Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 1, 2023.

Artist's shit[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This piece of artwork is never referred to as this capitalization, I've seen. Colgatepony234 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or perhaps speedy keep) - Very clearly a plausible way to search for this. Unless this is somehow ambiguous but the nom statement doesn't say anything about it being ambiguous? A7V2 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case... withdraw this nomination, and add this template to the redirect. Yet again I jumped the gun too fast. Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 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).

Bheer[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 💬 14:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can find little indicating this means beer in common usage. There are people with the surname Bheer, but no one who has a wikipedia article. It seems like this would best be deleted, unless a rationale for this meaning beer can be provided. TartarTorte 20:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There are a number of brief mentions of "Bheer" on Wikipedia, all of them appear to be partial matches for proper names, and none of them are related to the term defined on Wiktionary (unless I'm mistaken). I don't think this obscure fandom term, which has most likely fallen out of use, warrants a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Better to allow unhibited searching for people looking for another topic by that name on Wikipedia, and leave the title vacant for other content (such as an article on the personal name or a disambiguation page if substantial content additions warrant it in future; I don't believe the existing mentions warrant one yet). – Scyrme (talk) 00:45, 5 March 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).

Chat gpt.[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. by User:Materialscientist --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely search term when you include the period at the end Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree, the full stop isn't warranted here. I've gone ahead and created Chat gpt with appropriate rcats, since this is otherwise reasonable. – Scyrme (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and also because it has gotten only 3 pageviews prior to this nomination, which is exceedingly low considering that its target gets hundreds of thousands of pageviews a day. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. It is a unlikely due to the addition of the full stop and is evidenced by the low pageviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpimaps (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 09:25, 3 March 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).

The Catholic Answer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9#The Catholic Answer

Super Fammy[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. Salvio giuliano 23:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m unsure of what this term is. I don’t get any results that relate to the SNES on Google.[1]. This term isn’t mentioned in the target article either. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presumably a slang term for "Super Famicom" but I can't find any evidence of its usage, not even on Urban Dictionary. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and others as not a believable search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most likely a shortened form of "Super Famicom" Technically this would be "Super Family" but not one I've ever hear. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:57, 2 March 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).

Cost of living in the United Kingdom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9#Cost of living in the United Kingdom

Overmorrow[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. Salvio giuliano 23:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 15:48, 1 March 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).

Way Cult[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9#Way Cult

Spirit & Truth Fellowship International and other groups not mentioned at the target[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. I recommend deletion of all. Veverve (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The pre-redirect content were unsourced stubs and needn't be retained. Jay 💬 17:25, 11 March 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).

Untitled Fast & Furious sequel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 11:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like when this was created, it referred to F9 (film). Afterwards, it could have referred to Fast X. Either way, both of these subjects have titles. Steel1943 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 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).

Black Christmas (Disambiguation)[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedence at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. Steel1943 (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 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).

"(Disambiguation) (disambiguation)"[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unhelpful and implausible. Steel1943 (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; implausible. IA (speak!) 15:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Why would we need to mention the disambiguator twice, even without the capitalization hurting things much? Regards, SONIC678 15:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Implausible because of the 2 disambiguations. The ice age is coming. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Borderline G6: pages unambiguously created in error. Certes (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possibly qualifies for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpimaps (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (delete) per above --Lenticel (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete created in error due with DisamAssist due to the DAB being its self incorrectly capitalized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 4 March 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).

Kristen Cui[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Kristen Cui

F-zerogplegend.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 21#F-zerogplegend.com

