Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 8, 2023.

Sang-«gamma»[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, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sang-gamma is a trade name for the compound described at the target, but this obscure version created by PotatoBot isn't doing anyone any good. Create the proper version if desired, but delete this nonsense. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because nobody knows how to type a pair of guillemets. Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely spelling variant at best --Lenticel (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the trade name appears to be French and guillemets are used in French, even French-language search results appear to omit the guillemets. I'm not sure where the bot even found it. – Scyrme (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:40, 10 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).

Β-BCH[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, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A continuation of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_8#Α-BCH with the same rationale: evidently created in error as initialisms for β-Benzenehexachloride (β-BHC) and γ-Benzenehexachloride (γ-BHC), due to confusion with the intialisms β-HCH and γ-HCH for the more common form of their names, β-Hexachlorocyclohexane and γ-Hexachlorocyclohexane (or Lindane). Unlikely to be useful, given that these begin with a Greek letter and are unlikely to be typed. Delete these incorrect versions to avoid further confusion and possible incorrect use in links. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete more likely to propagate errors than to help searches. ― Synpath 17:07, 9 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).

MathematicsAndStatistics[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 Mathematics and statistics. The suitability of that dab can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was asked to clarify on my talk page, I see no consensus between keeping and deleting outside of the dab. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely unsure what to do with this redirect.

A comment about page history: It appears (I actually dug into nostalgia wikipedia in order to check this!) that this page was created first on 23 February 2001 and said "See Mathematics and Statistics" (which I assume was red at that point). Then on 9 March 2001 a different user redirected this to Mathematics and Statistics and made the latter a bulleted list containing only "Mathematics" and "Statistics" (both linked). In 2002, MathematicsAndStatistics was redirected to Mathematics, with Mathematics and Statistics being redirected later in 2011(!), and they've stayed that way to this day.

