Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

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

Cholestoral[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 23:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are implausible misspellings, with 2 or more differences from the target spelling. More importantly, though, the versions ending in "ral" suggest they refer to an aldehyde (see Aldehyde#Nomenclature), which is incorrect with a high potential for confusion. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment they appear to be phonetic (mis-)spellings to me. As cholesterol is not a typical English word, it would likely be misspelled phonetically -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. And all of them seem plausible to me. Thus, keep. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how these are implausible, especially based on phonetics as the IP notes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cholestoral, Cholesteral, Colesteral. These three show consistently infrequent use over the past several years, suggesting that they're plausible errors and thus useful. Delete the others which all have practically no usage over the same timeframe. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7 of these as plausible misspellings due to phonetics. At the very least, I think that the first four, being Cholestoral, Cholesteral, Colesteral and Cholestral are very intentionally referring to Cholesterol, and should be kept. For the remaining three, being Chlestral, Clestral, and Chlostrol, I'm less passionate about the outcome because these three get much less pageviews than the other four, and are also much more deviant to "cholesterol" than the first four. I still think these should be kept as phonetic misspellings, but it's closer to a weak keep. The one I cannot justify, however, is "Cholestero" which is not a phonetic equivalent but is simply just an incomplete word. To this end, I think Cholestero should be deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominator is a PhD chemist and is versed in naming of chemicals. As a physician, people absolutely butcher spellings. All. The. Time. "Clestral" is absolutely a phonetic way to spell it. If Wikipedia was able to list the correct page for these spelling searches then I'd be fine with deleting them. Try clestrol the search gives nothing. Cburnett (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cburnett: Hello; I do agree with this rationale for the most part; I think even if these phonetic redirects don't get a high level of interactions, they're still quite useful to have as misspellings of a commonly confusing word. While I do think this rationale holds true for most (7/8) of these redirects, the one that doesn't hold this water is "Cholestero", as it's just a segment of the actual word and fails the phonetics test. Interestingly, the first 7 of these phonetic-matching redirects were all created in 2006 and 2007, whereas the partial-title-name "cholestero" was made in 2016. Not to say that the length of time is make-or-break for these redirects, but they were probably created for different intentions; for cholestero's case, it being phonetically equivalent is NOT one of those reasons. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this particular one?
Not to mention, because this is the same letter-for-letter, seeing it pop up before "Cholesterol" is pretty confusing when typing it into the search bar. After typing the correct letters, you'll KNOW the correct spelling by the 7th letter at least (because every auto-fill search result has the correct spelling). Once you get to 10 letters there's really no point in having the redirect because the incomplete-spelling suddenly shows up ABOVE the actual title which is why I'd think it should be deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting Cholestero is a typo by omission, which is pretty easy to do in the URL bar even if the search bar handles it when you press enter. My experience is those get kept (Kevin Duran was kept when I nominated it, which surprised me at the time), so I'd say keep. No !vote on the other 7, though phonetic misspellings are probably good to keep around, especially if they get views. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

👨‍💻[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21#👨‍💻

👩‍💻[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 Women in computing. (non-admin closure) 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the glyph is unclear and could realistically be redirected to hacker or information technology. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider Emojipedia sufficiently reliable (Emojipedia#Legal precedent) and redirecting to a disambiguation page is acceptable, we could retarget to Technologist. (As my reasoning below, where I suggest a redirect to laptop, could also be used here.) --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D08:7F2D:308A:2C4 (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose moving to anything gendered. The idea that the male emoji should just be "information technology", while the female emoji should be "women in information technology" is flat out demeaning. :3 F4U (they/it) 11:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edward-Woodrow. The male counterpart, incidentally, is equally vague and unhelpful. signed, Rosguill talk 16:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete. Worst case, this should be retargeted to the emoji block it belongs to, but I'm sure there are better options, like some that have been brought up above. Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm fine with redirecting elsewhere, but I believe that deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. Enix150 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enix150: So? Saying "don't delete this, then it will be the only {something} on Wikipedia is a baseless argument. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edward-Woodrow: That would make it the sole outlier among the thousands of emojis. Encyclopedias usually seek consistency in their coverage. Enix150 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Fait accompli, we probably just shouldn't have a whole swathe of these redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And in this case it would be consistently bad coverage, because the redirect is misleading. That's like saying "keep {unnotable article}, we need consistency in coverage of {topic}!" It's not remotely grounded in policy. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an uninvolved editor close/relist this now? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to women in computing. Counter F4U above I don't see that as demeaning at all - if there were an article on men in computing, then the men's emoji would point there, but that's a redlink so we have to go with the ungendered target - it's merely a reflection of reality. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery I would like to point out several arguments against a gendered target:
    1) It is just flat out difficult to distinguish between the gendered emojis (👩‍💻/👨‍💻);
    2) People can set the default gender expression of the emojis on their keyboard (typically to match their own). This would result in us sending people with feminine-coded default emojis to the gendered article, while sending people with masculine-coded default emojis to the general article;
    3) Hopefully everyone agrees that the suggestion that women working in IT are female technologists, but men working in IT are simply technologists is misogynistic. In that spirit, I would point out that the emoji does not actually show women in computing. It shows a singular technologist, akin to how the emoji 👩‍🔬 does not show women in science, but instead shows a singular scientist.
    I made the previous comment in a haste. Hopefully this makes my objection clearer. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Not in my emoji implementation.
    2) I think that's a good point.
    3) We do not have a "men in computing" article. This is because of a historic misogynistic precedent that causes women to be rarer in these fields, which highlights them more. It's anti-misogynistic. The scientist redirect has not had discussion yet and its fate should also depend on this RfD. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For (1) and (2), if it is really the case that people using this emoji aren't specifically talking about women, then that would justify your point, but I find it hard to believe. For (3), Aaron Liu mostly made my case for me, but I don't find the singular thing odd at all - it's basically identical to male nurse (singular) redirecting to men in nursing (plural). * Pppery * it has begun... 00:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Women in computing per Pppery. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the August 10 logpage. Retarget to Women in STEM fields? to Women in computing? to Laptop? to another page? Or just delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to women in computing per my reply above. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too vague to redirect to any page Polyamorph (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see an emoji block this can retarget to instead of deletion, as it appears to be a joined emoji. Emoji#Joining makes no mention of it. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