OneGet[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 Chocolatey. No new comments since February 9 despite three relists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OneGet is a very separate tool that isn't related to NuGet. OneGet is the predecessor to PowerShellGet and can be installed with NuGet. NuGet had no previous names called "OneGet". See https://github.com/OneGet/oneget Aaron Liu (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"OneGet" was renamed "PackageManagement" on Mar 20, 2015, as mentioned on GitHub (/OneGet/oneget/ link above) and at Chocolatey ("In April 2014, Microsoft debuted OneGet (later renamed PackageManagement) alongside PowerShell 5.")
On 2016-06-24‎, I created both OneGet and PackageManagement as redirects to NuGet (which is consistent, but apparently wrong). (I don't recall why.)
PowerShell#Windows_PowerShell_5.0 mentions OneGet (and Chocolatey).
PowerShell#Windows_PowerShell_5.1 mentions PackageManagement.
PowerShellGet is not even mentioned on Wikipedia, though it seems important ("PowerShellGet is the package manager for PowerShell"). "Windows PowerShell 5.1 comes with version 1.0.0.1 of PowerShellGet preinstalled. .... PowerShell 6.0 shipped with version 1.6.0 of PowerShellGet. PowerShell 7.0 shipped with version 2.2.3 of PowerShellGet. The current supported version of PowerShellGet is 2.2.5. If you are running Windows PowerShell 5.1, you must install a newer version." (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/PowerShellGet/?view=powershell-7.3&viewFallbackFrom=powershell-7) PowerShellGet dates back to 2016! (https://www.powershellgallery.com/packages/PowerShellGet/2.2.5).
Is Microsoft changing everything so fast that users and Wikipedia can't keep up with it?
I was wondering why you couldn't "just fix" this. But I don't see a fix. They could just re-redirect to PowerShell, or just be deleted because they have nowhere to go...
Is PowerShellGet connected to OneGet/PackageManager or is it a separate start? (This seems like a familiar MS clusterf....)
Should PowerShellGet get a new article (is it notable?)? Then PowerShellGet could mention OneGet/PackageManagement as (irreplaceable and actively maintained?) (abandoned? semi-compatible? predecessors?) that they are? -A876 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OneGet people left the project to go work on PowerShellGet. So the latter is essentially a spiritual successor.
I'm not sure how to deal with this either, hence why I've brought this to RfDiscussion. One choice is to expand the redirect into an article but I'm not sure if OneGet passes notability (I didn't find much coverage of it)
Also, nice edit summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here on this uninvolving subject, how do recent developments affect the relevance of OneGet / PackageManagement? Are these and other package managers only resorted-to by users of Windows pre-10? Do all the package managers in this lovely ever-growing garden jungle of package-managers-of-the-week clash, or do they calmly share repositories, co-exist on computers (under any new or old operating system and real or virtual platform), wasting only disk space, registry space, and human minds and lives? How many new ways of conflict/malfunction/failure do they create? Is every new package manager a deep accomplishment or merely yet another trivial mashup (any repository client + any .exe / .msi launcher)? Will users soon need package-manager manager packages? (This must end somewhere.)
The Windows Package Manager (also known as winget) is a free and open-source package manager designed by Microsoft for Windows 10 and Windows 11. It consists of a command-line utility and a set of services (no less?) for installing applications Independent software vendors can use it as a distribution channel for their software packages. (until screwed again?)
...
Before deciding to develop Windows Package Manager, the team behind it explored Chocolatey, Scoop, Ninite, AppGet, Npackd, and the PowerShell-based OneGet. After the announcement of winget, the developer of AppGet, Keivan Beigi, claimed that...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by A876 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure OneGet was for windows 10. It was also bundled in it. I’m also pretty sure that OneGet was the "package manager manager". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chocolatey which has a good description of OneGet. Jay 💬 14:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay It does, yet I wonder why it was even included. The chocolatey article doesn’t seem to be suitable housing for oneget information since their only relation is that oneget browses the chocolatey repository. Should that information even be in the chocolatey article in the first place? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing change my vote depending on what changes are made at Chocolatey before this RfD concludes. Jay 💬 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:13, 1 March 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).

Regional Center[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 21#Regional Center

Muslim rule in South Asia[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 Muslim South Asia and Islamic South Asia to Islam in South Asia and keep the rest. Salvio giuliano 23:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading: South Asia is not only India: South Asia also comprises Afghanistan (Muslim conquests of Afghanistan, Muslim conquest of Sistan) which is not part of the Indian subcontinent.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a DAB to Muslim rule in the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan, etc.? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: South Asia is often used to be synonymous with the Indian subcontinent. Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent are culturally and geographically distinct, so it wouldn't make much sense for someone to search for this looking for Afghanistan. Instead, they would search for something like "Muslim rule of Afghanistan". The Islamic empires/caliphates that ruled Afghanistan are mostly separate than the ones that ruled the subcontinent, so there's no good reason to combine the information. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Muslim South Asia and Islamic South Asia to Islam in South Asia. Keep the others per Lights and Freedom. Perhaps the target should be retitled per Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent#Title, but that is another discussion. Jay 💬 09:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:13, 1 March 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).

