Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2023.

Gregory Wall[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 💬 10:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a stub article for political figure who does not pass WP:NPOL who was the mayor of the municipality targeted until it was WP:BLARred 15 years ago, but he is not not currently mentioned at the target. It seems this would be best deleted unless a suitable target can be found. TartarTorte 23:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I definitely would have !vote'd keep when he was in office. Now that he's not, I'm waffling whether or not a redirect is still useful. I kinda wish more wikipedians embraced Wikipedia:Gazetteer instead of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer so that we could have a quick sub-article simply listing all the mayors of this town, but alas. Even without such an article, redirects are WP:CHEAP which makes me lean more towards keeping... but what pushes me just SLIGHTLY over the edge to deletion is that it's plausible that other people have this name, would search their name, and be utterly confused as to why this town comes up. If it was more likely that people were looking for THIS guy specifically, I'd definitely say keep, mention or no mention, but as it is, I just barely think it's more useful for the redirect to not exist than for it to exist. Fieari (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be more than ok with an article like List of mayors of Jenkintown existing as it would be useful providing information. If that were to exist, (or is created), I would fully support a retarget there. TartarTorte 12:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dream (upcoming film)[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 23:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film has been released and I've fixed all incoming links so that they point to Dream (2023 film) directly. Pichpich (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

5308[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect number in redirect title, should redirect to 5000 (number)#5300 to 5399. Colgatepony234 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep - Somewhat plausible misinterpretation of the name, thinking "Five", "Thirty" and "Eight" are individual numbers. Plus, there's no mention or the number 5308 in the proposed section. Not every number in that range must redirect to the proposed section. For example 5304 just doesn't exist. Estar8806 (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Estar8806, above. It seems barely more useful to have a redirect from a misinterpretation of the spoken name than to a list of numbers without particular meaning. Fieari (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. There doesn't seem to be a better option available – there would if the number was discussed on 5000 (number) – hence I think this is a fair solution. Note NGC 5308 and 5308 Hutchison. J947 † edits 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, as those two pages exist, I also am considering disambiguating, with that and those two pages listed, along with my proposed new redirect target. Colgatepony234 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Many, Texas[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 23:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect state this city is in in the redirect title, I don't see why this needs to exist. Suggesting a deletion. Colgatepony234 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Her Majesty The Queen[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 The Queen. ✗plicit 23:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to The Queen - While the late British sovereign (or consort) may be most commonly referred to by this name, she is and was not the only person with the style. Retargeting would be more in line with WP:GLOBAL, and in any case Elizabeth II and Queen Camilla are listed at the top of that page. Estar8806 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Might be worthwhile putting a link to Style of the British sovereign somewhere in the "The Queen" article, explaining WHY most of the English speaking world would think "The Queen" is referring to Elizabeth, specifically, and not any other monarch. Fieari (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The style has not been used only by female British sovereigns, but by British queens consort as well. Not to mention other queens around the world, who are referred to as such when the target is an English speaking audience (ex. Queen of the Belgians, etc.). Keivan.fTalk 18:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

His Majesty The King[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 The King. ✗plicit 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to The King - While the British sovereign may be most commonly referred to by this name, he is not the only person with the style. Retargeting would be more in line with WP:GLOBAL, and in any case Charles III is listed at the top of that page. Estar8806 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

PasteIt Notes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#PasteIt Notes

Tsunami lava[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 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunamis not mentioned at all in target article; also tsunamis usually involve water, not lava, so I suggest a deletion. Colgatepony234 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Searching google for "tsunami lava" (with quotes) returns a fair number of news articles talking about "lava tsunamis". I'm ambivelant as to whether that makes the reverse wording a valuable redirect or not, but at least "lava tsunamis" seem to be a thing. Fieari (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not mentioned at target, and not particularly helpful to readers because if someone is looking for the lava article they can just search for "lava" (a reader who searches for "Tsunami lava" is obviously looking for something more specific). So delete unless a better target can be found. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Windows (2001)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Windows (2001)

Ramkali Devi[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 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is from a parent to her notable son. The article Digamber Singh has no content about Ramkali Devi besides an uncited mention in the infobox. Pichpich (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, remove parents from infobox unless explained and sourced in article body whether the parents have notability on their own. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Comparison of MUD clients[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15#Comparison of MUD clients

Adolf Rizzler[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15#Adolf Rizzler

Steve?[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15#Steve?

