Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2024.

Format string[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. Arguments have cohered around deletion on WP:R#DELETE #10 grounds. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • disamig per nom -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move %d to Format specifiers. Retarget Format string to Format specifiers. Jay 💬 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fleshed out Disambig would make sense, but I don't see a disambig as called for just between printf and scanf. Unix manuals and technical manuals are always referring to Printf Format Strings (which are used by many tools), when the word Format String is used, but it's exceptionally rare to find anything other than C manuals referring to scanf strings. The concept of a Format String is a much broader topic, and there are many other kinds of format strings that could be discussed besides the C stdio library - such as strftime strings, Awk, Python f-strings, .Net Format strings , etc. Scanf is a specialization of printf - these two redirect targets would be referring to the same subject matter and Printf and Scanf should link to each other (or a common topic) anyway, regarding the discussion of Format strings, because Scanf format strings are Printf format strings with some additions, removals, and a change of interpretation. The current Scanf article doesn't really address how Scanf formats are different and unique from Printf strings, For example the %[ or %* syntax for strings such as %80[^\n] are not laid out. That is not really an issue.. I would not expect either of the Printf and Scanf articles on Wikipedia to serve as a technical manual or programming tutorial for these functions. I would think it should suffice to have a discussion on what format strings are for Printf and Scanf in one place, and Link to the official BSD or GNU C library's documentation. I say Printf, because the printf article has the better discussion of Format specifiers, and Scanf's is limited, except where they link to the Printf article --Mysidia (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mysidia: Well, since as you correctly said "format string" is a more general topic than C's printf/scanf and we currently don't cover it anywhere, we should delete per WP:REDYES, no? Then an article that covers all the contexts format strings can appear in should be written at format string. Nickps (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to free space for an article per user:Nickps. The idea is present in many APIs (not just languages, C and Python include, for example, strftime/strptime/datetime with their own format specifiers, etc.). It is relatively easy to find non-language-specific sources of good quality. --Викидим (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last. Any thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to free up article space Okmrman (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Format specifiers[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 This discussion is a subset of the #Format string one above, which was closed as delete, and while some of the delete !voters there didn't comment here no reason to perform some other action here has been provided. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambig or move?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last. Any thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