Frederick Law Olmsted Park[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. And fix the target to National Museum of American Illustration#History and location. Jay 💬 15:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to the museum in 2009 as a good decision to deal with COI copypasta (courtesy @Mhking:). But there is no indication that Stoneacre has been called FLO Park. Could theoretically be retargeted to Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, but I can't find evidence that's used much as shortened form and given the breadth of his work, I'm not sure this is helpful for the reader. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 03:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (well, technically fix the section link by pointing it to National Museum of American Illustration#History and location) and add the name to the article. The museum says that Stoneacre is also known as the Frederick Law Olmsted Park and Arboretum. - Eureka Lott 14:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My only concern with that is Stoneacre was purchased along with Vernon Court in 1998 by Judy and Laurence Cutler, where they created a memorial park honoring its designer, Frederick Law Olmsted, America’s first and most noted landscape architect. which is from the museum (the family's mansion) saying what they call the park, not what it's called. It's part of their estate. And yes on the location. That's what I was intending to do when I found it and then wondered if that made sense. If it's kept I absolutely would fix the link. Star Mississippi 15:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see multiple reliable sources that use the name Frederick Law Olmsted Park and Arboretum for the site, so I think it would be reasonable to create that as a redirect. I guess the question is whether Frederick Law Olmsted Park is an alternate name/search term or a simple WP:PTM. Right now, I'm leaning towards the former, but could be convinced otherwise. - Eureka Lott 16:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:PTM probably does not apply here because arboretum is a synonym of park. One an be omitted and still make sense, making it a likely search term. Carpimaps (talk) 06:52, 3 March 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).

Jarpnoonk[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 James Esdaile#Jhar-Phoonk. Legoktm (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was converted from an article to a Wiktionary redirect, but the Wiktionary page was deleted. Peter James (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the article and send to AfD if desired. It is referenced and I don't think it is a dictionary definition anyway, just a stub (see WP:DICDEF#Good definitions "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions"). Certainly the current redirect to a deleted Wikitionary entry is unacceptable. A7V2 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In the pre-BLAR version of the article ([2]), it states that an alternate name is "Jar-phook". In the first citation [3] it briefly describes it, and the website gives a citation itself, which is also citation 2 from the old wikipedia article. Note that Jar-phook is currently a redirect to this redirect (presumably not counted as a double redirect since this was a soft redirect). The third reference (an old encyclopedia which is now available online, see [4]) uses the spelling "Jarpnoonk". So it definitely appears to be a real term, probably outdated spellings for "Jhar-Phoonk". A7V2 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging @Jay: since this is partly a belated reply. A7V2 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy now to retarget to James Esdaile#Jhar-Phoonk per mine and Jay's comments above. A7V2 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 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 Pool[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 defaulting to disambiguating. Reading this RfD and Talk:Infinity Pool (film)#Requested move 27 January 2023, I see no consensus for either of the two possible targets: the film is supported by WP:DIFFCAPS and (current) usage, while the type of pool likely has greater long-term significance (in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Creating a disambiguation page is then a compromise between those two positions, and it received a fair bit of support in this RfD. The understanding is that this may be a temporary solution, and the question can be revisited in the (possibly not so distant) future, when there will be usage data available that's less skewed by recentism. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect the page to Infinity pool or move the page from the redirect target. 176.88.83.247 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per the points in the RM, there was a consensus the film isn't primary so a DAB is probably the best choice though with only 2 choices a redirect to the generic meaning may also be OK but with more views than the generic meaning it seems safest to disambiguate as readers and editors are more likely to want the film. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if more people agree with the retarget or disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dab per SMALLDETAILS Drapetomanic (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote. I wouldn't frame the RM discussion as there being consensus that the film isn't primary for this capitalization. The key point of contention was if an unqualified title would be too confusing to readers, and there was more support for the film being primary for this capitalization than not. Ultimately, the consensus was that it would be more helpful for readers to have (film) in the article title even though many !voters said that this WP:SMALLDETAILS title was fine as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The film has also gotten about 10 times the views as the pool in the past year, which is a point against changing this redirect. [5] A hatnote would be sufficient to redirect people to the pool article. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the capitalization. The redirect was created as an AfC request by an IP in 2021 to target the pools, which made sense at the time. But with the film with the same title in 2023, with pageviews, it becomes the target with DIFFCAPS. Although I don't approve that the redirect target was changed midway the RM. A dab is not needed as both targets hatnote each other. Jay 💬 17:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there sufficient evidence the generic meaning is primary for the upper case? Per WP:NOPRIMARY it may be better to DAB though with only 2 options it probably doesn't matter as much. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now. The status quo is plain wrong. Either the film is a primary topic for the term "Infinity Pool" (big P), in which case the RM reached the wrong conclusion, or it isn't, in which case we need a dab (or redirect to infinity pool in the unlikely case that it's primary). The film is a clear PT by usage, but that may just be WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps we want a dab for now, without prejudice to re-running the RM if the film's popularity continues. Certes (talk) 22:58, 4 March 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).

