Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 3, 2023.

No era penal[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 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies#Netherlands vs Mexico. Jay 💬 08:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to mean "it wasn't a penalty", which seems to be in context to a penalty outcry that took place during this match. This phrase, however, is unmentioned and doesn't appear to be very helpful without context. Could very well mean that the "redirect title is in agreement that it's not a penalty" Utopes (talk / cont) 22:33, 3 December 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).

Forschungsgemeinschaft Automobil-Technik[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 23:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For starters this is an overly broad target, Crash simulation#History indicates this is "a conglomeration of all seven German car makers (Audi, BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Opel, Porsche, and Volkswagen)" (the same sentence is included at Crumple zone#Computer modelled crash simulation) so Automotive industry in Germany would seem to be more appropriate, however there is no relevant content there (mentioned by name or otherwise). A bit of investigation finds that there is an article on the German Wikipedia with a slightly different title de:Forschungsvereinigung Automobiltechnik (based on Google translate the difference is "Research Association for Automotive Technology" vs "Automotive Technology Research Association"), but whatever we don't have any content on en.wp (the single sentence at two articles, both of which are much narrower in scope than the organisation) means this isn't a useful redirect at the moment. No prejudice against recreation if an article is written though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 4 December 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).

Template:Back to top[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 Procedural keep in favour of a discussion at WP:TfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to make way for a similar (or even identical) general-use version of {{Astro back to top}}: back to top .

{{Back to top}} has only 1 transclusion, on Maile66's talk page from last year ([1]), and only 2 links. One link is in a WP:VP/T archive from a year ago (also by Maile66), and the other link was created ~2 weeks ago by Mathglot ([2]). Also, {{Skip to top}}, the current target, has only 13 transclusions and 8 links, so neither the redirect nor the target are quite popular, so I don't imagine this change would be very disruptive.