Now the reason I want to nominate this is that despite the page history the title and the target don't quite seem to match; I think a reader searching for "MathematicsAndStatistics" is probably looking for the relationship or intersection of mathematics with statistics (such as we discuss in Mathematical statistics). But also the use of uppercase might make these unlikely search terms so deletion is not a far-fetched option too (and the page history, despite its age, is minimal enough that I wouldn't be bothered by it). Duckmather (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both "MathematicsAndStatistics" is an improbable combination of capitalisation without spaces. There's a journal called Mathematics and Statistics. However, it's published by Horizon Research Publishing, a company labeled as predatory by several sources, including the last edition of Beall's list. It seems unlikely that an article will be written about it, and as noted in the nomination, the use of uppercase makes it an unlikely search term. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlackcurrantTea: First off, you make good points.
    For the first redirect, MathematicsAndStatistics, I am also inclined towards deletion. However, I know that {{R from old history}} or {{R from CamelCase}} is often invoked in these situations. Also, that redirect has somehow gotten 1279 views in total since 2015 (which works out to ~0.4 views/day), which is almost out of deletion territory, so my !vote is only weak delete.
    As for the second redirect, Mathematics and Statistics, my main concern is not the camelcase, but the fact that mathematics and statistics is a fairly common phrase and might even be an irreversible binomial at this point (c.f. the google search results, especially the academic departments called "Department of Mathematics and Statistics" or such). Furthermore, this redirect has gotten 1756 views since 2015, which works out to ~0.6 views/day which is also a borderline case. Thus I don't really have a strong opinion on this one in any direction.
    Duckmather (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking at something like 0.5 views a day as a borderline of utility for a redirect? Something like 80% of redirects, half the dab pages, and a decent chunk of articles to boot fall below that bar. I suggest that 180 views a year shows a very helpful redirect, and outweighs the little required maintenance by a couple orders of magnitude. J947 † edits 05:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that our article on mathematics looks to include statistics, I think we're fine as it is. I just think it's a fancy search term for the current target. The reader probably wants something else, like an article entitled "Mathematics and statistics", but as it stands the current target is the best option we can give IMO. 24 February 2001 is damn old for any page, by the way. Reeeeeally old. J947 † edits 05:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistics is only mentioned briefly in the Mathematics article, with a "main" note directing to Statistics and Probability theory. I would suggest the "Mathematics and statistics" be a disambiguation page saying: "Wikipedia has separate overview articles on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability theory." That would send a reader who searched on the term to the resources we have with minimal fuss.--agr (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArnoldReinhold: That could also work. If so, I would recommend making it a setindex instead of a dab and getting rid of Probability theory (since it's not in the page title), though. Duckmather (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at the talk pages of Statistics and Mathematical statistics.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Duckmather I propose changing Mathematics and Statistics to a set index article with content "Wikipedia has separate overview articles on Mathematics and Statistics." For someone searching on the term, this would get them to useful articles with minimum fuss and is otherwise harmless. As for the camel-case version, I would do the same since it has amassed over 1400 hits. Again it is harmless and minimizes wasting editor time discussing this ultra trivial issue.--agr (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agr: By "do the same", I assume you mean redirecting MathematicsAndStatistics to Mathematics and Statistics after making the latter a set-index article? If so, I agree but would suggest the latter also refer to Mathematical statistics (per Duckmather's mention of it above), as long as that article still exists. (Full disclosure: I created the "Mathematical statistics" article 19 years ago—although the current version bears absolutley no resemblance to what I wrote. :) - dcljr (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait… no, I meant both MathematicsAndStatistics and Mathematics and Statistics should be redirected to the correctly capitalized set index article Mathematics and statistics. - dcljr (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dcljr: That's not exactly what I meant, but I like what you are suggesting better.--agr (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no WP:XY issue here due to the article also covering statistics to an extent. I am quite happy to keep these (no benefit comes from deleting the old camel-case redirect and guidelines advice against it), but I'm not opposed to some kind of set index at Mathematics and statistics and retargeting these to it. A7V2 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: I find I agree with you; either keep or setindexify would be good closes to me at this time. By the way, if we setindexify, Probability theory (which agr mentioned) and Mathematical statistics (which I mentioned) would be fine in a see also. (The journal Mathematics and Statistics that BlackcurrantTea mentioned would not, however, since neither it nor its publisher don't seem to be substantively mentioned anywhere on enwiki, so it fails the spirit of WP:DABMENTION.) Duckmather (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and created Mathematics and statistics as a set index article. Questions as to what belongs there should go on its talk page. As others have proposed, I would suggest closing this discussion by retargeting the two redirects under discussion there. Does anyone object?