Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 1, 2022.

Heat as a transfer of energy[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 Heat transfer. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is so loaded full of words that it's ambiguous. Seems someone looking up this phrase may be looking for a different topic like Internal energy or Thermal energy. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Statement updated. Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Heat transfer per Thryduulf. Steel1943 (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I disagree. It is extremely unambiguous. "Heat as a transfer of energy" is a good {{R from search term}}, as "Heat" can otherwise refer to many other concepts. The PTOPIC Heat is a form of "energy in transit". To quote from lead of Heat, "Heat is energy in transfer...". Internal energy is the exact opposite. It is the energy stored in the body and can never be transferred. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Heat transfer, which is most likely what someone using this is looking for. It has links in the lead to thermal energy, heat, thermal conduction, thermal convection and thermal radiation which cover every other reasonable possibility. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Heat transfer, but there is a bigger problem because the article Heat defines heat as energy in transfer. What is the difference between "Heat transfer" as defined in Heat transfer and "Heat", which is energy in transfer, as defined in Heat ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:51, 2 October 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:Es[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Template:Es

Ogos[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 Ogo. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect per WP:RLOTE. No particular affinity between the Malay language and the month of August. CycloneYoris talk! 20:11, 1 October 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.

IoT[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 Internet of things. Jay 💬 16:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Internet of things is the primary topic at this capitalisation, so I suggest retarget this redirect and put a hatnote there to IOT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible; I wouldn't have even bothered to go to RfD for this, but since you have, wait a few days and go ahead with it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Internet of things . IoT is common usage. Lowlifeoutlet (talk) 21:36, 5 October 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.

Geezus[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. The main objection to retargeting to Minced oath is the lack of a mention there; otherwise I would say there was rough consensus for that proposal. I think if a mention were added, it would be reasonable to boldly retarget there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary shows that this was made by a troll in 2005. Delete entirely, or possibly redirect to Blasphemy#Christianity or some other page. TNstingray (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have seen no evidence that it is a common form of blasphemy.Change redirect or delete. I was not aware of the musical artist. Redirect to there may be appropriate. I don’t think redirect to minced oath (it is just one of numerous possible variations, and not even a common one) or Blasphemy (an uncommon variant) is warranted or helpful. And certainly not to Jesus. Stats on a searcher’s intentions would be helpful, but intuitively I think someone entering this term is most likely searching for the artist. If there is disagreement on that point, either deletion (preferred) or disambig page. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. FWIW this is almost certainly a minced oath (to avoid blasphemy) or a phonetic spelling of the target, but almost all the google results I'm seeing are for a musical artist and those that aren't are pretty much all forum usernames and the like, but the internal search engine however does find clearly exclamatory uses on talk pages (e.g. Talk:Irish Catholics#culture/perception) so people clearly do use this, and the redirect getting ~30 hits a year does back that up. However I suspect that most people actually looking up this term are looking for either the musical artist or linguistic content, neither of which we have (and Wiktionary doesn't have the latter either so we can't soft redirect). Minced oath would be a reasonable target for those wanting language, although it isn't listed there (the page contains no examples), but that would confuse those looking for a person or the current target. On balance I've ended at delete, but very weakly. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Minced oath was the original idea I was thinking of for the redirect suggestion, but I was drawing a blank so I listed the blasphemy page, which is likely too strong of an example. I agree that many of the hits are likely for the musical artist. TNstingray (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the redirect creator was clearly not a "troll", but a regular and trusted contributor to Wikipedia, with over 50,000 edits. Seems like a perfectly reasonable redirect—but if needed for another subject, the original target can be reached by a hatnote. P Aculeius (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The current target seems clearly wrong to me, as no one searching for the subject of Jesus is going to spell the word like that. I don't think there is a best target for this, thus I think delete. However the music artist and blasphemy pages are both possible redirect targets, and if there were consensus that people were searching for one of these, then a redirect to the appropriate one would be fine too. Some evidence of the searching would be helpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There can't be a redirect to the musician because there's nothing to redirect to. The musician doesn't have an article and most of the hits are social media sites (YouTube, Instagram, Soundcloud) with only a small following; probably not notable enough for an article (yet).
    "Geezus" also appears in the names of a few albums and songs by other artists, some of which are very briefly mentioned on Wikipedia (eg. use ctrl+f on Bizarre discography, Neo da Matrix). There's not enough material on Wikipedia to justify a redirect to any of them either.
    In the long term this might be a candidate for disambiguation, but presently it should probably be a red link. – Scyrme (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to minced oath—it's fairly transparent. Perhaps we should have a list of minced oaths, alone or attached to the article, with explanations, although that might be better done on Wiktionary. P Aculeius (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a phonetic {{R from misspelling}} and the answer to the minced oath question (which is not found at Minced oath by the way). It's been stated before but I want to push back stronger and confirm that User:とある白い猫 is definitely not a troll. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to minced oath, and add there as example, or keep as misspelling. I am strongly against deleting it. Rilaf (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Minced oath doesn't include a general list of examples. This proposal is only viable if someone here volunteers to track down an appropriate reference and add the relevant content. It does mention several minced oaths, but in the context of discussing a subtopic such as the early use in English. In order to add it there it would have to be added with context and incorporated naturally into the text somehow, not simply be a passing mention; it should also include a reference for the context. – Scyrme (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not retarget to Minced oath because Minced oath is not a list of examples of minced oaths. Other than that, I have no opinion about the fate of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a phonetically plausible misspelling (everyone who reads English in the Christian West probably knows how to spell "Jesus", but I wouldn't extend that assumption to the rest of the English-using world). If the artist becomes notable, then editors should be free to create an article over the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 8 October 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.