Box office Bombay[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 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be an alternative term in actual use, possibly created in error. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nikaj-Mërtur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15#Nikaj-Mërtur

Chümoukedima–Dimapur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Chümoukedima–Dimapur

Quintinense[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Quintinense

Linder system[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a particular system that's named after Linder. There is mention of a Lindner conversion but that could also go to German military rifles / Gas-operated reloading or Al Lindner's religious conversion. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was my own spelling mistake: it should be named Lindner system instead. There is a detailed description of this historical gun conversion system (muzzleloaders to breechloaders) in the Italian book Le armi portatili dell'impero Austro-Ungarico 1 (The small arms of the Austro-Hungarian empire, first half), pages 45-47, together with some ilustrations of the said weapons. [1]--DrMako (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.academia.edu/4924895/Le_armi_portatili_dellimpero_Austro_Ungarico_1_The_small_arms_of_the_Austro_Hungarian_empire_first_half_
Should it redirect to breechloaders with a section on how it was a conversion from muzzleloaders? Are there other Lindner conversions or is it primary to Podewils guns? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lindner system is a rifle conversion system: it was experimented with in Austria, but it was used in large quantities only in Bavaria, for the said Podewils guns. That way, the terms Lindner rifle and Podewils rifle are almost synonims (the same book, page 48). DrMako (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could rename the page Lindner conversion system, or Lindner action (firearms), or Lindner rifle, just for more clarity and precission. DrMako (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the original, misspelled redirect (Linder system) should be deleted, as it was created by me, and has only two related articles, which I have already corrected. DrMako (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the system will be described in Podewils, then all the terms above can be redirected there and they can be bolded. If it needs its own article, you can spin that off too. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a typo, without prejudice to the creation of other related and correctly-spelled redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that DrMako moved Linder system to Lindner system the day after the nomination, and it now redirects there. I have moved back the RfD tags from Lindner system to Linder system. Jay 💬 10:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Coronation of William V[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 00:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Retarget to Coronation of the British monarch - Potential search term especially as Britain is currently in coronation mode, but redirecting the page to Prince William seems improper since there is no section in his article regarding a possible coronation, no guarantee he will be "William V" and no guarantee he will even have a Coronation. Estar8806 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Premature. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete–Premature and unnecessary. Not many people know how many Williams have served as King, making the "William V" search unlikely to begin with, much less with coronation. And William could chose a different name when he becomes king — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha2772a (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - AFAIK, the king is in robust health. Also, nobody knows 'what' name the prince of Wales will choose, when he ascends the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is uncertain whether William will live long enough to inherit the throne, and we do not know whether he will choose "William" as his official name. Dimadick (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Premature. He could die and never ascend to the throne; or he could choose a different regnal name; or the royal family might cease to exist as an institution altogether; or he might ascend to the throne but decide to dispense with the coronation just like other European monarchies. Keivan.fTalk 03:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading, unhelpful at best. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are so many reasons that this title could never come into fruition in real life. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Premature. We cannot know if, when and how the event will take place, and it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be researching it now. Sira Aspera (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Times reports that William will be known as King William V. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many William V's -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As well as concerns about accuracy mentioned above, anyone who knows enough about the British royal family to search for "Coronation of William V" can probably use his actual name if they want to see his page.--Llewee (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Prince Charles, Baron Carrickfergus[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 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Implausible search term. Even when Charles was just a Prince, he was not Baron Carrickfergus, that title is held by Prince William. Estar8806 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No such person. DrKay (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - He never held that title in his lifetime. DDMS123 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Never had that title.98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Never held the title; and even if he did he would have never been known as such. Keivan.fTalk 03:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: The title was created for William; Charles never held it. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Reichsbürger coup d'état attempt[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! 01:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know redirects are cheap, but I think the title of this one is misleading, since the plot never came close to a coup d'état attempt. I've created another redirect (Reichsbürger coup d'état plot) which should point most readers to the correct article. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the plot was occasionally mistakenly labeled the event as an "attempt" in media coverage: [1], [2]. Yes, it's inaccurate, but it appears to be common enough to warrant a redirect (the new redirect you made is far more accurate and appears to be an equally if not more likely search term). ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cheap, harmless, potentially useful. Tagging as {{R from incorrect name}} is an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Camilla, Princess Consort[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 21#Camilla, Princess Consort

Redirects related to List of Shrek (franchise) characters (1st group)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Redirects related to List of Shrek (franchise) characters (1st group)

Coprimary module[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 Associated prime#Definitions. ✗plicit 23:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; Associated prime#Definitions seems to be a better alternative. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beheading of Szerhij Pataki[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what is believed to have been summer 2022, a Ukrainian soldier was beheaded by a Russian one. This was recorded and the video went public on April 2023. A Hungarian newspaper said he had been identified as Szerhij Pataki. However, the Ukrainian authorities and his own sister have denied this. It was a mistake to make these moves and redirects without official confirmation and I request their deletion so as not to affect the subject or his family.

