Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 10, 2024.

Penarth (Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn and etc.[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 00:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the set of redirects, with titles ranging from P to R, that have met the following characteristics: All have errors in the act of disambiguation, with no pageviews in the last month according to massviews, have no worthwhile history, and either already have a replica title in existence, or isn't in need of one. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:49, 10 February 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).

Novoarkhanglesk[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 00:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how plausible this typo is given we don't have an Arkhanglesk redirect to Arkhangelsk, but if this is kept, it should at least redirect to its correct spelling Novoarkhangelsk, a disambiguation page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:16, 10 February 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).

Rainbow Coalition (Ireland 1992)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Rainbow Coalition (Ireland 1992)

-Ose[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 -ose per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article, and I have no idea or clue what this is supposed to mean so I suggest deletion. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 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).

Objection![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 Objection. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, redirecting to objection is probably a better idea. This is a generic legal term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:SMALLDETAILS due to the exclamation point. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An exclamation point can indicate any statement that's said out loud, it still doesn't point to Phoenix Wright unless you are a fan of the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, thus the "weak". Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I would expect either a dab or Objection (United States law) if I searched this term, but as others apparently expect something other than the latter the dab page is preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the emphasis form is found in a plentitude of law dramas, comedies, etc -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom given how much this is shouted in court dramas. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 12 February 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).

Kingdom Hearts II KeyBlade INFO[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 00:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and somewhat confusing, could be redirected to Kingdom Hearts II. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. target doesn't include a gamefaqs-style guide on weapons from one of the however many games sora is in, and if it did, it would probably be removed in minutes cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Even if this redirect was helpful, the current target is obviously not the best option. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 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).

King Henry died drinking chocolate milk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 13:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a word in the title, and most of the other mnemonics listed here do not have redirects. I find this to be more or less unnecessary. GSK (talk • edits) 16:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed that this seems quite an unnecessary Redirect. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I created this and it may be unnecessary GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning keep It may seem unnecessary but it's a common variant GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment King Philip Came Over For Great Spaghetti is a redirect to this page. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no firm opinion on this, but the linked version exists in sources too:[4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 10 February 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).

Saeter[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 Seter (disambiguation). ✗plicit 00:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the redirect's original target, it might make sense to align it with Sæter. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:13, 10 February 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).

Yeezus 2[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 Kanye West#2013–2015: Yeezus and the Yeezus Tour. Nominally no consensus, but as the only keep !vote was by an editor now blocked for disruptive editing, we will instead default to retargeting over deletion due to absence of support for the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 05:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:OR redirect / alternative name for an album title that isn't discussed at the target article, although "Yeezus" is. Looking up elsewhere to see if these are equatable, the Kanye West wiki says that "Yeezus II is an unreleased album", which I'll go with here, because the designation of a spiritual sequel could be given to any album if you really wanted, but this wouldn't seemingly ever be verifiable to the point where a redirect could exist, maybe. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Yeezus, Kanye West, or Kanye West albums discography with or without a mention of "Yeezus II" (in the event that more than one does mention it at any given time, redirect to whichever gives the best treatment to the subject). Serves an obvious purpose. WP:RGUIDE applies. Claims of WP:OR are not substantiated. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't mentioned on relevant pages at any given time, to my understanding? Going through the links you provided, Yeezus does not say anything about a "II" or a "sequel" (nor does it make any claim that could be interpreted as one), and the Kanye West albums discography also expectedly does not have any songs from an album that does not exist. The only time this search term can be found anywhere is on the Kanye West, where it shows up once on the page but isn't mentioned in the reference, nor would I expect to find reliable sources covering it. What I DID find was a fanwiki say that it was a cancelled album, and pointing it to The Life of Pablo without any citations for verifiability of this title would seemingly make this OR. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with Yeezus 2.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:49, 10 February 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).

Alien 2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 10#Alien 2 Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DAC2[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. There is rough consensus that the redirect does not help readers understand what "DAC2" is about. If the target article is rewritten in the future to discuss the redirect term, the redirect may be re-created. Deryck C. 15:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"DAC" does not appear anywhere at the target article, much less DAC2. I did a lot of searches for this term and everything has come up blank; I do not understand this redirect. There's DAC 2015 for a Dota 2 championship, as well as DAC (disambiguation), but I don't think the current target is a good fit. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAC2 is a term commonly used to refer to the EU implementation of the Common Reporting Standard - this is referred to in Common Reporting Standard #Participants although it does not contain the specific phrase DAC2.
I’ll amend the CRS article to reflect this. Djw001 (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree with the hatnote: there's no mention of DAC2 at the targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is (still) no mention at the target and without it this redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R without mention}} so Djw001 or another editor can add mention to the CRS article. Jay 💬 09:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck in favour of Utopes. Jay 💬 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently confusing, we've had almost a month at RfD and nobody has been inspired to do anything about the lack of mention - if it doesn't happen now then it never will. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. It's now been a month since this was nominated and there is still no mention of this term anywhere in the encyclopaedia that I can find, so this redirect is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment,, Djw001's only edit of 2024 was in January, where they said they would add something here. They have not made any edits for nearly 2 months now. Whenever they add something that could warrant DAC2 incoming, the redirect could be recreated, depending on the material. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:09, 17 March 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).