The transcluded text of {{Astro back to top}} has been in use in the WP:Astronomy space since at least 2016, and in use on non-astro pages List of Johnson solids & List of Wenninger polyhedron models since 2017 ([3] & [4], courtesy ping to Tomruen), so I think the transcluded text would benefit from centralization & standardization, as well as being at a more intuitively named location.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Transclusions/links or not, the title seems like a reasonable search term for its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: a link to {{Skip to top}} can be added to the documentation, like in the see also section, for users to easily find that lightly-used template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to understand what you want to do, exactly. Are you proposing that people use {{Astro back to top}} instead, because I just can't see that happening; it a non-intuitive name for non-astronomy contexts. Or are you saying you want to keep the template {{Back to top}}, but redirect it to something else? I don't have an objection to that, if it performs the same operation, maybe with even more features. I would be opposed to removing it entirely, because that's the expression I think of first, when I want to perform that operation, and I assume a sufficient number of other people do, too, to make it worth retaining, as redirects are cheap. Are you trying to remove it entirely? What would be the benefit of that? (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: I'd like to move {{Astro back to top}} to {{Back to top}}, adjusting the wording in the documentation as necessary, and redirect {{Astro back to top}} to {{Back to top}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I'm getting at in my previous statement ... sort of. This seems like an issue for template deletion or merging via WP:TFD. Seems taking this to WP:RFD is like putting the cart before the horse. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this being a template redirect, there's certainly some grey area to someone that doesn't frequent RfD, but I'm happy to relist at TfD if that satisfies everyone, or just keep this RfD up.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your plan to replace the transclusions of {{Skip to top}} with {{Astro back to top}}? Steel1943 (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I understand you better now, I think. So, it sounds basically that what you'd like to do is to usurp the name 'Back to top' for the functionality you have now at 'Astro back to top', whether by deleting 'Back to top', or by swapping the two and turning the former into a redirect to the latter, is that right?
At first glance, I would oppose this, because the functionality appears to be too different. The main issue, in my view, is that 'Back to top' uses absolute positioning and was designed to pair well with the functionality of {{skip to bottom}}, which also uses absolute positioning. By design, they complement each other, and provide one-click navigation from the top of the page to the bottom and back again, and they can both be placed together anywhere on the page—at the top, the bottom, or anywhere else on the page and they always do the same thing: they provide complementary "skip" links at the top and bottom of the page. (And, by default, to the ToC, unless you suppress it). As an illustration, the next line of wikicode below this one contains the wikicode {{skip to bottom}}{{skip to top}}, but you won't see it here.
    ↑ To top of page
    By taking over the name 'Skip to top', the individual functionality of 'Back to top' will be lost, as will the complementary, paired nature of the two templates together. There is an additional, less serious objection, in that 'Back to top' uses a single arrow character (copied from some other page nav templates), whereas 'Astro' uses a chevron image, but I think that difference can be handled one way or another.
    As a counterproposal, I can see an alternative that will get you what you want, I believe, which would be to modify 'Back to top' to allow new param |arrow= and rewrite 'Astro' as a wrapper of 'Back to top' with |arrow=<chevron image thingy> and |abs=no (already supported). If we do this, then users of 'Astro' will see no change at all on any of the pages where it is used, and neither will users of 'Back to top'; i.e., this proposal is completely backwards-compatible for users of both templates. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Sorry for scrmabling the name of the redirect and the name of the template, but I think you can see what I mean, but if not, I'll redact the previous message.) Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I sandboxed it; here's what it would look like on the 'Skip to top' side of things:
     To top of page
    • {{Skip to top/sandbox|abs=no|arrow=chevron}}
    ⬆ To top of page
    • {{Skip to top/sandbox|abs=no|arrow=⬆}}
     To top of page
    • {{Skip to top/sandbox|abs=no|arrow=[[File:Up arrow green.svg|18px|link=#top]]}}
    Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot:
    "So, it sounds basically that what you'd like to do is to usurp the name 'Back to top' for the functionality you have now at 'Astro back to top', [...] is that right?" - right.
    "By taking over the name 'Skip to top', [...]" - no, I don't want to touch {{Skip to top}}.
    It does not look like the features of {{Astro back to top}} are easily compatible with {{Skip to top}}; there are many differences:
    1. The name. {{Astro back to top}} produces: back to top , exactly what it says, and does so very simply, without any parameters.
    2. {{Astro back to top}}'s optional, used, |anchor=, |text=, and |inline= parameters for additional functionality.
    3. And of course the obvious visual differences. {{Skip to top}}'s text is very small, and has a box around it, which is fine, for something inside the category box, or above the title horizontal line, but that's not the use case for {{Astro back to top}}.
    So I'd rather not overcomplicate {{Skip to top}}, and, by extension, presumably other "Skip to X" templates, since they work together in some way, by adding several new parameters to drastically change {{Skip to top}}'s appearance, to basically turn it into a different template, all while making it less user-friendly in the process by adding several required parameters just to achieve the same result. Keeping them separate is the simplest, most straightforward solution.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you're content to keep things the way they are, so I'll keep this brief, but just wanted to clarify a couple of things in case it gives you food for thought. 'Skip to top' also works without parameters, and in the counterproposal, users of {{astro back to top}} converted to a wrapper would continue to use it without parameters, and see the same result as before, as in that case the wrapper itself would provide any needed parameters internally. Technically, this is definitely doable, but as you say, the functionality is different enough that maybe it's not desirable. Thanks for raising this. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom, I can see that it's a lot of typing to type the whole template name each time, and maybe that was part of the motivation? In any case, I've added a couple of shortcuts for you. View or refresh the template doc page and you'll see them appear upper right. If they are not welcome, then just revert the last change to the /doc page. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep? I'm not certain I follow everything above, but if I've understood it correctly this is not an RfD issue. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thryduulf: yes please. I'll open a TfD later, as suggested.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:59, 4 December 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).