Albert-Édouard Levieux de Caligny[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No relation between "Levieux" and "Albert Édouard Le Brethon de Caligny", comes from a hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Charito2000) Phso2 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 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.

Carver Elementary School (Santa Ana, Califiornia)[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 💬 11:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no need to keep this mis-spelling "Califiornia" as well as Carver Elementary School (Santa Ana, California). – Fayenatic London 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. The page was originally created at this title, but it hasn't been getting that many pageviews since July 2005. I also found Marin County, Califiornia, which has the same misspelling and which I'll be adding here. Regards, SONIC678 05:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nomination. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:59, 2 October 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:R from codename[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 9#Template:R from codename

Mainstream (terminology)[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 and retarget.

Mainstream used to be a substantive article but as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainstream it was redirected to the disambiguation page now at Mainstream. This disambiguation page does not disambiguate any of the terms that are the subject of this combined RfD nomination, and they should all be deleted as a consequence. There are now no incoming links to any of these redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I noted in the AfD, some of these, like mainstream religion, used to have content that was splittable and could merit its own AfD. I am sure that I've expenced the fiction section, before splitting most of it to Literary fiction. In fact, I'd like to ask the closing admin (User:Vanamonde93) to temporarily restore the deleted page - first, I'd like to double check that all content from the fictions section was integrated into literary fiction article (I vaguelly recall maybe I didn't do it for a sentence of two?), and maybe I'll split some other stuff into stand-alone articles (with no prejudice to them being AfDed). PS. Interested editors are also invited to comment at Talk:Literary_fiction#Name on whether "literary fiction" shouldn't be moved to "mainstream fiction". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing's deleted as far as I can see. The page histories were swapped, what you're looking for is likely at the history of the DAB page. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mainsteam (terminology) and
  • Retarget Mainstream religion to Religion, Mainstream fiction to Literary fiction, Mainstream audience to Audience, Mainstream market to Market. All are plausible search terms and would not WP:Astonish if targetted as above even if not mentioned. MB 16:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One relist for any feedback on MB's suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per MB's suggestions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Retarget per MB. I agree that all of these search terms are plausible enough, so deletion seems unwarranted in this case. CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 9 October 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.