--agr (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArnoldReinhold: Your setindex was immediately BLARed by Fram with the edit summary A set index shuoldn't cover two topics. Redirected to the intersection [sic]. Per this RfC, if someone wants to restore the setindex then it's gotta go to AfD as well. Nevertheless I don't object to setindexifying and then AfD'ing the setindex. (I still think that you should have put everything in your proposed setindex after the second bullet point in a "See also" section. Also, if this discussion gets a second relist, which seems likely, then your setindex-turned-redirect should be bundled here as well.) Duckmather (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duckmather: I've restored the article as a disambiguation page and added a See also, as you suggest. @Fram: Please bring your objections here, where there has been an extensive discussion of the best way to deal with this subject.--agr (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ammending vote, see below. A7V2 (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly doing an involved relist as the very nominator to close out the May 20 log page (as well as to test out XFDcloser). Also because this is a really complicated discussion that hasn't reached a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy now to retarget both to the seemingly stable Mathematics and statistics. A7V2 (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proposals above seems to go against WP:TWODABS and WP:XY. This is a very bizarre use of a "set index". As noted by Tollens in their edit summary on Mathematics and statistics, it does not meet the definition of a set index; I don't think it meets the definition of a disambiguation page either. I don't see the point of retargeting to a "set index" or "disambiguation page" that shouldn't exist to begin with.
How is this at all different from set indexing any pair of related fields? Why not Physics and chemistry, or Biology and medicine? (Both of which also occur in the names of academic departments.) I don't think the page history needs preserving, given it seems (unless I'm mistaken) these pages have never hosted any content beyond internal links and redirects (nothing that requires preserving attribution). I'd suggest deleting Mathematics and statistics too, although I know that's beyond the scope of an RfD now that it isn't a redirect. My second preference would be redirecting all these to Mathematical statistics, as Fram did with Mathematics and statistics. – Scyrme (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Mathematics and statistics. As pointed out above, the involved pages are clearly being viewed, and from what I can tell there are no clear policy reasons for the pages themselves not to exist, so I don't see why deletion of any of the articles makes sense. I would be surprised if very many readers visiting any of the three pages was actually looking for Mathematical statistics, so a redirect there seems unhelpful, but I see no reason why the reader can't simply pick what they were looking for if we leave Mathematics and statistics as a disambiguation. Tollens (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and send Mathematics and statistics to AfD. Someone looking for mathematics will go the article Mathematics. Someone looking for statistics will go to the article Statistics. Someone looking for the union or intersection of mathematics and statistics should be correctly informed that we have no article on that topic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is our article Mathematics not the union of the two topics? J947 † edits 06:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Less a union and more about one containing the other. I don't think it in any satisfying way provides what one might expect from "Mathematics and statistics". But keeping would definitely be vastly preferable to retargeting to the SIA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started Mathematics and statistics to try and untangle what was already a long discussion on an essentially trivial issue. Apparently people do search on the term and the article provides those who do so better direction than the default, which says there is no such article and then invites them to write one. If you believe Mathematics and statistics should go to AfD, it seems to me that should be the first step, with the RfD's dependent on the outcome there. Frankly I think enough time has been wasted on this inconsequential issue.--agr (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mathematics and statistics. Seems like a clear-cut solution now that that page has been created. If anyone thinks that page should be deleted, that's a discussion for AfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mathematics and statistics since that page exists and is stable, and deciding whether it should be deleted is beyond the scope of RfD. Lots of universities in the UK offer degrees in "mathematics and statistics", which is a mathematics degree with heavy emphasis on statistics. That might explain the small number of people searching for this. Hut 8.5 17:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where you and A7V2 are getting the idea that it's "stable". It was created (prematurely) in response to this RfD, and since being created it has been blanked, restored, and changed from a set index to a disambiguation page. Besides that it has been suggested in this discussion that the content of the page should be changed (to place the links under "See also") or that the page should be deleted outright; it's likely these have not been persued simply because this discussion hasn't yet been closed. Any stability is an illusion. – Scyrme (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All I mean is that it's not going to get deleted right away, it's been there for two weeks. Any decision to delete it would have to be taken at AfD, so as far as this discussion goes the page exists. If it is deleted at AfD then the redirect can be deleted under G8. Hut 8.5 11:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mathematics and statistics. The creation of that page could be interpreted as WP:POINT-y in the context of this discussion, but there's enough of a rationale behind it that at this point if editors think it is unsuitable it would need to be sent to WP:AFD, hence there's nothing more for RfD to do here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematics and statistics was created local to this discussion and has remained a disambiguation page with no disambiguating entries for a week. Can it be deleted under CSD G14? Jay 💬 14:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd say so. Neither of the pages it lists outside "see also" are actually ambiguous with "mathematics and statistics", they are simply the constitutent parts of "mathematics and statistics". At best, they're partial title matches, which guidelines for disambiguation explicitly exclude (WP:PARTIAL). Removing the partial matches leaves "zero extant Wikipedia pages" per G14. (See alsos don't count; they aren't there to disambiguate anything.) – Scyrme (talk) 14:17, 16 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).