This nomination also applies for Szerhij Pataki, Serhiy Potoki and Beheading of Serhiy Potoki. Super Ψ Dro 09:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye[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. After two relists, every successive editor to comment has had a slightly different suggestion for these redirects, with no clear way to interpret a compromise between these perspectives. For consistency's sake, I will be redirecting Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye to GRU (Russian Federation) to match the other redirects; if anyone has an issue with that change they are welcome to revert it without necessarily challenging the rest of this close. signed, Rosguill talk 03:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if readers looking up these terms are intending to locate GRU (Soviet Union) or GRU (Russian Federation). Looks like the terms could refer to either. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a disambiguating hatnote at GRU (Russian Federation) pointing to GRU (Soviet Union), our usual method to disambiguate two identially named topics for as long as they don't warrant the introduction of a dedicated disambiguation page. So, from the perspective of redirects, everything is perfect. No need to change anything. (It might be a different topic to discuss if the two topics should be discussed in one article, but that should be left to the topic experts working on these articles, not us at RfD.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not addressing the ambiguous problem at all. In addition, several of the incoming links to these redirects refer to the other target, so the current situation definitely doesn't help. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, for as long as a disambigution page isn't warranted our usual method to deal with such ambiguaties is to disambiguate them via hatnotes. This applies to the article topic itself as well as to incoming redirects.
If you think the issue is strong enough to warrant a disambiguation page, one of the redirects could be changed into a disambiguation page and the other redirects be pointed there. This would improve searches and navigation.
Additionally, the problem of pointing to the wrong article could be solved by creating pairs of redirects with parenthetical disambiguators " (Russian Federation)" and " (Soviet Union)", so that the desired target could be pointed to directly without piping. This would improve linking and reverse lookup possibilities.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I sort of alluded below, I'm teetering on believing that a disambiguation page may be necessary since it really is not clear which topic a reader on the English Wikipedia is attempting to locate when searching these terms. However, that would then result in some other issues, the primary one being which of these redirects represent the title which the disambiguation page should be at, since it is not all clear which one of these spellings is the most common in English texts. To your latter point, I really do not think that targeting one over the other is really helpful since ... ever since these articles were renamed as they were (these articles may have split from one article in the past, but I'm not finding anything of the such at the moment), apparently the nominated phrase in all its renditions could refer to either target with no clear preference for one over the other in regards to readers of the English Wikipedia. So ... either way, unless a primary topic is determined for these phrases, the best route probably is to disambiguate in one form or another. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would be one of the possibilities (I don't know which of the spelling variants would be the preferred one for the disambiguation page title).
Yet another alternative would be to redirect all these redirects to the GRU (Soviet Union) article given that the GRU (Russian Federation) article states that what is "still commonly known by its previous abbreviation GRU" is now named "Glavnoje upravlenije General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhonnykh sil Rossiyskoy Federatsii". If this is true (I don't know) "Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye" (and variants) seem to refer only to GRU (Soviet Union), strictly speaking, indicating a primary topic.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the solution would be to link to Gru (disambiguation) § Soviet Union and Russia as an {{r to initialism}} and {{r to section}}. Is that acceptable, given that these aren't really simple variations of "gru"?
An alternative target would be Main Intelligence Directorate as an {{r from language}} and {{r from romanization}}. – Scyrme (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of having any situation where an ambiguous term targets a disambiguation page where it's not a title/spelling match to the target page's title since the redirect doesn't represent every subject on the page, but it may have to be done here. A related alternative, and possibly my preferred option, would be to turn one of these into a disambiguation page, so maybe that's the play here? Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Main Intelligence Directorate, the list is formatted clearly enough to see which of the senses are relevant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Turn (rational trigonometry)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete without prejudice to recreation if due content about these topics is ever added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and readd the relevant contents to the target article. While the article has improved in regard to the discussion of the book and history, it has detoriated in regard to the discussion of the actual topic. The goal of our project is to collect and present the knowledge of the world, past and present, and we are not doing our readers a service by suppressing some contents just because some mathematicians don't like it, for as long as it is mathematically correct (which it is) and neutrally worded (which I think it was as well, omitting the hyperboles present in Wildberger's book). The math that was once part of the article should be restored. The alternative would be to discuss turns and coturns in terms of rational trigonometry in the turns article instead, but I find it better to describe it in the article on rational trigonometry because it requires this context to be understood. However, not mentioning it at all would be suppressing an interesting view on the topic from an angle which might help some readers to better understand it or even get new insights. The purpose why we build this encyclopedia. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The actual topic isn't particularly notable, certainly not in the level of detail that the existence of these redirect targets would imply. But, if consensus does develop for inclusion of this material at the target article (and that's a pretty big if), the redirects can always be recreated. Currently, however, they serve no purpose. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added back to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems like a big waste of time to worry about these redirects. They are kind of superfluous but also don't do any harm just sitting there. The article at the redirect target (currently in an eviscerated state) will probably eventually be re-expanded to describe at least the basic content of the book perhaps including these concepts, but even if there is a relevant section to link to, these redirects will be pretty pointless, so I am pretty ambivalent about them. –jacobolus (t) 18:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, because they are not mentioned at the target article. I would strongly oppose rebuilding the fringe-content promotion farm that the article used to be, but if it is ever re-expanded to re-include more of Wildberger's neologisms then the redirects can be recreated. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

