may also be problematic, or describing rats who breed in a grain silo to continuously consume more wheat. I object to deleting the link and creating a barrier to accessing the essay, which is popular on wiki and has been popular in off-wiki popular journalism. I think it would be a fair compromise to ask that people who object to this metaphor to propose another one.
The essay describes a serious social problem and existential threat to Wikipedia. The essay is art, it calls forth emotions which I think are well placed, and I do not find the use of the cancer metaphor misplaced. Art can offend people and still be worthwhile, but times change and we can adopt more positive and encouraging ways of discussing difficult issues. I only oppose suppression of the core ideas and deletion without a compromise to alternative options. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bluerasberry: A compromise to a different metaphor/link sounds good to me. Hopefully people have suggestions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasons: Shortcuts to user essays are acceptable. There's a hatnote on the page that points to oncology resources. The shortcut has stood since 2017 and has been referenced in many discussions both on and off wiki. It offending you is not, on its own, justification for deletion. And, not that I wish to invoke tokenism, but the author is himself a cancer survivor. Frogging101 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on this: Years ago I learned of the essay, and the spending problem which it illustrates, from a conversation about Wikipedia with an uninvolved person on a non-wiki-related IRC channel. The person I was chatting with simply referred me to WP:CANCER. Therefore I think it has attained a colloquial status. And while I am aware that essays aren't "owned" by the author, I think it's inappropriate to change the central metaphor to something other than the author intended when they wrote it. Frogging101 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I though it was older that 2017 but even still while I thought the name a little unusual when I found it years ago and may be a tiny bit surprised if I typed WP:CANCER into the search box it seems a plausible redirect, probably more likely than the project in general. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to a disambig page or redirect page to a biology- or medicine- related meta-page, and modify pages linking to it accordingly. Apokrif (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - as someone who has lost people I love to cancer, I always find it an inappropriate analogy when people say that such-and-such is "like cancer." Inevitably, it isn't, and so it is in this case: the WMF is not like cancer. WMF spending is not like cancer. Fiscal policy is not like cancer. Cancer is a horrible illness that tortures and kills people. How the WMF spends its money is nothing like that. The oncology task force seems like a good target. A disambiguation page would be fine, too. Really, anything that is actually related to cancer is what WP:CANCER should be used for. (I would suggest the essay be re-named as well, for the same reasons, but it's a userspace essay, so that's the user's business.) Levivich (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the redirect is no more or less offensive than the title of the essay, "Wikipedia has Cancer", which is regularly cited and has become the primary association with the term "cancer" (or "CANCER") as a jargon word internal to the community. The essay has not yet been deemed too offensive to be hosted on Wikipedia, and I do not think the distinction between content that is appropriate in Wikipedia-space and userspace is salient here. — Bilorv (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hematology-oncology task force per Levivich - pointing to the oncology task force feels appropriate. Seddon talk 20:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, commonly in use, not problematic. Fram (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or disambiguate it has enough links (128 in total) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force only mentions "cancer" when referencing a category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case you're not aware, oncology is the study of cancer. Levivich (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair point I didn't know what oncology is which does make the project more plausible but I still think the user essay is more likely but I'm fine with disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the author of the essay, I would like to point out that I am myself a cancer survivor (Renal Cancer with a 10% 5-year survival rate, which I have already passed after having a kidney removed). When I first saw criticisms of my analogy I discussed it with my cancer survivor's group, and they were all fine with it.
I am not the only one to use the analogy. A US Senator recently said "Communism is a cancer. Tens of millions of people have lost their lives under this dehumanizing ideology. The next generation of Americans must understand the threat communism poses to liberty and justice for innocent people around the world, and it’s our job to teach them". I don't see any widespread criticism of that statement's use of the analogy.
While obviously this isn't true about everyone here, there is a tendency to be selective and to treat cancer (and rape, but that's another discussion) as being "too shameful to call by name" while allowing other, similar analogies. Question for those who are offended: Are you offended by mentions of Computer viruses? There are people who die horrible deaths from real viruses. How about Poisoning the well? Does that offend you? Putting poison in a well is a serious crime. Should we avoid using it as an analogy? How about Wage slavery? Witch-hunt? Does War on drugs or War on poverty offend you? Or is your outrage selective?
Finally, once the community consensus has decided that "Wikipedia has cancer" is allowed, getting rid of the obvious (and often used[1]) redirect seems like an end run around that community decision. Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon Alternate Account: Thank you for replying. Since you used this analogy in the first place, I'm not surprised you didn't object to it - but others do. I'm not sure that quoting a politician who also made this offensive analogy is helpful. Reductio ad absurdum and accusations of selective outrage are rediculous. Where was the consensus that the term was allowed/acceptable? Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the consensus that the term is not allowed/unacceptable/offensive? Cancer is an apt metaphor and accurate description of the issue with WMF's funding. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent on this one. Probably rename and retarget. I tend to agree on principle that WP:CANCER should point to something to do with actual cancer rather than someone's essay about the Wikimedia Foundation. Would be fine to rename something like WP:HASCANCER, which has the bonus of being something like a domain hack (and I don't think anyone looking for information about wikipedia's coverage of cancer would be checking it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the vernacular by now, on and off Wikipedia. The WP: prefix makes it clear that it's an inside baseball term and makes confusion with medical queries very unlikely. (Mike, you strongly agreed during the election that "WMF fundraising is deceptive". Surprised to see this as your most substantial response to the Village Pump RfC on the fundraising banners to date.)
Andreas JN466 23:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see a couple retarget !votes above and I don't find them particularly convincing. Taking an internal redirect that is used in 125 places and redirecting it to a new place that has nothing to do with the original use of the redirect seems questionable to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the question is whether the original redirect was appropriate: there is no time limit to question the relevance of any WP content. I guess there are bots or scripts that can update links. Apokrif (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather not guess. I'd rather keep the status quo, which is safe and avoids disruption. A mass editing of talk page comments from WP:CANCER to an alternative seems like it could violate WP:TPO. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guy Macon Alternate Account arguments above --Ita140188 (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:R#DELETE, the clear exception for offensive redirects is when it's legitimately discussed in the [essay]. RAN1 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hematology-oncology task force per Levivich--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guy. Wikipedia is suffering from a new pandemic of consensus making for every minor nut and bolt. Soon we will be needing an RfC to confirm that the sky is blue. Guy's essay is pure, unadulterated fact and it's hardly surprising that WMF employees take exception to it. Those of them who vote for the removal of this redirect to it whether they use a 'volunteer' or a staff account have a COI. It is to be hoped that the Board of Trustees will see their way clear to involving themselves in the way the encyclopedias are run, rather that simply rubber-stamping the absurd and opaque expenditure on unrelated projects while the volunteers grow hungry for better software maintenance. Guy's essay is of imense importance and every possible method of drawing attention to it should be fully exploited and I see nothing at all offensive in its title. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, longstanding and widely used redirect to an important page about the WMF (by the way the donation banners should link there). —Kusma (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I understand those who have lost loved ones to cancer. But I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not censored. For further information, please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Captain Cornwall (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Captain Cornwall: That's a clear misunderstanding of what 'not censored' means - this isn't about article content, this is about a redirect to a user page with an analogy, which isn't (or shouldn't) be covered. Mike Peel (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-established redirect that accurately reflects target's title and is easy to remember. Retargeting to WP:HASCANCER or similar seems like a waste of time. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's fine, and gets the point across. A completely normal part of the vernacular. Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well established and widely used; I found this RfD because a wikilink to the redirect went pink. CANCER in isolation has other off-wiki meanings, but the primary topic of WP:CANCER is this essay. Certes (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and snow close since so many reasonable arguments have been made to keep the redirect. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's part of wikispeech, and I don't see a reason to remove it. The analogy references the abnormal and out-of-control spread of cells that defines cancer (which is then applied to the growth of wikipedia funds). Guy Macon has an excellent rationale as well. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 01:08, 18 November 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.