Charles Parnell[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 disambiguate. Legoktm (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. The page for the actor gets more pageviews [6] than the present target, hence present target is not the primary topic. Estar8806 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB even if Steward was nearly always called "Charles Parnell" he still wouldn't be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafted a dab at the redirect. Jay 💬 11:41, 10 March 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).

Is it legal to 3d print guns[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. Salvio giuliano 15:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Google. Delete. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems fine to me; a little bit of SEO for the destination page doesn't hurt. -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably worth pointing out for future parties in this discussion that the comment to which I'm replying was left by the redirect creator. This redirect has had no page views in the last 30 days and close to none since its creation. Terms such as this are not helpful because they could imply that the phrase itself "is it legal to 3d print guns" has been the subject of notable discussion. As far as I can tell, we have no other "SEO-ed" redirects like this one. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beland: I would suggest instead creating Legality of 3D printed firearms/Legality of 3d printed firearms or Legality of 3D printed guns/Legality of 3d printed guns, which are formated as topic titles rather than questions. – Scyrme (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead a made these, since I think this a reasonable topic to search for on Wikipedia, particularly as a section about it does already exist. – Scyrme (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: I apologize if I am misunderstanding your comment, but I am pretty sure that Google doesn't use Wikipedia at all for SEO. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: I'd be surprised if Google doesn't use redirects to find Wikipedia articles; what makes you think they don't? I do think there's a nofollow mechanism that prevents Wikipedia from boosting external sites. Though I don't usually use Google for searching, and Wikipedia has its own internal search engine, for which matters more directly. -- Beland (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: Well, there is WP:SEO which explains how Wikipedia uses noindex and nofollow. If noindex applies to redirects, then this would not work. As for Wikipedia search engine, I don't see how this would matter and you might need to explain that for me to understand. (Regardless, only seven people have used the redirect based on the stats.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: Helping half a dozen real people seems like a good enough reason to keep a redirect around (they are cheap) though it's possible all of them were us involved in this discussion. WP:SEO doesn't say nofollow is used on internal links, so redirects probably do matter for putting Wikipedia articles in the organic rankings? More importantly, Google doesn't treat Wikipedia like a regular website. If you look at https://www.google.com/search?q=gun+rights you'll see on the right the article Right to keep and bear arms shows up as a special card, and I believe that is because Gun rights is a redirect there.
Internally, if you look at the results for what movies came out in 1996 you won't find anything helpful. The answer to the question is in the article 1996 in film, which does not appear in the first page of results. Making what movies came out in 1996 a redirect to 1996 in film will take readers who type these exact terms directly to the answer. It will also put the correct article in the first page of results (probably as the first result) for variations like "movies that came out in 1996" which are closer to standard Wikipedia titles. -- Beland (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: WP:CHEAP does exist, but with only seven hits in about five months is low. In any case, you might be right that this is boosting something, though I am not sure if that is a good reason to keep it. As for your internal search, "Overview of the events of 1996 in film" would have given you the 1996 in film article in either [the top spot or the second spot depending on the talk page parameter. (For some reason.) "Overview of the films of 1996" would also get you what you wanted in the second spot. Sometimes it just depends on how the {{Short description}} is written in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the point of adding redirects is to help readers who don't guess the correct words to find what they're looking for based on what's in the article alone. -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad idea. There's a million things in the universe that 'don't hurt', that doesn't mean they are therefore needed. By that rationale, every single one of the millions of wikipedia articles could be search engine optimized by creating redirects in the form of a question. 'Who is Harold F. Cherniss', 'What is a quark', etc. Anyone searching on google for whether it's 'legal to 3d print guns' is explicitly looking for legal guidance. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for legal guidance. Also see WP:UNHELPFUL. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I went looking to see if this sort of redirect phrasing is generally discouraged, and I missed WP:UNHELPFUL. That does seem like a good reason to delete; thanks for catching that! I don't remember creating this, but when I make redirects it's usually because I had trouble finding something myself. But if the search engine seems to be giving good results (I may have added some article cross-references too; I don't remember) then this redirect is redundant.
I don't think it's fair to say everyone looking for 3D printed firearm#Legal status is looking for advice they would more properly get from a lawyer. (If that were true, this content should probably be deleted.) I certainly wasn't; I just wanted to know the state of affairs for gun control policy research purposes. -- Beland (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Also, I should clarify that the WP:UNHELPFUL is from an essay, not a policy, so it's guidance, not a hard rule. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hmm, then if that advice is controversial, then maybe we shouldn't take it. I dunno, in this case it seems to matter little. -- Beland (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't an FAQ. This is formated like a search query not a title, so let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just go to WP:DAFT#I and WP:DAFT#H to see how many articles/redirects, just like this one, have been deleted. Wikipedia is not Google nor is it ChatGPT or Quora or any other website that answers questions. Wikipedia also isn’t a FAQ. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strictly speaking, I don't think this violates NOTFAQ any more than DYKs, but is certainly WP:UNHELPFUL. Politrukki (talk) 15:02, 9 March 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).