    Automotive strategy consultant[edit]

    Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#Automotive strategy consultant

    Omission of Taiwan from maps of China[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. Editors remain divided between restoring a pre-existing article, keeping the status quo, redirecting to Taiwan, China#People's Republic of China, and deletion outright. As the prior BLAR was raised on a talk page (without response) and stood for roughly 5 years before being challenged, it is a valid status quo ante for this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic not discussed in target. Was originally an article before being redirected. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Revert as a contested WP:BLAR. Although it was theoretically discussed, one editor (93) proposed a merge and then actioned it two days later without any other editor commenting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that this should be reverted. --GnocchiFan (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert: per Thryduulf. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert Comment As the person who apparently moved it 5 years ago, I agree it was not the correct choice to redirect without mentioning it specifically; I must have assumed it was already covered given that the article was only 2 sentences on a footnote in the general controversy. 93 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) edited to change to Comment 23:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not revert, the article in question was one sentence, "Taiwan (Republic of China) was classified as a province of the People's Republic of China in Apple Maps.", cited to a single Telegraph (UK) article. If there is a case for a specific article on this topic, it should be developed anew. CMD (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and that sentence had nothing to to with the omission of Taiwan from a map of China, if anything, it was a case of including Taiwan as part of the PRC on a map, so it would still be misleading. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those are arguments for AfD not against reversion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a discussion of what to do with the redirect, which could be deleted here as some redirects are. The alternative proposed of converting the redirect into a one-sentence article that is off-topic from the redirect title would be less helpful to readers than the current redirect target. CMD (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the merge that was done, hence do not revert. However, the title of page mismatched the pre-merge contents, hence continues to be a misleading redirect to the current target. Retarget to Taiwan, China#People's Republic of China which has content about excluding Taiwan from the map of China. Jay 💬 07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus. Retarget to Taiwan, China, or revert BLAR and restore original stub?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete we shouldn't redirect from arbitrary sentences. - Nabla (talk) 17:48, 8 December 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).

    Trinidad, Colombia[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 Trinidad, Casanare. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A rather odd entry at Barranquilla (disambiguation) reads: "Trinidad, Colombia, Guaviare Department, Colombia" but the redirect targets (and has since 2008) Barranquilla in Atlántico Department. I can't find a mention of any Trinidad in Columbia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as useless and wrong (points to a place in a different country), and without an alternative target'. There are no less that eleven places named "Trinidad" in Colombia of which only Trinidad, Casanare has an article. The one in Guaviare Department must be a small place - see here - but it is south of a, perhaps a bit larger, Barranquilla (there are only five of those in Colombia). Davidships (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget as per Presidentman. Better solution, as also retains it for conversion to a dab later if necessary. Davidships (talk) 02:40, 6 December 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).

    Monument station (Massachusetts)[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. Jay 💬 08:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no mention of a Monument station at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronald Dale Karr's The Rail Lines of Southern New England lists Monument as an alternative name for the Bourne station on page 409. That seems like a decent rationale for the redirect existing, but the book does not elaborate further on the name. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: I've added a mention to the article, including a cited date for the name change. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this and the (MBTA) station below both have coverage, then the target of this redirect should have a hatnote to wherever the MBTA station is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 4 December 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).

    Monument station (MBTA)[edit]

    Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#Monument station (MBTA)

    Fire must never be extinguished[edit]

    Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10#Fire must never be extinguished

    Auslit[edit]

    Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10#Auslit

    Khovanski[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 Khovansky (surname). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose Khovansky (surname) would be a more appropriate target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:19, 3 December 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).

    HD 110082 c[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 23:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. This was created as a typo of HD 110067 c; HD 110082 is a different star and has no known planet "c". SevenSpheres (talk) 19:18, 3 December 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).