Masayuki Kamimura[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Masayuki Kamimura

Tampongate[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 per a mention being added. (non-admin closure) Clyde!Franklin! 21:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, in the target section or anywhere on the page. Since there's also nothing about feminine hygiene products mentioned in the target section, the reader is left guessing what this term refers to. If we're refusing to elaborate (on BLP grounds?) I think it's better to delete this redirect. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also not mentioned anywhere on List of -gate scandals and controversies, which might have been a possible retarget option. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The affair concerned, which is discussed at the target, is being prominently referred to in the media as "Tampongate" currently (apparently much more so than originally), following its depiction in the latest season of The Crown. It is therefore very likely to be searched for under that name. If anything, target section should be edited to mention this name. U-Mos (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tampongate scandal, on the other hand, is superfluous and should be deleted. U-Mos (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was literally a message by an IP on the article's talk page about a week ago, asking whether this was covered in the page or not, which incidentally shows that this is a term that people have been looking and searching for (which makes sense since it was covered in season 5 of The Crown). And the tape and its leak are covered in the article unlike what the nominator claims, but it is referred to as "Camillagate", which is the more polite term: The affair became public knowledge in the press a decade later, with the publication of Diana: Her True Story in 1992, followed by the "Camillagate" tape scandal in 1993, when an intimate telephone conversation between Camilla Parker Bowles and Charles was secretly recorded and the transcripts were published in the tabloid press. It's also listed as "Camillagate" on List of -gate scandals and controversies. I see no problem with throwing in "Tampongate" in there either, since sources have been using that as well (see this article by Time as an example). Keivan.fTalk 07:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the term to both the article and the list, with a new source included. Keivan.fTalk 07:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is now mention at the target and list. Jay 💬 15:09, 22 November 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).

Nes modding[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 20:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no section related to modding inside the article. Reliable sources don’t mention anything about NES Mods either. It’d most likely be fancruft if we add this information anyways. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion about the pre-redirect page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:20, 15 November 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).