First imperialist war[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. Salvio giuliano 15:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as despite the creator's claim, I can't find a source with Google or GS stating that WWI was ever called by this ambiguous name. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it, but did find this [[7]], and a few others. It seems to have been coined by fringe Marxist groups. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could perhaps be kept, but the capitalization should be changed in that case, as it's being used as a proper noun. An anonymous username, not my real name 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; (a) it's not a commonly used alternative; (b) any article on "First Imperialist War" should be a discussion of the concept, not simply jumping straight to a (debatable) conclusion.Robinvp11 (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a redirect for an alternative name - there's no question of an article on it. Redirects do not have have to be "commonly used" alternatives, however that is measured. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an old Trotskyist term. Hardly anyone used it, as the following NGRAM shows.[8] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as used. BhamBoi (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precisely because it's "an old Trotskyist term", whose meaning may not otherwise be obvious to those encountering it. This is what redirects are for! Not too much Trotskyist literature has made it onto the internet. With caps would be better. The nominator has apparently now realized that his original ignorance that the term existed was wrong - really this should be withdrawn. Actually there are quite a lot of uses of it in RS - many from US Congressional records back in the day. Plus many Trot websites still use it. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, thank you for bringing up these sources. I'm going to refrain from withdrawing right away in case there is any more discussion to be had. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is a mention at the target. Everyone knows about World War I. What they would be looking for from this redirect is who used this term to refer to the war or why. Jay 💬 03:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a real if somewhat obscure synonym for the target. Google does show some usage by contemporary Communist sites, and since it's an old term there is probably more usage which hasn't made it onto the internet. It might not be widely used but it is used and almost all usage does refer to the First World War. Hut 8.5 18:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no mention at the target, unused on Wikipedia. Veverve (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus after the previous relist...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:38, 1 March 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).

Nintendo DS & DSi Browser[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Nintendo DS & DSi Browser

Hitlerian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nazism, to which the similarly named "Hitlerism" redirects. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep. Retargetting to Nazism would make sense if "Hitlerian" is a synonym for "Hitlerist" and "Hitlerite", but it could also be used as an adjective pertaining to Hitler himself (or someone/something that bears a resemblance to him). (For example, this book refers to "Hitlerian charisma".) Unless it can be demonstrated that this adjective is more often than not a reference to Hitlerism (that is, Nazism), I think the current target is warranted. – Scyrme (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 1 March 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).

Warrington Gillette[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Warrington Gillette

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8#10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_1&oldid=1145915277"