    Tennodontosaurus (Dungeons & Dragons)[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. Jay 💬 08:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: Pages moved to correct spelling, what links here pages corrected, unused, implausible typo. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom, will never be feasibly replicated. No such redirect existed for Tennodontosaurus either before today, which was seemingly a response to this RfD. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, it was. My thinking in creating that was that the creator of this redirect apparently thought the spelling they used was correct, implying others are likely to make the same mistake. Delete these, though, as there's only barely enough substance at the eventual target (List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters) to warrant even a properly-spelled redirect so misspellings are especially useless. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on findings provided by Daranios, it seems that this misspelling IS of some importance and has a chance of being used due to presence in the Monster Manual. As this is no longer some random typo, I've struck my vote and instead think it should be kept. If the Tennodontosaurus redirect survives this discussion, (which at this rate I think it probably will), it might be worthwhile to reinstate the general dinosaur redirect linked above, as to not strand the D&D specific version as the only page with that spelling. @Pppery: Utopes (talk / cont) 03:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't get that ping for some reason, but the reason I deleted that is that it was tagged R3 (User talk:Pppery#Speedy deletion nomination of Tennodontosaurus) and while I don't think R3 applies I didn't care enough to fight over it. If someone wants to recreate it (as well as Ankisaurus which I also created and then deleted for the same reason) and take responsibility, feel free. On the disambiguated redirects, I'm still not convinced there's enough substance to warrant these (or many of the hundreds of other redirects to that list), but that seems to be a fringe minority position so count me neutral. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also add Ankisaurus (Dungeons & Dragons) and Ankisaurus (Dungeons and Dragons) to the above as well (typos of Anchisaurus). Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those will need to be properly tagged if they are to be considered. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The background is that these spellings, both ankisaurus and tennodontosaurus, have acutally been used in Monster Manual II from 1983. So while they are misspellings with regard to the actual dinosaurs which are the inspiration, they are the published names of the monsters within that edition of the game. They may not be very common search terms, but anyone using that book will plausibly use those spellings. Daranios (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Daranios and per WP:CHEAP. I had a feeling something like what Daranios said would be the case, and voila, deletion of these redirects has now essentially been deemed problematic per WP:RKEEP 3 & 5. Steel1943 (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, Ankisaurus (Dungeons and Dragons) needs to be fixed, as it's currently a double redirect. Minor thing, but I figured I'd point it out. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. Thanks for the tip, Skarmory. Daranios (talk) 18:11, 10 December 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).