Pantheon (structure)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Pantheon (structure)

Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas[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) 06:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to "Nacionalista Party" (Philippines), presumably for translation purposes, but there's a separate "Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas" that apparently exists until this day. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in the Philippines doesn't seem to list the distinct "Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas" described by Howard the Duck. Until an article or relevant section/anchor exists, the best option seems to be keep the redirect but add a {{distinguish}} to Nacionalista Party linking to List of political parties in the Philippines. If this other "Partido Nacionalista" is particularly small or not notable, a more general {{for}} "other Nationalist Parties of the Phillipines" linking to the list may be better. I would suggest a disambiguation page for "National Party of the Philippines" but the Nacionalista Party seems to be the only one with an article to link to; other nationalist parties linked at the list article are naturally disambiguated already. – Scyrme (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This party is much smaller than the Nacionalista Party and is almost certainly not notable. "National Party of the Philippines" is a bad dab, since none of the parties are called that way, at least in English. I suppose linking it to List of political parties in the Philippines works, but the party ran a candidate in the 1987 Philippine Senate election and its results table is formatted in such a way that this links to Nacionalista Party which is false. Deletion is the best solution, as the 2nd option is this to be redirected to somewhere else would only lead to more questions than answers ("Why am I here at 'List of political parties in the Philippines'?"). Howard the Duck (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather baffling tho that we're putting the primacy of Wikipedia as a better source than the Commission on Elections (Philippines), at least when we talk about political parties in the Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to type "Nationalist Party of the Philippines" as the dab I would've suggested had the party been listed, sorry. But as I said, a dab isn't viable because there aren't enough articles to populate it.
Re: the primacy of Wikipedia over the Commission on Elections, it's not about that at all. The issue is linking readers to dead ends where the subject they searched for isn't even mentioned once. If you think the party is notable and care to do so, feel free to add it to the list with a reliable reference. If you do so, the redirect can be targeted to an {{anchor}} in the list. That would be the best solution. Keeping the redirect to Nacionalista Party and adding a hatnote to that article is just the alternative if no-one volunteers to create a better target for this redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the subject of this article is notable at all, and it's quite hard to find references for this party since it has a very similar name to another much larger party. I dunno if WP:N applies here; nobody "searches" for this, and all but 5 of the 33 "visits" to this article came from after I sent this to RFD (LOL).
The subject of this article should not be linked to an article of a similarly named organization; or even to a "Nationalist Party of the Philippines" (because again, none of the parties are known exactly that way in English, or in any other similar name except when we start introducing other words). We're stuck on either getting this deleted for good, or link this to List of political parties in the Philippines where currently it's not there because it's too insignificant. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searching "Nationalist+Party+of+the+Philippines" I find a number of hits all of which appear to refer to the Partido Nationalista ng Pilipinas founded by Blas Ople, including old news articles by the Washington Post and LA Times. It's also mentioned in a book, namely Dolan's Philipines: a country study (1991). These demonstrate that the party in-fact is known by that name in English sources.
Apparently the party used to be listed at List of political parties in the Philippines under "Other parties" until a revision at 11:07, 31 May 2022 by StevenNBA89 (talk · contribs) with the summary already defunct, Loyalist Party is no longer seen after Vicente Millora died, Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas also no longer seen after doy laurel revived the Nacionalista Party, Susan Ople is an NP member. This suggests it was removed because it's defunct (or merged into the Nationalista Party?). The old entry listed "Susan Ople", Blas Ople's daughter, as its leader.
Confusingly, the infobox at Blas Ople lists "KBL (1978–1992)" under "Other political affiliations", a span which would include the time when he apparently split off to found another party. – Scyrme (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the list has a section for defunct parties, List of political parties in the Philippines § Historical parties/coalitions, the entry could be added there; this assumes it is defunct, which I don't actually know for certain. Alternatively, a mention could be added to Blas Ople with one of the links I found as a reference, and this redirect could point there as an {{r from related topic}}. – Scyrme (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if it's defunct, and if yes, since when. The Commission on Elections suck at recordkeeping, and the election results at the start of the millennium are now lost unless somebody else has them. As mentioned above, they last appeared on congressional elections in 1995, and were still registered by 2010. There had been parties revived in time for elections earlier this year, but those had been bigger parties and not parties such as this. Again we don't know, and I suppose mentioning it as defunct is WP:OR. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - since it seems that we as Wikipedia are not prepared to provide any useful, non-OR information about this party and that the current target could be misleading to readers, deletion seems like the best option for now. No objection to recreation (or voiding this vote, depending on timing) if relevant content can be added at the current target, a List of parties article or elsewhere. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom to avoid confusion between the non-notable party and a possible unrelated party. Retargeting to the list, or the founder/founder's daughter are not feasible per the different arguments above. Jay 💬 15:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time in hope to solidify consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to avoid confusion. I get it from a translation perspective, but I am convinced these are separate parties. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 8 October 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.

