Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 5

November 5[edit]

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

Dynamite Duex[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 01:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite Duex → Dynamite Düx (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not sure why we need this Eubot redirect when the Ü is just stylization of the game's title. Aside from short-lived and slight spikes in 2018 and 2019, it's been getting about 3-8 pageviews per year. Delete unless someone can provide a justification or alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 23:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the name of the game is not German, hence the ü = ue convention does not apply. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:33, 8 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.

XX00 redirects[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 each to their respective number page.

Retarget 3600 to 3000 (number)#3600 to 3699
Retarget 3700 to 3000 (number)#3700 to 3799
Retarget 3800 to 3000 (number)#3800 to 3899
Retarget 3900 to 3000 (number)#3900 to 3999
Retarget 4100 to 4000 (number)#4100 to 4199
Retarget 4200 to 4000 (number)#4200 to 4299
Retarget 4500 to 4000 (number)#4500 to 4599
Retarget 4600 to 4000 (number)#4600 to 4699
Retarget 4700 to 4000 (number)#4700 to 4799
Retarget 4800 to 4000 (number)#4800 to 4899
Retarget 4900 to 4000 (number)#4900 to 4999
Retarget 5500 to 5000 (number)#5500 to 5599
Retarget 5900 to 5000 (number)#5900 to 5999
Retarget 6900 to 6000 (number)#6900 to 6999
Retarget 7100 to 7000 (number)#7100 to 7199
Retarget 7200 to 7000 (number)#7200 to 7299
Retarget 8100 to 8000 (number)#8100 to 8199
Retarget 8700 to 8000 (number)#8700 to 8799
Retarget 8900 to 8000 (number)#8900 to 8999 (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3600 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
3700 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
3800 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
3900 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
4100 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
4200 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
4500 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
4600 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
4700 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
4800 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
4900 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
5500 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
5900 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
6900 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
7100 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
7200 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
8100 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
8700 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
8900 → Timeline of the far future (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unless suitable targets can be found for any or all of these redirects, I suggest them to all be deleted, just like what happened with the XX99 redirects. In that case speedy deletion criterion G6 may apply as this case is similar to what happened with the XX99 redirects. Either that, or I suggest a retarget to something like 3000 (number)#3600 to 3699 for 3600, and the rest with their respective numbers if that number is mentioned on the target page. Colgatepony234 (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (but one) except any which have a suitable target(s) where they are mentioned, and of course no predjudice against recreating any as redirects or DAB pages to something where they are mentioned. Redirect 3600 to 3000 (number)#3600 to 3699. A7V2 (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As these numbers are mentioned on the target pages these can also be retargeted too:

4200 can be redirected to 4000 (number)#4200 to 4299

4900 can be redirected to 4000 (number)#4900 to 4999

5500 can be redirected to 5000 (number)#5500 to 5599

7200 can be redirected to 7000 (number)#7200 to 7299

8100 can be redirected to 8000 (number)#8100 to 8199

The rest should get deleted. Colgatepony234 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to the number pages. The thousands pages are subgrouped by hundreds, and someone typing e.g. 4100 could be looking for 4100-4199. HotdogPi 16:43, 2 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 23:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per HotdogPi. Roostery123 (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to the number pages per Rosguill. BD2412 T 05:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(switching to) Retarget all per HotdogPi. Seems reasonable enough for these particular numbers. A7V2 (talk) 06:30, 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 the appropriate discussion page.

List of people born in the Kaaba[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 03:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people born in the Kaaba → Kaaba (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List of people born in the Kabaa → Kaaba (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, the target article does not contain such a list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ths history of the first redirect was all by the same user and ends with a cut-and-paste move to the second redirect. The article behind the second redirect was properly dealt with at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people born in the Kabaa, and we don't need to worry about Wikipedia:Merge and delete concerns since the sole author to either version was Striver, so this comment serves as a recording of authorship. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 6 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.