    List of most massive exoplanets[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. Jay 💬 07:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is to be a redirect, List of brown dwarfs would be a more appropriate target. See Talk:List of most massive exoplanets#Merge it with a different page instead. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also List of least massive stars is a redirect to List of brown dwarfs too. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep brown dwarfs aren't usually considered to be planets, Brown dwarf#Current IAU standard gives a definition which means the two categories are mutually exclusive. Hut 8.5 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Most of the objects that were in the list had masses in the brown dwarf region. Some planets like CT Cha b and GQ Lup b were in both lists. Also, List of least massive star is also a redirect to that page yet BDs aren't stars either. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What was in the article before it was redirected doesn't have any bearing on where the redirect should go. There are objects in the lists which might be either large exoplanets or small brown dwarfs, but that's not a good reason to send a reader who clearly wants a list of exoplanets to a list which isn't supposed to have any planets in it. Hut 8.5 12:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Most of massive planets are similar in size to Jupiter. HR 2562 b is for example only 11% larger. The list of largest exoplanets covers the largest exoplanets which are much larger than Jupiter. Also, List of least massive stars is a redirect to List of brown dwarfs and yet the list it redirects to isn't even supposed to have stars. Redirecting the list of most massive exoplanets to the list of largest exoplanets makes no sense. Mass is not size. List of most massive stars and List of largest known stars are completely different lists. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, mass and size aren't the same thing, but that's not an obstacle to having a redirect. A reader who types in "List of most massive exoplanets" is looking for a list of big exoplanets, which is what the current target delivers. I certainly don't see how that reader is any better served by being sent to a list of things which are by definition not planets. What some completely different search term redirects to is not relevant here. Hut 8.5 18:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      But List of least massive stars isn't a redirect to List of smallest stars but to List of brown dwarfs. But that list is not supposed to have any actual stars. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Hut 8.5. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nonsense, makes absolutely no sense how this list should be redirected to the List of largest exoplanets. Models such as mass-radius relationships show the gravity of planets (including solid ones and brown dwarfs) with masses more than 500 - 1,000 ME would cause them to shrink due to electron degeneracy pressure (see degenerate matter), thus leading to rather smaller radii (and much higher gravity and density) comparing to their lighter counterparts (or larger for hotter gas giants depending on the temperature per "runaway inflation", see Puffy planet).[1] Hard to believe why this page should be a redirect to List of largest exoplanets, it sounds an absurd decision.
    Redirect to List of brown dwarfs more or less may be no any better either (though still a better choice than to List of largest exoplanets page): it is overall very difficult to differ a very massive super-jovian planet (gas giant) from a brown dwarf (and a sub-brown dwarf) and there is still no universal proper consensus yet (as stated in the Brown dwarf page), though some studies considered brown dwarfs as simply "high-mass jovian planets".[2] According to some planet definitions, whether an object is a planet or brown dwarf depends on either how it formed or a mass cutoff, in which the IAU uses the deuterium-buring mass limit of 13 MJ (though it slightly varies depending on metallicity), while some other studies and data favored larger mass cutoffs (e.g. 60 MJ),[2][3] and disregarded the 13 MJ limit to be irrelevant.[4] There's no much way what should be considered the most massive exoplanets anyway, and whenever if brown dwarfs are just "super planets" is still not universally accepted for now. The list is also still too hopeless (or not) to keep it as well, useless you wanna remake it as List of most massive substellar objects, kind of a good idea (or not). At this point, it's probably best to delete this page for good, useless if there's an appropriate target (except for the two mentionned said lists). Regards—ZaperaWiki44(✉/Contribs) 07:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be true, but remember we are a non-specialist encyclopaedia and we need to cater for people who have no idea about all those technical definitions. Someone using this search term wants a list of things that are very large exoplanets, which is exactly what the current target is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget as per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Seager, S.; Kuchner, M.; Hier‐Majumder, C. A.; Militzer, B. (2007). "Mass‐Radius Relationships for Solid Exoplanets". The Astrophysical Journal. 669 (2): 1279–1297. arXiv:0707.2895. Bibcode:2007ApJ...669.1279S. doi:10.1086/521346. S2CID 8369390.
    2. ^ a b Hatzes, Artie P.; Rauer, Heike (2015). "A Definition for Giant Planets Based on the Mass-Density Relationship". The Astrophysical Journal. 810 (2): L25. arXiv:1506.05097. Bibcode:2015ApJ...810L..25H. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L25. S2CID 119111221.
    3. ^ Bodenheimer, Peter; D'Angelo, Gennaro; Lissauer, Jack J.; Fortney, Jonathan J.; Saumon, Didier (2013). "Deuterium Burning in Massive Giant Planets and Low-mass Brown Dwarfs Formed by Core-nucleated Accretion". The Astrophysical Journal. 770 (2): 120 (13 pp.). arXiv:1305.0980. Bibcode:2013ApJ...770..120B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/120. S2CID 118553341.
    4. ^ Schneider, Jean (July 2016). "Exoplanets versus brown dwarfs: the CoRoT view and the future". The CoRoT Legacy Book. p. 157. arXiv:1604.00917. doi:10.1051/978-2-7598-1876-1.c038. ISBN 978-2-7598-1876-1. S2CID 118434022.

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:06, 3 December 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).

    Earl on the Beat[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 💬 16:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This article under the name/moniker of a music producer currently redirects to an album he participated on. However, his name is mentioned in several other articles such as Paint the Town Red (Doja Cat song), When I Was Dead or Hot Girl Summer. Hence, he is not uniquely associated with the target article. Since there is no alternative target article nor any content to warrant an article, the redirect should be deleted. Str1977 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. None of the targets are particularly helpful (although the current one has the most coverage by far). Cremastra (talk) 13:14, 10 December 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).

    Snowbunny[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 Snow bunny. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not mentioned at target. Would suggest retargeting this to the disambiguation page Snow bunny. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment: The current target, proposed target, and redirect creator have been notified of this discussion. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 12:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per nom. The disambig includes an entry "a groupie in skiiing" which could be broadened if the term is used in relation to e.g. snowboarding too. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:48, 4 December 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).

    Antivivisection[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 Vivisection. Jay 💬 07:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO suboptimal linking. Hildeoc (talk) 07:28, 3 December 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).

    Airbus Group[edit]

    Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10#Airbus Group

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_3&oldid=1190268572"