1) What[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#1) What

ISO 639:dlc[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#ISO 639:dlc

New York Bar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#New York Bar

Hound Group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Hound Group

Uninterrupted[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 💬 10:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For such a common word, this seems on the face of it to be a very surprising or confusing target. It is the name of a company owned by LeBron James, but there's only a passing mention at the current target, burried deap within the article (and there are other passing mentions, eg at DreamCrew). I'm not sure if the company is potentially notable (and so should be deleted per WP:RFD#D10), or failing that if this is better deleted or retargeted to the wikitionary entry. A7V2 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to The Shop. Seems on the English Wikipedia, the only encyclopedic topics in existence all have affinity to LeBron James ... surprisingly. At least this way, the retarget is most likely where the reader is trying to go. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a WP:PARTIAL match at best of its full name, The Shop: Uninteruupted. Meanwhile, Uninterrupted is a wider platform, of which The Shop is included.[2]—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Or delete as ambiguous. Either works. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague title with no clear target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While there is a connection vis-a-vis The Shop, the result would be too WP:SURPRISING to those who don't know much about basketball and the media surrounding it. I appreciate as always, a possible solution that isn't deletion, but in this specific instance I think deletion is the way to go. TartarTorte 02:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. Whichever works; I imagine the latter may service more people. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, confusing. Soft redirect is worse than letting the search engine work its magic. —Kusma (talk) 18:54, 20 November 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).

Michigan Chain of Lakes[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 03:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. There appears to be other chains of lakes in Michigan as well (e.g. [3] and [4]). Delete as confusing. MB 03:30, 15 November 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).

Accounting method[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 Basis of accounting. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect be retargeted to Basis of accounting or should it be converted to a disambiguation page? An AfD from 2017 suggested moving the article to Accounting method (computer science) and then retargeting the redirect, but only the move was completed, and the redirect has never been retargeted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 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).

Mario kart:Double dash!! characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Mario kart:Double dash!! characters

Mario Kart DX[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 02:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather vague/ambiguous. Before the redirect was retargeted to its current target, it originally targeted Mario Kart Arcade GP#Mario Kart Arcade GP DX. In addition, Mario Kart DS exists, which different by only one letter ("S" versus "X"). Lastly, a similar redirect, Mario Kart 8 DX, exists and targets the same target the nominated redirect currently targets and isn't ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 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).

IPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#IPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus

Post-1945 history[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 Contemporary history. Unrefined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary history will be redefined in the coming years as time passes. Recommending delete, but open to other opinions. Interstellarity (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Unrefine to Contemporary history as the section no-longer appears to exist and the article is exactly about post 1945 history. If or when editorial changes are made that make this redirect incorrect are made, we can worry about it then. Furthermore, even if the contents of the current target is no-longer considered to be "contemporary history", if anything a possible title for it would be "Post-1945 history". A7V2 (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrefine per A7V2; the nominator's rationale does not make sense, as we can cross the bridge whose existence is being forshadowed when we come to it. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrefine per above. Jay 💬 08:16, 22 November 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).

Post-1945[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. ✗plicit 02:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1945 can mean multiple different things besides post-war. Interstellarity (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in absence of any reason to delete. What else can it mean? I was unable to find anything else. The current target is solely about the post-WW2 period which lines up with post-1945. A7V2 (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. The phrase "post-war" most commonly means "after World War II," i.e., after 1945. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:43, 17 November 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).

Teaching[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 merge and redirect Draft:Teaching to Teaching. There was no opposition to the draft proposed; the merger was adopted so as to keep the edit history, compared to WP:ROUNDROBIN and technical delete. fgnievinski (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Education is a more appropriate target. --2001:16A2:E7A6:4B01:3513:E30B:F613:8C8D (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Teacher, which seems like a more specific target than education, though targeting education would definitely be an improvement over the current target. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've created Draft:Teaching as eponym article for Category:Teaching based on the content in other languages. I'd strongly suggest a speedy close, as a possible ensuing AfD would very likely fail. fgnievinski (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical delete. It's better to move the draft over the redirect than to copy/paste the draft onto the redirect, and that will require deleting. Without the draft, I would agree with Mdewman's retargeting. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not opposed to the draft replacing the redirect (which can happen regardless of outcome here), but it should probably be a round-robin move rather than G6'd to preserve the non-trivial history currently at Teaching. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Draft:Teaching to Teaching. (Yes, it is a copy/paste, but this is a newly created draft with 2 editors and 4 revisions). Thanks fgnievinski for coming up with this quickly. Jay 💬 18:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:04, 15 November 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.

Incessant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Incessant

Super Mario 64 DS Versions[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 02:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn’t list any versions of the game. If we do add this information then it would probably be considered gamecruft Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There aren't, to my knowledge, different versions of the game, and if there are, they are trivial. (For example, there was a version re-released on Wii U, but the game is identical, and someone wouldn't use this search term for that.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to the singular form (which surprisingly doesn't exist yet!). I'd think "super mario 64 ds version" to be a plausible search term for SM64DS itself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely search term (even as a singular which just sounds awkward and incomplete). Really the only versions would just be regional because of region locking. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to creating Mellohi's suggested redirect (I don't see the point in moving), as multiple versions are not discussed at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 15 November 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_November_15&oldid=1123839472"