List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling[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 move without redirect (i.e. delete but keep history). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling → Image scaling#Real-time scaling (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misleading redirect: No such list exists in the target article. IceWelder [✉] 15:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The redirect was a result of this discussion and then again in this discussion. Fully support deletion or any outcome outside of recreating the article itself, which has been discussed to death and consistently had a consensus against keeping as an article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No such list in article. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlikely search term. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a merge-and-redirect with history. If the only concern is that the title is misleading, change the title by moving to something like Image real-time scaling. Jay 💬 17:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming the page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we listing when the stances are unanimous...? Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename—I believe the reason it was relisted is that this is not a run-of-the-mill misleading redirect. It should be tagged with Template:R with history and renamed to avoid misleading readers into expecting a games list in the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to moving the history to a different place before deleting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I was about to close this as move without redirect, since it seems everyone above is in agreement that the current redirect/target pair is unsuitable, and no delete !voters have objected to the proposal to preserve history at a different title (which would be a difficult thing to object to, as it's required by policy). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, I read Sergecross73's comment as dissent, Serge could you clarify? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a strange relist, but as long as we aren't restoring the article itself, I'm fine. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 6 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.

Judean dessert[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 03:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judean dessert → Judaean Desert (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Black rock dessert → Black Rock Desert (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Simpson Dessert → Simpson Desert (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I would expect that this common misspelling would be used by searchers, but that is not the case. Together, these redirects have averaged 0.296 pageviews/day since records began, about 2+1⁄2 orders of magnitude below the least-viewed of the 3 articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaundryPizza03 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Low pageviews aren't a good reason to delete, and one person every four days or so is apparently finding what they were looking for thanks to them. The nom even points out these are perfectly plausible misspellings. A7V2 (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are a plausible misspelling. I don't think the deletion criterion has criterion for low pageviews. Roostery123 (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sadly, Ancient Israelite cuisine has almost no coverage of desserts. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as of some use to some people. BobKilcoyne (talk) 12:07, 10 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.

Red, White And Cruee[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 💬 04:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red, White And Cruee → Red, White & Crüe (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This should be retired for the same reason as its sister Red, White and Cruee was back on September 26 last year: it's a heavy metal umlaut Eubot redirect, with an extremely low number of pageviews per year. Delete unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mötley Crüe's umlauts are not umlauts that expand with an e afterwards as they're just stylistic. The band name is rendered as either Mötley Crüe or Motley Crue, but not Moetley Cruee, so this should be no different as it's an album of theirs. TartarTorte 02:38, 11 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.

Exact graph matching[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 Graph isomorphism problem. ✗plicit 23:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exact graph matching → Graph matching (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This should instead point to graph isomorphism problem, which is the specific case of this problem that the term refers to. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Felix QW (talk) 11:15, 10 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.

Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article[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. Despite the redirect being incorrect on a very literal level (see Tamzin's comment), it was perceived by the majority of participants in the two discussions as plausible. There is unlikely to be any other article that could plausibly have a similar redirect (see J947's comment), so this is not setting a precedent. The presence of a curly, instead of straight, quote was mostly not seen as grounds for deletion. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article → Wikipedia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a plausible redirect given the use of a curly quote; no user would actually type this so it's not useful as a potential search term. The previous RfD did not consider the use of a curly quote. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move without redirect to Wikipedia's Wikipedia article, or delete and create at the proper title, since there is not much of history to be retained. Jay 💬 10:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We’ve had this discussion before. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article. The result was Keep. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I understand now. Well if that is the case then Move without redirect to Wikipedia's Wikipedia article. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The creator intended to create Wikipedia’s Wikipedia article, not Wikipedia's Wikipedia article. Anyone is free to create the latter if they want, but there is no reason to move this page without leaving a redirect since the nominated redirect has always been a redirect, and thus has no history that needs to be retained. (And ha, I didn't notice the ’ versus the ' either when I participated in the previous RFD.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...And might as well ping Tamzin, nominator in the previous discussion, to let them know this got renominated. Steel1943 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...And I just remembered that some mobile devices default to using the single quote ’ as an apostrophe rather than the actual apostrophe '. Just going to go neutral as this point since I'm on the fence now rather than the straight "keep" I stated in the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: which mobile devices? If there is common usage of this, we should make a note at Wikipedia:Editing on mobile devices and probably re-asses MOS:CURLY. Jay 💬 03:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Versions of iOS since either 13 or 14. There's a setting that has to be changed when upgrading to one of those versions that really annoyed me since I had to find the setting to revert the default "apostrophe" to ' from ’.Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Curly quotes are rarely intended to be used as apostrophes and while it can happen as a typo, it seems less likely. No problem with the creation of Wikipedia's Wikipedia article though. TartarTorte 15:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason I gave at the previuus RfD ~~(which I would say is a good example of misapplying WP:SNOW)~~: The article Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia's Wikipedia article. Allowing this redirect justifies creating 6,818,593 new basically-useless redirects. Is that really what we want? Note also that this was created by a block-evading user dead-set on trolling. (I actually don't care much about the curly quote. Some softwares auto-replace them.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: which I would say is a good example of misapplying WP:SNOW. How so? It was closed almost 7 days after the nomination was opened and there was a unanimous consensus for keeping. Not sure why you think a SNOW closure was misapplied; the discussion was not closed abruptly and there were only a few hours left for closing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies, Yoris. I'd misread the timestamps. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: That's okay. No harm done. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I reckon this is the one article for which such a redirect is justified, as a common search term and natural disambiguation. I imagine a lot of readers expect to be taken to the main page if they just search up Wikipedia, in line with search engine results for that. There are so many curly quotes in article space (a fair proportion of editors use them); they are common enough that one might as well create one curly quote redirect for each straight quote one. Wasn't there an article on George W. Bush's Wikipedia article for a while (may have been deleted at AfD)? J947 † ^edits 00:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a title has a quote in it then a redirect using an appropriate curly quote in the same position is always going to be useful. Indeed I would support automatically creating such redirects in the same way we do with the various dashes and hyphens. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 15:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep and create Wikipedia's Wikipedia article separately. I can see a situation in which someone copies and pastes this as a search from a source using a curly quote. BD2412 T 05:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BD2412 and above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:59, 8 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.

European discovery[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 / retarget to Timeline of European exploration. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European discovery → Age of Discovery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

In addition to the redirect not seeming like an alternative name for the target subject, there have been various discoveries that are related to Europe that have nothing to do with exploration (which seems to be the primary focus of the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: How about retarget Timeline of European exploration? Use of the singular "discovery" may rule out any meanings of discoveries made within Europe, or any scientific discoveries, if that is what you were hinting at. Jay 💬 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beats the current target, but I'm not sure about if the subject of the redirect may be more vague/ambiguous than that. I mean, there are also scientific discoveries, but I'm not sure if there is an article (or section of one) dedicated to such a subject exclusive to Europe. Steel1943 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 15:46, 5 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.

Template:Tetracyclics[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 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tetracyclics → Template:Tricyclics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very misleading redirect. Tricyclics and tetracyclics are two completely different classes of organic compounds. It should be expanded into an actual navigation template like that of the tricyclics. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 15:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then remove all the tetracyclic compounds from the navbox. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: (or CrafterNova) Can you list those compounds for the benefit of the closer, so it can be removed from Tricyclics? Jay 💬 12:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, look for molecules with 4 rings, such as loxapine and oxaprotiline. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 6 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.