Draft:Untitled Brian Fee Project[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 to Draft:Encanto (2) and Draft:Encanto (3) to preserve history. Legoktm (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space might be needed for his next project. ★Trekker (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering that Encanto was released back in 2021. And also because it's a pointless redirect from draft projectspace to main projectspace. EeJayEss2008 (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It's in draft-space and has a fair amount of article history that it doesn't see worthwhile deleting. I would agree if it were in articlespace, but this seems pretty harmless. TartarTorte 18:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TartarTorte. If someone writes about another project of theirs before it has a title they can either overwrite the redirect or use a different title, but in most cases writing about something before it has a title is TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to acceptable titles, perhaps Draft:Encanto and Draft:Encanto (film). "Untitled" should not be used for a project that is now titled, and the second one is also a bit misleading because it was not a Pixar film. -- Tavix (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need to create draft articles for films that came out almost a year ago. MightyArms (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. This suggestion is simply to move the nominated redirects (and more importantly the edit history) to better titles. It does not involve creating new draft articles. -- Tavix (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 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.

42nd-91th, 96th-97th centuries[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. This discussion is nearly identical to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_12#92nd,_98th-99th_centuries, which also closed as no consensus. Legoktm (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These 52 century redirects, on the other hand, don't really have a lot of edit history besides being created by Voortle as redirects to their millennium articles (before they were merged) in 2006-2007 and then retargeted to the current target in 2020. They may need to be deleted as well, unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 00:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe useful for inlink. Like the 48th century article (I randomly picked to check) was linked by a comet article as the next time it will approach sun. Although it is only one article. C933103 (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - The keep !vote cites a previous discussion but makes no new arguments. The previous discussion suggested these should be kept as the target mentioned many of the centuries. That may have been true then but it is not now. The redirects as they are now do not provide any specific information about specific centuries and are not really plausibly interoreted as meeting the information need of whoever followed the link. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. While they may be a bit far-fetched, all these redirects are topically valid. While we do not have a better link target than the current one at present, this will (predictably) change in the future. If there are sub-topics referring to one of these centuries specifically, the existence of these redirects allows to link to a specific century already. This makes it possible to use reverse lookup to find events which will happen in a specific century.
While I personally would not have created these redirects at this early stage, now that they have been created and with it being predictable that they would have to be (re-)created in the (distant) future, there is zero point in deleting them. It is often more efficient to have one editor bulk-create redirects following a certain pattern than having to create the redirects on an individual basis by different editors (and in this case even over a span of centuries). It takes less time and energy and it ensures consistency. Sometimes we first add contents and then create infrastructure, but sometimes the infrastructure gets created before the contents. Since we have no timeline and are building this encyclopedia not only for the currently living population but also for users in the distant future, there is no harm done if we keep these redirects. None of the valid deletion criteria at WP:R#DELETE applies, whereas at least WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question: is it your argument that these will be required in the centuries as they arrive? That is, that the first one will be required in 2100 years, the last in 4600 years? Or am I misunderstanding? If Wikipedia is around in the 42nd century, I think editors will have figured a way out to consistently and automatically name stuff without having to rely on a fossilised redirects to maintain that consistency. 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them will be required only in the distant future, but there are even now mathematical, technical, astronomical, geological, physical, biological, perhaps even religious events which can be already terminated or predicted reliably to happen in a certain century. In articles discussing them editors might find it convenient to link to "xy century" and thereby allowing those topics to be found through reverse lookup. Over time more and more such events will become known and therefore the existence of these redirects is useful even now so that editors can link to them where they see fit. Most users do not care about the far-distant future, but in certain fields it is important to think about it even now. Time formatting and storage bugs, Orders of magnitude (time), Long Now Foundation, etc. might be interesting reads.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced. The links you provide are not directly relevant. This is not a time representation issue, it is just reservation of an article name for perhaps hundreds or thousands of years. But suppose we do find a potential asteroid collision in say 46th century, then that still does not provide significant coverage for that century sufficient for an article and a more logical article would be "Asteroid B 612 collision of 4523" or similar. But of course one could posit enough information coming in for an article on all the extinction events or expected notable happenings of that century, and this could be the case for ANY redirect where there is no article now (based on varying but plausible rationale). The problem is that the redirect is confusing until then. It points to a page that has nothing on the subject and will do so for hundreds or thousands of years. A valid redirect to an article with nothing on the subject is itself wrong information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any in which the century in question is not mentioned in the target article. The topic is valid, but for the redirect to be valid there must be content to sustain it. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The extant target is the logical target for these, absent individual articles, and there is no doubt things on astronomical scales can be calculated to happen in each of these centuries. BD2412 T 05:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per previous discussions that should be kept (e.g. 99th century). 2405:9800:BA20:5F75:EDD0:3899:182E:DE22 (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, that discussion you mention was actually a "no consensus" close and not a "keep" close per se. CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for a firmer consensus and for closing the September 12 log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 1 October 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.