DZHH-AM[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#DZHH-AM

Thermodynamics of nanostructures[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 💬 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted. The name of the page was an error, it appears that an editor thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics which it is not. The page has been changed to the more appropriate title Thermal transport in nanostructures. The redirect is incorrect, as it is not on thermodynamics, so would take readers in the wrong direction. I cannot find an actual page on thermodynamics in nanostructures, so it should be removed for the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now as an {{R from move}}, unless the phrase clashes with another topic. The article has used the former title for almost ten years and may become hard to find without the redirect. ― Synpath 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the old name is misleading -- that should matter most. The science clashes. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 10 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    N.B., the redirect is comparable to having a redirect from "Star" "Satellite" to "Milky Way" -- misleading without rationale. Please check the article content. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how misleading the redirect really is. As far as I understand, the physics of thermal transport would be a subset of thermodynamics. If I'm hopelessly wrong there, then sure, it might be harmful enough to delete. Even then, I don't think that this is wholly unreasonable thing to be mistaken about (hence a useful redirect).
    Regardless, deleting the redirect would break several internal links, which are easy to fix, but one should do that ahead of deletion. External links might exist as well, but that's more difficult to assess. I'd say that the redirect should be left alone for a month or three to see if it becomes unused. If that is established then it may make sense to revisit deleting this, but it still seems WP:CHEAP to keep around. ― Synpath 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but yup, you are very wrong. Thermal transport is exactly what it says, how heat via vibrations (phonons) or electrons is transmitted from one place to another, for instance compare copper to an insulator such as glass wool. The topic is relevant as it changes at the nanoscale.
    Thermodynamics is all about what phase you have and how it varies with composition, temperature, pressure, gas environment etc. For instance why you can melt ice by adding salt to it, the solution freezes at a much lower temperature. Thermodynamics at the nanoscale is important, but has nothing to do with heat transfer. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thermal transport is akin to ocean heating or magma flow. Thermodynamics is the (theoretical) study of ergodic systems with a large number of particles and the conservation of energy. It would seem the original article was created with a typo in the title; its pointless to preserve typos. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was moved two weeks back. Internal incoming links need to be fixed first per Synpath. Jay 💬 15:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All incoming links bypassed or removed. This discussion can now be relisted to determine what to do with this redirect. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thermal dynamics and thermodynamics are not the same thing. The article is very much not about thermodynamics of nanostructures (which would be how their properties change with temperature, pressure, energy, etc. at the statistical level), but about how heat moves between things. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Irreducible manifold[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 and keep. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Reducible manifold should redirect to Prime manifold#Irreducible manifold, the target of Irreducible manifold. Tea2min (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the change of target proposed just above. jraimbau (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Battle of Fort Blakely and Spanish Fort[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, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, Battle of Spanish Fort is a separate article; both battles/forts are mentioned in both articles, so there is no obvious target, and Battle of Spanish Fort occurred first, making the order confusing. Moreover, Fort Blakeley is misspelled. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hulks[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 Hulk (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The characters have no plural form, so should we retarget to Hulk (disambiguation), soft redirect to wiktionary:hulks, or delete? 176.42.16.148 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget to dab -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DAB page doesn't appear to list anything called "Hulks". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two common noun terms on the dab page that can be pluralized, thus there are entries there that can use the plural form -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Druggie[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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For possible deletion, or maybe a redirect to a page which discusses the slur rather than the addiction. Note that this initially redirected to Substance dependence; I changed it to the current redirect to fit with drug addict GnocchiFan (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of appommatox courthouse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Battle of appommatox courthouse

Dextette[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, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i thought it was a peachette deal, but it's not even that. two characters in the gen 3 anime refer to the pokédex as that sometimes maybe probably, and that's as far as it seems to go cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boulder Badge[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 23:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's brock's badge, for context. not notable on its own, aside from how boring it looks, and this probably wouldn't be the right target anyway cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to recommend retargeting to Brock (Pokémon), but it somehow doesn't mention the Boulder Badge by name. Which is exceedingly odd? You'd think that'd be one of the more notable details about the character, the fact that he's a gym leader that gives out the Boulder Badge. The entire article needs a coat of Rock Polish anyways tbh... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's quality is mostly fine (Plot needs some ironing out admittedly), and the Boulder Badge itself is pretty trivial since it doesn't impact Brock's character beyond being a minor detail. It's really not that important to him. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really important information, and no other effective anchor exists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Aku Type[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Aku Type

Pokédex (Sinnoh)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Pokédex (Sinnoh)

Full Pokedex[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Pokémon. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to the list of pokémon or delete, this ain't the full pokédex cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, as that is what a reader would likely expect. ("Full Pokedex" not even having a mention there.) CitationsFreak (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bird Pokémon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Bird Pokémon

List Of Legendary Pokémon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Pokémon. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon, even though it's a list of all the pokémon cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There isn't even a Legendary Pokémon anchor at the current target, while List of Pokémon does have legendary pokémon indicated. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Weather Legendary Pokémon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of generation III Pokémon#Kyogre. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'd say retarget to kyogre, as it's the first in the weather trio cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Retargeting to List of generation III Pokémon#Kyogre shows the whole Weather Trio on the page. Again, current anchor is non-existent. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pokémon Master[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Pokémon Master

Pokémon Crystal Health Items list[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 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not a list of health items (whatever that's supposed to mean), or focused specifically on crystal cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really necessary to have, especially since the anchor isn't really applicable anywhere. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Legendary Pokémon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Legendary Pokémon

Hazeltown[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hazeltown

The Province of Bessarabia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#The Province of Bessarabia