Generation Alpha (version 2)[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. Legoktm (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Alpha (version 2) → Generation Alpha (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nobody would search for this and even if they did, they would see the actual article before they had finished typing. The only reason this redirect exists appears to be that there were difficulties with creating the article it directs to. Llewee (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This talk page history has a lot at it, but I'm not sure if I follow it all. Courtesy ping to Onel5969 and Rosguill who are both active at RfD who seemed to have participated on the page. TartarTorte 15:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history moved to Gen alpha ... which leaves the redirect to now be judged on its title/merits rather than its edit history. (This is one way to preserve this history of a redirect with a problematic title.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom's analysis.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical redirect. Roostery123 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per G6 criteria. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 22:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment: I would like opinions on what happened with this redirect. One day after the nomination, the history of the redirect was moved to a new title, as Steel mentioned above, with reasoning This is one way to preserve this history of a redirect with a problematic title. While the RfD instructions only mention that the target should not be changed, and the instructions at the redirect say not to modify the contents, there is no explicit mention that the redirect history should not be moved while the discussion is in progress. It is possible that the act of tampering with redirect history may be seen as a way to force a delete vote. Expressing an opinion about the page history at the RfD is different from actually moving the history. Jay 💬 13:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: To that point, this is something that I've done plenty of times during an active RFD (with mention, of course) and it hasn't been directly questioned or inquired about until this discussion. My way of thinking on this is that the concern brought up in the nomination was the title of the redirect itself, not its contents or edit history. To me, it just doesn't make sense to keep a redirect with a bad title due to its edit history containing content that needs to be retained per WP:A/WP:CWW (with the exceptions of those redirects that were created prior to like 2005 that can be tagged with {{R with old history}} or whatever). And did what it's worth, most of these "version #" titles were made by an editor who is sadly now deceased, so at this point, trying to acquire rationale about why these titles should be retained is very unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me another instance where you have done this during an active RfD? Jay 💬 04:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Only one I can recall right now is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois (old version) ... and I could only find it because I said "dagnabbit". Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found another: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 21#Flipnote Studio 3D/version 2. I could probably find more, but as seen here, been doing this for at least 7 years with no quarrel. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...And another: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 19#The Witcher (U.S. TV series) (version 2). (I found a way to locate them, and there's several more...) Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the examples. I missed seeing the Sep 7 one, and I was not active in 2015/18. I understand there has not been objection to this method. I do however feel this influences the outcome when done while the RfD is in progress. Jay 💬 18:21, 13 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.

AIR Lab[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 💬 13:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Lab → Air (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not listed at the disambiguation page. "Air lab" is mentioned as an acquisition of Triumph Group, but off-wiki there is https://www.airlab.aero . I'm leaning delete as Enwiki has nothing to say about the topic at this capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 7 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.

Wasserburg (Archaelogical site)[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, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasserburg (Archaelogical site) → Wasserburg (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete: badly capitalised and spelling error (Wasserburg (archaeological site) does not exist). If it must be kept then a better target is probably Bad Buchau Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Misspelled and just targets the Wasserburg DAB anyways. No issue with Wasserburg (archaeological site) being created to target Bad Buchau though as it seems to be the only DAB entry at Wasserburg that is an archaeological site. TartarTorte 15:01, 5 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.

Malien[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 Malian. ✗plicit 03:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malien → Ian Irvine#Three Worlds Cycle series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target; another split off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points with the same caveats. Any past article history does not need to be restored because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Worlds Cycle found the entire series non-notable so individual plot points can't possibly be notable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the French and thus native official word for Malian (i.e. someone or something from Mali). Stade Malien (a football team) is the closest to a primary topic but not quite there I don't think. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Malian as the French translation for this term which may refer to those from an officially Francophone country. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Stade Malien as a {{R from incomplete name}} with hatnote pointing to DAB page Malian. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between Malian and Stade Malien, is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Malian as {{R from alternative language|fr}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Malian per everyone above as a {{R from alternative language}}. It's the official language of France, so there's definitely a connection between the language and the term "Malian." There's also no need to WP:ASTONISH people who might be looking for "Malian" by taking them to a non-notable book series whose character isn't mentioned anywhere on the site. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 18:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Malian per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 6 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.

Water reserve[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 Water resources. ✗plicit 03:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Water reserve → Reserve (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The current target is unsatisfactory because it doesn't mention water. A better target might be Reservoir. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is such an obviously better target that you could just go ahead and do that without this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous. Perusing uses of the term on enwiki, it could refer to water in a variety of contexts reserved for human use not necessarily in a man-altered surface body of water (reservoir), including groundwater, tanks, rivers, natural lakes, etc.. as well as referring to a type of nature reserve (though water is not discussed there either). Additional uses include water reserve mechanisms by plants and animals, water reserves for fire fighting, and as a component of a nuclear reactor. I would say disambiguate, but we don't have good targets for these disparate uses, so best to yield to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to water resources which broadly covers “natural resources of water that are potentially useful for humans”. My second choice for retargeting would be water storage which is “a broad term referring to storage of both potable water for consumption, and non potable water for use in agriculture.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to water resources with hatnote to Reservoir. Alternatively it can be a dab with both articles and Water distribution on Earth. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to water resources, appears to be a more suitable target. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:55, 6 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.