Winged Draco[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. Vague or misleading title. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this does not need to target the cryptid page. This looks like it might be a species of lizard (Draco (lizard))? Discuss, and either retarget or delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears deliberate, obscure connection between Reptilian humanoid and John Keel's Mothman Prophecies according to online pages.--Auric talk 00:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 1 October 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.

Fifth Harmony song[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of songs recorded by Fifth Harmony. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentions the target maybe as a result of that, not even in Better Together, Reflection, 7/27 and Fifth Harmony. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:843E:7CB4:B014:18E9 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of songs recorded by Fifth Harmony which is a list of Fifth Harmony songs, any one of which would be a Fifth Harmony song -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of songs recorded by Fifth Harmony per the 65 IP above. Back when it was an article about their song "Top Down," the title was pretty ambiguous, so it was redirected eventaully to the current target. But regardless, the list of songs is a better target because it lists all songs recorded as opposed to just that album. Regards, SONIC678 06:06, 1 October 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 Tigress[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Red Tigress

Windows[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! 01:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This page sould redirect to Window because anyone who is talking about it know that it is a term. 96.18.106.49 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote on your own XfD. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there strong keep. 96.18.106.49 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there can't vote twice. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because that is needed. 96.18.106.49 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plural-form target is appropriate. Miniapolis 02:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was going to close this per WP:SNOW and since it seems that multiple people are using the same device/IP, but alas per the previous 2018 discussion, I'm involved. Steel1943 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there policy dictating the current redirect? WP:REDIRECT states plurals should redirect to singular, and I don't feel comfortable saying Microsoft Windows is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a word as common as "windows". WPscatter t/c 04:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, almost anything can change via consensus, and the consensus can be strong enough sometimes to enforce a WP:IAR result. Also, may be worth noting what was discussed in the discussion linked above which occurred in 2018. In other words, if you support the retarget, it may be best to just state that clearly in this discussion if you want the current status quo to change. Steel1943 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I asked rather than clearly stating support or oppose is because I felt I couldn't make an informed decision until I knew the answer. Thank you for providing one. To be honest though I still don't feel like I can - I want to keep the redirect, but I can't articulate why other than that it "feels right". I'll refrain from being more decisive than that. WPscatter t/c 04:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Window (disambiguation) which will cover both the thing in structures and the thing on computers. It will also force all incorrect linkages to be corrected instead of hidden-- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is correctly targeted to the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate no clear primary topic between the building part, computing meaning and OS the DAB is the best compromise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The software is the obvious primary topic for the plural form, as established by consensus in the prior RfD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFPLURAL where it is the lead example of a plural term being a separate primary topic, and previous consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not disambiguate There is a page called Windows (disambiguation). 96.18.106.49 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By "Disambiguate" I was meaning move Windows (disambiguation) to Windows. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFPLURAL. People who come to Wikipedia, searching for "Windows" are much more likely to be searching for the software and not the part of buildings. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is correctly linked to the primary target. MB 02:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the current setup is the best one. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per me in the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_1&oldid=1115184509"