City (Georgia)[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. No new responses since September 1st, and its been 9 days since then. Closing as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are cities in the country too, but regardless, I don't think this is a useful redirect, so delete rather than disambiguate. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete actually I think I'm neutral now because the only use I can think of for this redirect is to link details about Georgia's legal treatment of cities to the word "city" in an article that talks about a Georgia city. I don't think that's a good thing to be doing; too eggy. If you want to explain this stuff in a linking article, do it in visible text.
    That said, there's something that needs to be explained here. If I go to "what links here" I find, for example, Mount Vernon, Georgia, and if I search in wikitext for "Georgia (city)", it does not appear.
    So my best guess is there's some sort of template magic going on here. We should probably find out what it is, and get rid of it, because as I say above, that's not a good thing to be doing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it. I guess I don't mind it as much there. If you see a bluelink to "city" in ordinary article text you have a reasonable expectation that it points to city, and if information that would be relevant to readers is hidden behind the link, that's a bad thing. For the word "Cities" at the head of a list in a nav template, who knows. Still, that's no impediment to removing the redirect and piping directly in the template (note that even with the redirect, it would still need a pipe anyway, so the redirect doesn't save anything here). --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is used in around 20 articles (and that template), all concerning cities in the US state of Georgia. Its purpose is to lead the reader to the definition of a city in Georgia - because the definitions of 'city', 'town' , 'village' etc differ from state to state. There are similar redirects for most US states (e.g. Town (Connecticut), Village (New York)). Confusion with the country of Georgia is possible, but not likely, I think. If eliminating possible confusion is considered essential, it could be refined to "City (Georgia (US state))" or similar. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't do that, at least not in article text. It violates the least surprise principle. As I say above, I don't mind it as much in the navbox, but a pipe is sufficient there; the redirect is pointless. I think all the other articles that "use" it are actually just including that template, though I haven't checked that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect, ahd the others like it, are used almost exclusively in infoboxes, where the heading for the settlement might be 'City' or 'Town' or 'Village' etc. No-one would be surprised to click on that and be taken to an explanation of the official definition of that term for a settlement in that state, Colonies Chris (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't mind it as much in navboxes, but I also don't see why you need it there. It doesn't save a pipe, so why not just pipe where you want it to go? --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does save a tiny bit of typing when typing with the pipe trick, but the expanded version of that is saved, and I don't think that really is something that needs to be optimized for in a navbox. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom I see now the purpose of this redirect, and my apologies for not doing a better WP:BEFORE. But the risk is that someone incorrectly uses this in a template or article about a city in the country, or someone actually searching this (unlikely but plausible) wishes to learn about cities in the country. Same thing with Town (Georgia) (which targets town and I was not aware of). Note that most county templates for Georgia just link to City rather than use this redirect. I still lean delete I guess, as piped links can be used instead (as cumbersome as they may be). After all, links using this redirect still have to be piped anyway. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it could tempt editors to use it in article text, and that would usually be a bad thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are preferred to piping in cases like this because it decouples the link from the target, and it doesn't require an editor to know where exactly the target is to be found. They can just write [[Village (Ohio)|Village]], for example, and the redirect does the rest. And if the target article were to be reorganised so the definition is moved elsewhere, only one redirect would need to change instead of hundreds of articles. Also, Town (Georgia) targets Town#United States. If there is a specific explanation somewhere for what constitutes a town in the state of Georgia, the redirect could be refined to go there instead, without needing to change potentially hundreds of articles. And why shouldn't an editor use it in article text? Colonies Chris (talk)
  • They shouldn't use it in article text because it would (usually) violate the least surprise principle. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, no-one would be surprised by this redirect, whether in a navbox or article text. Imagine how it might be used - for example you might write 'Fitzgerald is a city in the US state of Georgia". No-one would click on that link unless they want clarification on what exactly is meant by the term 'city' in Georgia, and that's what they'd get. There's no surprise involved. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's exactly the usage that I consider bad. When readers see "city" in blue, they're entitled to expect that it points to city. If there's other information about cities in Georgia specifically, the visible text doesn't give you enough to know that it's there. I very sharply disagree that "there's no surprise involved".