Timeline of Square[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#Timeline of Square

Square (financial services company)[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) 19:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Square (financial services company) → Block, Inc. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should this target Block, Inc. (formerly known as Square, Inc., target of the redirect for that name) or Square (financial services)? I lean toward keeping, but it's worth discussion, given how close its disambiguator is to the latter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep including "company" in the disambiguator means you get to the company. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presumably it redirected to Square, Inc. before, as it clearly should, and the current target is just fixing the double redirect. WPscatter ^t/_c 04:23, 5 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.

Nennifer[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 03:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nennifer → Ian Irvine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as not mentioned in en.wiki. Do note that it might be a plausible misspelling to "Jennifer" since J and N are close to each other in a QWERTY keyboard. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 6 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.

The Whelm[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 03:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Whelm → Ian Irvine#Three Worlds Cycle series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmentioned in en.wiki. Do note that there's a Whelm album but I think it isn't referred to as "The Whelm". --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 6 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.

Tears of the Node[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 03:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tears of the Node → Ian Irvine#Three Worlds Cycle series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No other possible targets with no mentions on enwiki

Roostery123 (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not mentioned in en.wiki. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 6 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.

Stassor[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 03:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stassor → Ian Irvine#Three Worlds Cycle series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No other possible targets with no mentions on enwiki Roostery123 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 6 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.

Romanian Republic of Moldova[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 but tagged as a {{R from non-neutral name}}. No clear agreement on where to retarget these redirects, so preserving the status quo seems to be the right decision, at least for now. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Republic of Moldova → Moldova (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Republica Română Moldova → Moldova (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are plausible search terms as they get a lot of results on search engines, but they aren't mentioned in the target article. Timeline of the Transnistria War#1990 has the only mention of either term I've found in article space, a single bullet point reading "July 1990: The 2nd Congress of the Popular Front of Moldova proposed to rename the country to the Romanian Republic of Moldova." The Popular Front of Moldova is a defunct organisation the relevant part of whose ideology was Unification of Moldova and Romania, and that article feels like it should be the best target - but it doesn't mention this term or (from skim reading) anything similar enough to anchor a redirect. I'm not keen on leaving it as is, and it could be mistaken for the official name (which is just Republic of Moldova), but if it is it should be taged as {{R from non-neutral name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any issues here. The Popular Front of Moldova was not simply an unionist organization, it was the leading political organization in Moldova during the dissolution of the USSR. It carried Moldova through this event to independence. It was the political organization of Moldova, and it happened to also support unification with Romania. It is not justificable to call this proposed name as non-neutral when it came not from external agents but from the organization that was leading the country. I also don't agree with that the redirect can confuse editors into thinking that's the country's official name, but I am not opposed to a retarget to Popular Front of Moldova. The info can easily be added into this article. Super Ψ Dro 07:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple target suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided between targeting to Unification of Moldova and Romania per nom, and Popular Front of Moldova per Super Dro, however tag as {{R without mention}} regardless. If it is kept, tag as {{R from non-neutral name}}, otherwise it is potentially confusing per nom. But if we had a {{R from proposed name}} template, that would have been apt. Jay 💬 07:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, any preference on retargeting to Unification of Moldova and Romania or Popular Front of Moldova?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:24, 5 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.

THE "NEXT" MGS[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, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THE "NEXT" MGS → Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#As Ground Zeroes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect was once an article, ten years ago, about the then-upcoming video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, which was released seven years ago. No sense in having a redirect about "the next MGS" when it's been out for so long. And since there's no indication that there'll actually be a next entry in the series, this redirect has no point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as severely malformed and outdated. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It IS mentioned in the article as a slogan and not for multiple titles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#Marketing where this slogan is mentioned. A7V2 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the slogan is mentioned in the article, it is long outdated now and (more importantly) doesn't seem to have been a widely used moniker outside of the marketing campaign.

WPscatter ^t/_c 04:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devoke water 19:53, 8 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.