7 virgins[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 16#7 virgins

Hexachloricbenzine[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 21:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A combination of two errors, "chloric" instead of "chloro" and "benzine" instead of "benzene" make this highly implausible to be useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete multiple errors, slight chance of confusion with benzine. ― Synpath 17:14, 9 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).

Sex-based rights[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Sex-based rights

Democratic planning[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27#Democratic planning

Redirects for Legobot no longer linked to[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. It may make sense to revisit this if the Legobot bug is fixed and all backlinks are bypassed. (Not to prejudge the outcome of such a discussion, just that it may be in order.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These pages were created for the purposes of helping Legobot who links non-ASCII characters such as α or č as ?, which if these redirects were not created, would break many links related to RfCs and such. However, these pages are all no longer linked to from anywhere. They're relatively cheap redirects, but they also are a bit odd and are pretty unlikely to be used unless another RfC is started on any of these pages. TartarTorte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're all in the Talk namespace, there's no chance an actual encyclopedia reader will ever need them, just get rid of them en masse. If there's still a bot that doesn't understand UTF-8, surely in 2023 we're decades beyond obsoleting such a bot. --Joy (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I cannot find a single reason at WP:RFD#DELETE which might apply here. Regarding the claim these pages are all no longer linked to from anywhere, this is demonstrably untrue - every single one of them has inward links. They don't have inward links from mainspace, but I wouldn't expect that of any talk page, redirect or not, unless there was a cleanup banner at the top of the article that contained a discuss link. To the statement if there's still a bot that doesn't understand UTF-8, surely in 2023 we're decades beyond obsoleting such a bot - this is Legobot (talk · contribs), which created a broken link as recently as four weeks ago, here. I have been creating these redirects (including all of the above except Talk:Aleksandar Vu?i?) for more than five years, often in response to complaints at User talk:Legobot or User talk:Legoktm, in order to provide a usable workaround for a known bug in Legobot; and nobody has complained until today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The internal links only exist after proposing them for RfD. All of them had no internal incoming links at the time of proposal. I very much appreciate the work that you have done to help workaround the limiations of legobot, and I apologize if my proposal here has been seen as a way condemning that, as that was very much not my intention. I was just trying to cleanup now unused redirects. TartarTorte 20:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TartarTorte: An RfC was started today at Talk:Aleksandar Vučić, as a consequence of which Legobot made these four edits. If Talk:Aleksandar Vu?i? didn't exist, three of those four edits would have yielded redlinks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the persistent workarounds @Redrose64 but you have to admit that for the innocent bystander it's reasonable to assume that this is a bad use of your volunteer time :) --Joy (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So my fixing the redlink at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy was a bad use of [my] volunteer time? What about those people who have the page on their watchlist and couldn't click through to the RfC? Should we leave them wasting time by having to guess where the RfC was really taking place? I would say that filing an RfD for a bunch of redirs that are causing no harm whatsoever is itself a waste of time. Surely there are other pages more worthy of deletion - attack pages, copyright violations and so on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point was that someone should just fix the bot and allow you to spend that time on something else. --Joy (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's happened less than 30 times in six years, an average of once every two and a half months. It's not like I'm sitting here doing nothing else but create them. As for someone should just fix the bot, the bot op is Legoktm (talk · contribs), who has many more important things to do; for several years, the only amendments that Legoktm has carried out to Legobot have been of the nature of "unbreak now!" problems, and this doesn't go that far. Is somebody offering to take it over from Legoktm? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of these redirects are eligible for {{Db-talk}}, an extension of WP:G8. That, and this is a case where the bot needs to get fixed and/or shut down until the issue is fixed; creating the redirects the bot is dependent on masks the problem rather than fixes it. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shutting down Legobot for such a minor issue would be a gross overreaction. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A bug is a bug is a bug is a bug. In other words, a person who commits a heinous crime usually doesn't get away with it just because of 1000 other great things they did. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed high time that someone else take over Legobot's RfC list task, as has happened with several other similarly-unmaintained tasks now run by Yapperbot and ChristieBot, and has been for many years. In a perfect world, I'd agree with Steel1943, but Wikipedia is not a perfect world and letting the mostly-working bot run and fixing its bugs is better than not doing do.
    So, weak keep. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an invocation of K5 and because I don't see the point in deleting them, other than "we have a civic obligation to remove clutter". I understand it, but – we don't, by the way. J947 † edits 05:06, 18 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).