Moldavia Province, Ottoman Empire[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 most. No consensus on two redirects which are attested in books. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Moldavia was never a "province" of the Ottoman Empire. It was never a part of the empire. It always remained a separate country with its own laws and administration under vassalage. These redirects are inaccurate and misleading. Also the "Bogdan/Bogdania/Boğdan" redirects are made up original research. Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moldavia Province and Boğdan Province Referred to as such in several books (on "Moldavia," see [1], [2], [3], etc.) (on "Boğdan," see [4] and [5]). Cannot find references for the others, so delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects. Moldavia (known in Turkish as Boğdan) was never a formal part of the Ottoman Empire, much less something organized into a province. If anything some parts of Moldavia, fractions, were formally annexed and organized into distinct sanjaks ("provinces") that did not even border each other [6] [7], adding a layer of ambiguity to this issue. That sources with a wide general scope have chosen to use a common word to describe a detail that was clearly not given much attention do not change Moldavia's status in the past. Professional academic sources on the history of Romania will never refer to Moldavia as a "province". Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about the inaccuracy, the redirects can be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}. As it stands, there are indeed sources which refer to this area as a "province" of the Ottoman Empire, so the redirects are plausible search terms. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea (I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects) seems to come up fairly often. The telephone game by which we teach editors how Wikipedia works is not good at this kind of subject. So, because a lot of editors don't know, let me say that the point of a redirect is not to be accurate information, but to take readers to accurate information. An incorrect name can make a perfectly fine redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor[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 — procedural closure, wrong forum. The question here is not really about the redirect but of the title of the article, which is handled with a requested move. A page mover or administrator will handle the redirect when closing the discussion. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete the redirect "Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor" so that I can move the current article, "Adelaide–Darwin railway line" to the name currently occupied by the redirect.

Rationale: There are 5 major rail corridors between Australia's capital cities (as in the map here). For 4 of them, the Wikipedia article uses the word "corridor" (example: Sydney–Brisbane rail corridor). Only the Adelaide–Darwin one uses "line". The action requested would unify the terminology of all five. SCHolar44 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You will likely have a faster reply at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, but I support the technical deletion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Law of fives[edit]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discordian concept (e.g. [8]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism. Furius (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.
    There's a time and a place to use WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and... Oh hey look, Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.
    Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/e
    In any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but restore if the secondary sources mentioned above are used to write about the Law of Fives in the main article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronomian[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. Despite a lack of bolded !votes, discussion has cohered around the conclusion that these redirect are unlikely to be useful and should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not mention the word “Pronomian” nor explain what the word means. Bwrs (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be an R from antonym, given the "Anti-" in the target article is getting swapped for "Pro-", with the implication that the views of "Pronomians" are opposite that of "Antinomians". That said, I'd like to point out that R from Antonym as an rcat is one of those rcats that populates a maintenance category, so we can't just tag as Antonym and keep. (Which is odd to me? If we don't have an article on something, but we have an article on its direct opposite, and we can reasonably and competently explain the first thing as "the complete opposite of this second thing", then that seems to be a good place to have a redirect. Why is this rcat populating a maintenance category?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really know for a fact that pronomianism is the opposite of antinomianism, or do we merely assume so based on the fact that “pro-” is the opposite of “anti-”? Now, if I really wanted to rid Wikipedia of these redirects I can tell you that they were made by somebody who is the subject of an WP:Office action. But the Wikipedia:Office never publishes the reasons for its actions, and I hope that discussing it here might raise the attention of subject matter experts who know what pronomianism actually is. Bwrs (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we should redirect to Christian views on the Old Covenant. Antinomianism is usually used to mean a particular deviation from the mainstream Christian view (though we do a bad job of defining it in the article), so I don’t think this is an antonym, just another niche view.— JFHutson (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that might be the most appropriate redirection target, it does not define the term either. Nowhere does the string “pronomian” appear in either the current target or in the new proposed target. This is one of my pet peeves, when a word I do not know redirects to an article that does not define this word. Bwrs (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with deletion as well, as I doubt the redirect could be helpful to anyone.-- JFHutson (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dark Mountain (logo)[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, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While the logo might be a mountain, the words "dark" nor "mountain" do not appear anywhere at the target page. We don't have any encyclopedic about a dark mountain logo, which encyclopedic content about a logo seems to be specifically requested through this search term, by including "logo" in the title. With this being tagged as a "related meme without a mention", I'm not too convinced about its plausibility standalone. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not specific enough, a description of the logo shouldn't be a redirect target if the logo hasn't actually be called like this. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The logo doesn't seem to be referred to as this nor does this seem to be a meme. The mountain in the logo is white anyways. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dark Deco[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 Batman: The Animated Series. Nomination statement accepted without opposition. Previous closure overturned per this discussion. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this might have once been [mentioned], but now this concept of Dark Deco is not mentioned at the target. It has minor mentions across Wikipedia in reference to properties such as Batman: The Animated Series (across this and 2 other related pages, Gotham City and Andrea Beaumont), and also at Skullgirls in a quote. As it looks like 75% of all mentions of "Dark Deco" are at Batman pages, perhaps sending this to Batman: The Animated Series is the primary topic? Searching "Dark Deco" externally, 50% of my results are all Batman, with the rest of the topics being neologism hodgepodge across blogs and such. Now that I look into this more, I'm close to believing that "Dark Deco" is a specific Batman-related topic, and one that we cover across multiple Batman pages and basically nowhere else, but I wanted to bring this here as the current target has been fairly longstanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned closure
—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus — no quorum. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dream Catching[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 Dreamcatcher (disambiguation). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A film that is not mentioned at the target article. I presume it's about the target, but with no mentions to Mill, the connection is unclear? Dreamcatching is a similar redirect that currently points to Dreamcatcher, which this is a variation of. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Winged spear[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Winged spear