V361 Hydrae[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 Subdwarf B star#Variables. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This star is not mentioned in the list, but it is linked from Subdwarf B star, PG 1047+003, and V391 Pegasi. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I googled the star name, and found this: [3]. It says the star is not part of the constellation (which would explain why it's not in the List of stars in Hydra) but is located within the borders of the constellation, which explains why the redirect was made in the first place. I'm not sure what to do about this, actually. Maybe List of stars in Hydra should be expanded to have a section for stars that are not part of the constellation, but are in the area? I'd hate to redlink it, as I'm not sure this star is notable enough for an article of its own, so we shouldn't encourage its creation... and I'd also hate to simply unlink it, because this is exactly the sort of thing readers would likely WANT to be able to click on to find out more information. I'd really prefer it to be in a list of some sort, but I can't quite think of a good list for it to fit into. Anyone else have any ideas? Fieari (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the vast majority of stars "in" a constellation are not part of its "outline" (as described on the linked site). There is no need for a new section anywhere, and it can just be added if deemed relevant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, after looking around a bit... setting my !vote to Restore original target: Subdwarf_B_star#Variables - Should have checked the history of the redirect in the first place. This is the original target of the redirect, and the star is expressly mentioned there. There shouldn't be a problem simply restoring this redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly surprised that it isn't at List of stars in Hydra, given the amount of cruft that actually is there. Could always add it, to make the redirect a littler more useful. The original redirect, created by me, was to Subdwarf_B_star#Variables where the star is mentioned. Possibly notable enough for an article; it is a fairly unusual type of star, the prototype of a (fairly obscure) class of variables, although very faint. Simbad gives over a hundred references, far more than some stars we have articles for. A quick search of published papers gives several hundred hits, although many are for other stars in the class, not this one specifically. Lithopsian (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or add mention to the current target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trolls (TV series)[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 Troll (disambiguation)#Television. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term that could either refer to this, or two other TV series based off the Trolls films: Trolls: The Beat Goes On! and Trolls: TrollsTopia. I suggest disambiguating. Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Win.exe[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 12:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was never a .exe file from what I can recall. States it is an executable file, but the extension .exe also not mentioned in the target article at all. Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is an unambiguous redirect for a mistake that is easy to make, for exactly the reason you mentioned. Redirects do not have to be explicitly mentioned in the target article, we do redirects for mispellings all the time. If you asked me 5 minutes prior to looking at this what the filename was to start windows 3.11 was, I would probably have misremembered a .exe at the end there too. Fieari (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RFD#DELETE # 2(might cause confusion). Google search suggests that this is a trojan/ worm. --Lenticel (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading per Lenticel. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Veverve (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Laya (surname)[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 setindexify. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this name in the article, as far as I can see. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a set index page. Draft page started below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 04:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set index as proposed. The example entries provided imply it's not specific to Chinese Indonesians AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Integrate to Laya, or have this as a separate page? J947 † edits 06:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Winx club nickelodeon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 12:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winx Club (Nickelodeon) already exists, and I feel that can be kept as viewers may be looking for the Nickelodeon show, but I don't see a reason why this unparenthesized, uncapitalized version of that redirect should exist. I don't see too many other redirects using this convention. Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the lower-case redirect has been around since 2018, so leaning cheap keep. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7&oldid=1157969360"