DS9 epsiodes[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 Speedy delete (WP:G7). Delete by GB fan. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 18:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally created this due to a typo. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:59, 8 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).

Infinity of God[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 21:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian God is not the only one to be infinite (see God in Judaism, God in Islam). There is no good retarget. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to God#General_conceptions, which is the closest fit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree with Justin; that section has no information on the concept of infinity Carpimaps talk to me! 12:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a number of mentions of this phrase in explicitly Christian and Islamic contexts, including on Wikipedia. The closest thing I could find to a section that isn't explicitly exclusive to a particular religion is the mention at Actual infinity § Modern era. – Scyrme (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - no good target. Jay 💬 16:13, 15 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).

X & Y[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 XY. Jay 💬 16:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change target redirect to Pokémon X and Y since video game is more popular. RMXY (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There are a lot of “XY”, “X and Y”, “X&Y”, “X+Y”, etc named articles. See the disambiguation page at XY. Fork99 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeting to XY seems like a good option, since there is no primary topic here. Though I can see keeping the X & Y to X&Y redirect as a reasonable 'misspelling'. ― Synpath 17:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to XY. Searching these mostly brings up maths-related pages. I don't think Pokémon is the primary topic so that's likely to surprise people who aren't fans, but I can also see how redirecting to a Coldplay album might be surprising to people who aren't fans of the band. Regarding the version with spaces, X & Y (film) exists and searching online brings up many unrelated results, so I don't think targeting X&Y is appropriate. Both the games and the album are already listed on the disambiguation page. – Scyrme (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I believe the film title actually contains no spaces (like the album), and I started an RM to that effect at Talk:X & Y (film). Mdewman6 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to XY There doesn't appear to be a primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed IT should point to the disambiguation page, where all the various uses can be listed retarget to XY and X&Y should probably be renamed -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yesssss, we've got an WP:XY situation for X and Y! J947 † edits 07:14, 10 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).

Princess Hejing (Princess Hejing of the First Rank (1731–1792)[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 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a convoluted article title but I can't delete it via speedy deletion as it is the result of a page move. So, I'm sending it to RFD to see if anyone agrees that it should be deleted. By the way, there are a ton of other redirects to this article as well that link to this page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as multi-error (duplication, missing final parenthesis) jlwoodwa (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible error per jlwoodwa. Duckmather (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Delete (June 8, at least where I live) per nom and above. I'm not sure people would search up something with such a mumbo-jumbo disambiguator, especially one with the title repeated and without one of the closing parentheses. Regards, SONIC678 01:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'd support speedy via WP:G6 since it appears to have only been at this name for two minutes, for what it's worth. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 9 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).

DO NOT WANT[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 Chinglish#Do not want. Per Tamzin. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 05:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: while we're at it can you unprotect Talk:DO NOT WANT too for the RfD tag (of immense importance it is after all)? J947 † edits 05:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While this is a quote from an internet meme about the film, I doubt it would be a common search query for people looking for the film. I think it should be deleted because, let's be real, nobody is going to type "do not want" in search of Star Wars Episode III (the phrase "do not want" doesn't even appear in the article). "Do not want" is a fairly common set of words in English anyways. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:00, 8 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).

Α-BCH[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 06:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was evidently created in error as an initialism for α-Benzenehexachloride or α-BHC (which has now been created), due to confusion with its intialism α-HCH for its more common name α-Hexachlorocyclohexane. Unlikely to be useful, given that it begins with a Greek letter and is unlikely to be typed. Delete this incorrect version to avoid further confusion and possible incorrect use in links. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. obscure typo including alpha character will not be missed. ― Synpath 17:22, 8 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).

Alpha-Glyceryl Phophoryl Choline[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 06:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A misspelling ("Phophoryl" instead of "phosphoryl") combined with incorrect spacing and capitalization makes this highly unlikely to be useful. The correct form would be Alpha-Glycerylphosphorylcholine, and we already have the also questionable but at least correctly spelled Alpha-Glyceryl Phosphoryl Choline. Delete this multi-error version. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:59, 8 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_8&oldid=1162665520"