Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 29, 2023.

X (writing speed)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect left behind after this article was renamed should have been deleted at that time, as it's confusing (presumably why the article was renamed). "X" in this case is just the common shorthand for "multiple of", and is not unique to optical media, and even then is more commonly associated with read speed. In short, the redirect name manages to be somehow both too generic and too specific, and if seen in the wild implies that it's some sort of unusual factor in write speed rather than just shorthand for "times". Should be deleted to avoid it cropping up again (I just removed it from the X disambiguation page). NapoliRoma (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the nominator. The disambiguator is too specific. The "x" here isn't a unit or a specialist term. The "x" in "x10 writing speed" is no different than that in "x10 magnification", but "X (magnification)" would not make a helpful redirect so neither would this. – Scyrme (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree, per nom and because it's an implausible search term. Fieari (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config[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 and delete.

The first template is meant to be an alternative name for the auto-archiving template under the current bot's name, and the second is an unlikely double namespace mistake. However, according to the top of this page and the source code, only the exact page name User:MiszaBot/config is recognised, meaning both of these redirects will never actually trigger automatic archiving from the bot, and therefore should be deleted as unhelpful. I've already removed the only existing use of the first one here. Aidan9382 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) modified 18:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further opinion on the first entry - User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pppery: I may have misunderstood your keep vote. What you are saying seems to contradict the keep, as it is not reasonable for someone to expect the configuration of User:Lowercase sigmabot III to be in User:MiszaBot's userspace, which it is, and will continue to be, with the keep. And how does not deleting the redirect help? Jay 💬 10:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that I consider it plausible for someone to expect Lowercase sigmabot's config to be at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config. Such a someone could then follow the redirect and realize the correct template to use. * Pppery * it has begun... 11:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it now. But this doesn't solve the problem of the nomination. Someone could try to use the Lowercase sigmabot config, and assume wrongly that it will work. Whereas deleting it gets rid of the problem, at least when someone goes to that page and doesn't find it. An alternate is to retarget it to User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo which may avoid any confusion. Jay 💬 13:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to that retarget. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert into a substitution only wrapper that is automatically turned into the correct template. 192.76.8.90 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with that proposal as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. I'm not convinced by the followup discussion given the problem statement in the nom, especially given their low use. Izno (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Karman Wong[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staffer-to-former-employer redirect for a person not named in the target article. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Sue Sgambati[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staffer-to-former-employer redirect for a person not named in the target article. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Patricia Jaggernauth[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staffer-to-former-employer redirect for a person not named in the article. To be fair, she was formerly named in the article (complete with a link to this redirect, recursively leading right back to the same article), but television station articles are no longer allowed to include exhaustive directories of every individual person who ever worked there, and are now only allowed to list staffers who are themselves independently notable as individuals. But Jaggernauth's only potential notability claim, that she claimed racial discrimination when she left the channel, just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a ten-year test passing notable journalist. So she can't be named in the article if she isn't a viable subject for her own standalone biographical article, but the redirect shouldn't be maintained if she isn't named in the article to provide any context for the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bryce Wylde[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staffer-to-former-employer redirect for a person not named in the target article. To be fair, he was named in the article at the time he worked there, but articles about television channels are no longer allowed to list exhaustive staff directories of every individual reporter who ever worked there, and are now only allowed to list past staff who actually have their own standalone notability as individuals -- but this person doesn't, which means his name left the article and can't be readded to it now. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Shivangi Kolhapure[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 03:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted as this is wrongly pointing to that person's husband's page and IMHO prevents anyone from actually creating and adding information to that person's own page. Smarter1 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7#Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye

Turn (rational trigonometry)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7#Turn (rational trigonometry)

Pythagoras' theorem proof (rational trigonometry)[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 18:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer described at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually, Pythagoras' theorem described in terms of rational analogues is still mentioned in the "Organization and Topics" chapter. The formula should be readded as an example of a possible application of rational trigonometry, though. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's mentioned, but not discussed. But really, even before the target article trimming, this was a questionable redirect: no one's going to be searching for this; it's not useful as a linking tool, etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid topical name for a redirect which fulfills our criteria for redirects at WP:REDIR. Being mentioned in the target article is more than enough to warrant the existance of the redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It doesn't need to be discussed in detail at the target, the fact that it is mentioned is enough for a redirect to be useful. Fieari (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There never was a section called "Pythagoras.27 theorem". Is 27 a chapter number in the book? There was a section "Pythagoras's theorem" with a collapsed sub-section called "Proof", until David Eppstein rewrote the target article. A redirect titled Pythagoras theorem (rational trigonometry) may be useful, but having "proof" as in the current title is misleading. Same for redirects Pythagoras's theorem proof (rational trigonometry) and Pythagorean theorem proof (rational trigonometry). Jay 💬 05:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The .27 is merely what happens to a single-quote character in a wikititle when it gets encoded into a url. The section would have been named "Pythagoras' theorem". At the time of the rewrite the redirect was already broken, as the section had been renamed "Pythagoras's theorem" 6 1/2 years earlier. The supposed "proof" of the theorem in that section appears circular: it merely expands Wildberger's notation into a form where it can be recognized as the law of sines, which in turn (as usually proved) depends on Pythagoras. (See the discussion of the same issue in a different context at Talk:Pythagorean theorem#Proof using trigonometry.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation for 27. I was too fixated on the Show/Hide link for the Proof, wondering if the 27 had to do with that, to think about the apostrophe. I have notified of this discussion at the talk page you referred. The discussions there are more about Jackson and Johnson (2023), whereas the intended target for the redirects may be a section from Pythagorean theorem? Jay 💬 07:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no appropriate target in Pythagorean theorem for this redirect. Rational trigonometry is too fringe a topic to be worthy of any space in the Pythagorean theorem article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frankly bizarre title, not a plausible search term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rational trigonometry is a tiny backwater of mathematics (basically a hobbyhorse of Wildberger, not independently notable because its only real coverage is in the primary and self-published source materials by Wildberger). The coverage of the Pythagorean theorem as a subtopic of this area disappeared with the refocus of our article on the (notable) book instead of trying to pretend incorrectly that this was a significant branch of mathematics and treat it as one. The purported proof within this framework never was a notable topic, and as I suggested above may be too circular (as it was presented here years ago) to count as a proof. So it is a should-never-have-been-covered subtopic of a no-longer-covered topic of a non-notable subject covered by a notable book. Those three levels of indirection, the unlikeliness of anyone actually using this as a search topic, and the uselessness of the results if they did, make this a worthless redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect should be deleted because nothing links to it, it is not a plausible search target, and it doesn't point anywhere. Whether or not Wildberger's body of work is notable, worthy, or influential is irrelevant. –jacobolus (t) 18:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Videolog[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6#Videolog

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_29&oldid=1158942891"