    On the other hand, I would not object to Fitzgerald is a [[city (Georgia)|city in the US state of Georgia]]. The difference is that no one expects "city in the US state of Georgia" to be the title of an article or a search term on its own, so the expectations are different. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. From the reader's point of view, either you know, or think you know, what a city is already, so you don't click the link, or you understand that 'city' is a variable concept, so you click to find out exactly what it means in this context. In fact, if the reader is familiar with our principle of not linking common terms, they will *expect* the link to not be a simple link to city. No surprise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I still disagree with you very very sharply. Keep it simple; don't overload links unnecessarily. It's different, of course, with secondary meanings of an ambiguous term — an article about cheeses may have to link to quark. But that doesn't apply here; you're still talking about cities, but you're sending the reader somewhere other than city to get more information, without any warning that this is happening. A reader might want that information, but does not get adequate notice that the link points there.
    And in this particular case, it's totally unnecessary, because piping the entire phrase solves the problem neatly. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I'm aware this redirect is only used in navboxes, so the question of piping a longer phrase doesn't currently arise. And even then it would be better to pipe the longer phrsse to the redirect, rather than directly to the target, for the reasons i've already explained. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Here's a comparison. There is an article named Overtime (sports). However, in articles about ice hockey that link to 'overtime', it will probably be piped to the more specific Overtime (ice hockey). In articles about American football, the same text will be piped to Overtime (American football), which redirects to the football-specific section of the Overtime (sports) article. No reader is confused or surprised by this, because they expect to be taken to guidance that's specific to the context they're in. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are no "Towns" in Georgia, so that redirect is even more useless. (All municipalities are considered "Cities"). - Presidentman talk· contribs (Talkback) 21:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually neutral following the discussion. The navbox use seems OK to me and Colonies Chris has explained a reasonable rationale for keeping the target behind a redirect.
    For other uses, the main thing is that editors need to internalize WP:EGG. I'm afraid that not enough of them have (including Colonies Chris). But that's not a problem with the redirect itself. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only used on the one navbox though. I think the best solution here is to created a piped link to the current target on the template. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's used in the navboxes of about 20 cities in Georgia, and potentially could be used in many more, which currently just link to city. And I've already explained why a redirect is a much better choice than a piped link in this sort of case. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply as nom yeah, I would be fine with that. When I nominated this to Rfd, I had not yet decided a dab page was the best way to deal with the base name redirecting to the country list, so the dab page did not come about until a day later. The template links would need to be updated, however. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose this proposed retargeting. A reader clicking on that link doesn't want a list of cities in Georgia - they want clarification on what exactly constitutes a city in Georgia (as distinct from a town, village, etc.). Colonies Chris (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The current target discusses the (somewhat unique) interpretation/definition of a city in Georgia. Potentially ambiguous with the country however so I wouldn't object to some kind of DAB or hatnote as an alternative. A7V2 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget List of cities and towns in Georgia - per Skarmory.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of municipalities in Georgia (U.S. state), and expand the list with the explanation from the current target as an explanatory blurb in the lede (minding WP:CWW of course), and with a hatnote to the related list for Georgia the country. "City" has a peculiar definition for the state of Georgia, while for the country of Georgia it seems to be more or less the same as everywhere else; it seems much more likely that readers will be looking for the odd explanation for the state, versus the explanation for a country with no particularly special usage for the generic term. Adding an explanation would be an improvement to the list, and a hatnote resolves disambiguation. It's a very odd title to disambiguate in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • certainly not, as such would imply there are no cities in the country of Georgia -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should go to the legal definition and jurisdictional function of entities known as "city" in either the U.S. state or the country. But these are defined by either the U.S. state or the nation-state, so the disambiguator portion should indicate it is about the U.S. state or the nation-state and not just plain "Georgia" -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This redirect is only used in about 20 articles, all on cities in Georgia (US). It seems unlikely it would be typed in by anyone searching for info on either Georgia. So no-one is likely to be misled by it. A hatnote at the target, as suggested above, would eliminate any slight possibility of confusion. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it appears just like City (New Jersey) etc that its an actual legal term in Georgia the US state even though the country may have cities. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to see why this isn't just a clear case of disambiguating an ambiguous title. It's a weird search term, but not that weird, and it picks up the search term for city georgia. Georgia the country also has cities in it, and in general use there's no primary topic between the two, so... why are we making a primary redirect here? If we want a redirect that points to cities in the state of Georgia, create a shorter one, don't hijack this one where there are actual PT concerns. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm pretty sure we don't need a "City (xyz)" for every other country and state. They all are Cities. Georgia in particular is an unfortunate case where WP:SYSTEMICBIAS prevails. Delete as this is unnecessary, we can survive without this. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we do need those redirects, because the official definition of a 'city', 'town', 'township', 'village' , 'hamlet' etc differs from state to state in the US. Probably not for every country (they will have their own-language terms such as 'commune (France)', 'département', 'Land (Germany)', 'oblast'), which can be linked as necessary, but certainly for US states. Most of these state-level redirects already exist. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: This redirect is used in the articles about 20 or so cities in Georgia (US). I'll run through them all changing the piping to City (Georgia (U.S. state)) to avoid any ambiguity, and set up that redirect to target Georgia (U.S. state)#Local_government just as the redirect under discussion does. And then the existing redirect could be deleted. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with this, though I'd prefer a different disambiguator that doesn't use double parenthesis (though I don't feel strongly on that). I also think a retarget to List of cities and towns in Georgia is preferable to deletion, but the search term seems unlikely enough that I don't have major qualms with deletion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with either format of the piping, "City (Georgia (U.S. state))" or "City (Georgia, U.S.)", whatever the consensus preference is. The original redirect, "City (Georgia)", is solely used in articles about cities in Georgia (US) and was never intended as a search term, and seems unlikely to be used for that purpose, so i see no benefit in retaining it. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with creation of a U.S. version of this redirect for piped linking purposes. Probably the single parentheses version is more natural, also I am not certain the WP:PIPETRICK will work with the double parentheses (probably, but I'm not sure). As for this redirect, I am fine with deletion or retargeting to the dab as discussed above; if retargeted a link to the current target (and any relevant text for the country) could be added in a see also section. That seems better than deletion, as it's not a completely implausible search term. My real concern in my original nomination was the lack of disambiguation, which can now be resolved without deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the August 8 logpage. Keep, retarget, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close as no consensus - come on, this has been open for almost 2 months and we're no closer than before the first relist. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the more recent comments by the main participants, there is actually a rough consensus for retargeting to List of cities and towns in Georgia and creating a modified version to replace this redirect in links. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a consensus for changing the 20 or so current uses of the redirect to either "City (Georgia (U.S. state))" or "City (Georgia, U.S.)", but no clarity on which one of those would be preferable. That would leave the existing redirect with no actual uses at all, so it could either be retargeted as suggested or just deleted. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Triglycerol[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 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These names refer to a specific (potentially notable) compound, e.g. [1] and [2] (formula C9H20O7) for which enwiki does not appear to have any content. Delete to avoid confusion/encourage article creation. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, to encourage article creation because even though triglycerine is one letter off of triglyceride, it very well can refer to an entirely different chemical, so the redirect becomes confusing; same with triglycerol. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Capitalization of the Web[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 Commercialization of the Internet. Jay 💬 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the rationale against Capitalization of Web given below, the article refers to the word "Internet" as a word, not the thing, so "the" shouldn't be there. That makes the title sound like capitalization across the Web instead of about the word "Web". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are currently undecided between two potential targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Bernanke's Crossbow's suggestion also works for me. - Eureka Lott 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment adding a hatnote for Commercialization of the Internet results in its removal at the current target. Since we seem to acknowledge that "capitalization" can mean monetization, this seems odd to remove a hatnote indicating the business topic instead at the top of the grammar topic. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this related to hatnotes? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a related discussion referring to The Grid's revert of a hatnote at the current target which was probably done because the IP's hatnote edit did not have an edit summary, but having no edit summary is no reason to remove a useful hatnore. I can add it back. Jay 💬 08:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Female priest[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Female priest

Illusion or Forever[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 03:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from incorrect song title to album. BangJan1999 02:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Trigylcerides[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Trigylcerides

Omega 6 linoleic acid[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 02:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These previously targeted Omega-3 fatty acid and Omega-6 fatty acid, respectively (though the first one did originally target linoleic acid before being boldy redirected last year); I retargeted them just now to their current targets but now realize they are actually a WP:XY situation and should probably be deleted (the compound names included in the redirects are examples of their respective fatty acid class). These were/are used in some piped links; the piped links can be corrected to target the desired article rather than employ a confusing redirect whose title isn't even used. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_29&oldid=1176350351"