Link baiting[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Link baiting

Japanator.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Japanator.com

Is this the way to Aberystwyth[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, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not mentioned at target. Youtube suggests it's a parody version of the song, but it's not mentioned here, and doesn't look to be widely covered, and thus an implausible search term in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, WP:TWINKLE notified you by default. I have added the other capitalisation of this too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we mention it at the target which it currently isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

52nd International Film Festival Rotterdam[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, actually pointing to the 51st edition of the festival. Per WP:REDLINK a redlink would be more useful, as it would encourage editors to create the page, and not giving them the impression the page already exists. Cavarrone 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as misleading, and also to encourage creation of an actual article about the 52th event. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joseph. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Romanian concession in Sarandë[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 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Institute in Albania was originally created under this title. The author, blocked since 2019, appears to have misread the sources he used. Albania granted a Romanian historian property in Sarandë and he established an institute on it and granted half of the land to the Romanian state, but this does not mean a part of Sarandë stopped being a sovereign part of Albania to become part of Romania. The "concession" thing is original research. No sources talk about this using the word "concession" [9]. This is ultimately a hoax. Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë should be deleted too. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also bundled Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë and notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bessel potential space[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Bessel potential space

Balon D´Or[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, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep single character omission typo using English language title case capitalization, thus a plausible typo -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the title in addition has an acute accent instead of a regular (typographic or typewriter) apostrophe. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad: delete due to the use of an accent character instead of an apostrophe -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Balon de Oro[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RLANG. I think this is probably a rendering of the Spanish name for this trophy, Balón de Oro, without the diacritic. Since this award has no particular affinity to Spanish, I see no reason to keep. (Note that the version with the diacritic does not exist). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no specific ties to Spanish (as it's a French magazine award), so Spanish name redirect not needed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

European footballer of the year[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yuno Miles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Yuno Miles

Appomatox coart house surrender[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The double misspelling (both Appomattox and Court) with the miscapitalization on top makes this highly unlikely to be useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unlikely misspelling. Odd that this has been around for 12 years but it doesn't seem to be an {{R from move}} or anything else that we'd usually keep for an odd reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bounding Into Comics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Bounding Into Comics

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_23&oldid=1222381486"