Walter Whyte School[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this school (or this name for that matter) at the list in question. It doesn't seem as if we have any information on this topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep https://wwhyte.lssd.ca/ the school definitely exists in the area mentioned. Ideally this would point at an article on the school district, but while that's a red link pointing to the list seems like a reasonable compromise. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking the website that confirms its identity! That does help confirm that we're in the right general location. I still think it should be deleted though, given the lack of any encyclopedic information about this school. For people using this search term, I don't think it'll be the most helpful outcome to send them to a list of school districts where we don't have anything to say about not only the school, but the entire district as well. If it ever receives a wikilink in mainspace (which it does not yet have), its blueness implies that we have something to say about it & info at the title, which we don't. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state clearly what you do think will be the most useful outcome for people using this search term—and how the proposed action ("it should be deleted") effects that? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and tag with without mention). This is a case here having no mention is valid; it's pretty obvious that if end up at an article named List of school districts in Manitoba after visiting a link/URL for a school, that school will be in one of those districts. Both the external link and the ref for the able goes to a PDF that lists the school. Skynxnex (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mom and their later comment about why it should still be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunate typo there... QueenofHearts 03:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    >:} Utopes (talk / cont) 21:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned; {{R without mention}} just kicks the can down the road. QueenofHearts 03:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree about {{R without mention}}. Shaws username (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, may be recreated when we have content in some article. I went to the link provided by Rusalkii but could not find information to create an entry in the list article, which asks for Office, Communities and Number of schools. Neither did external searches help. Wait for someone with enough knowledge and sources to add content. Jay 💬 07:44, 17 February 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).

Draft:Justice League: Crisis on Infinite Earths - Part One (redirect)[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 17:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a recently created redirect that no longer serves any purpose and has no relevant history other than swapped redirect names and targets to fix a minor formatting error. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the spirit of WP:RDRAFT. I'm not seeing any reason why we would benefit from deleting this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete serves no purpose. Readers will not be typing "Draft:" or "(redirect)" into the search bar, let alone one with such an unwieldy title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this draftspace redirect is not at all harmful, and serves as a piece of this title's history. It doesn't need to be a likely search term because it's in draftspace, and compliments its history. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was never at this specific title, it was used to get a redirect out of the way. Move without redirect to Draft:Justice League: Crisis on Infinite Earths - Part One as a compromise. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft was already made in the mainspace. It does not need to move back to draftspace. This was a redirect left behind for a technical move, not something with any worthwhile history to preserve and is just a waste of space. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Trailblazer101's above comment. Temporary page created as part of a page swap. Was not a draft and no worthwhile history. Jay 💬 09:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck vote, delete as it appears mostly as a technical error rather than something necessary for historical purposes. No reason to move without redirect, there wasn't anything at the proposed title ever. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:14, 10 February 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).

Webware[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 Webware, retarget the rest to Rafe Needleman. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 15:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Webware" is not mentioned at the target article Web application, and anyway is ambiguous. "Webware" as a blog is not mentioned at CNET but is mentioned at Rafe Needleman but I don't think that's a good target. I suggest delete both and use Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added Webware.com to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:35, 10 February 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).

Ultra short-term memory[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. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultra" is not mentioned at the target, and using Search for "Ultra short-term memory" will show Short-term memory in the results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a mention of "ultra" would be nice, I don't think it's a completely requirement in this case. People who use this search term will completely understand why they ended up at the target article, and might have previously thought that "ultra" is part of this subject's terminology. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, if I'm using this search term I'd be specifically wanting information on "ultra short-term memory", such as a definition or a time-span that qualifies for 'ultra'. In this scenario, I would already be familiar with short-term memory, so being redirected there does not help me find what I'm looking for. In fact, it would be even worse then not having a redirect, because there would be a time where I would assume the information I am looking for is there, only to end up disappointed after poking around the target for a time. -- Tavix (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand where you're coming from here. Particularly, the second half of the above is something I frequently refer to in many of my delete !votes. When dealing with unmentioned search terms, resorting to redirection can very often be problematic, as we don't want readers getting shocked or lost on a page. This is especially the case when terms A and B have no clear connection to each other without doing outside research. For this case though, I can imagine the term "(ultra) short term memory" being used as a substitute to "short term memory" for people unfamiliar, not knowing if there was a difference. There might not be anything about a short term memory that is specifically ultra, but at the end of the day I'd go out on a limb and say that there would not be any surprise from people who search for ultra short term memory, and end up on a page about short term memory. In the meantime, this could be a plausible synonym / alternate search term / helpful redirect for people looking for info on short memories. On that note, Short memory is a red link but I think it could be a worthy redirect on the same token. Even something like Brief memory can more-or-less be in reference to the same subject, and wouldn't confuse anyone (I don't think, at least). Utopes (talk / cont) 08:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems redundant. And as nom stated, typing it in the search bar it will already be the first result. There are thousands of these redundant redirects by the way. This one also has no incoming links from mainspace pages, (except for USTM (disambiguation)) which is again redundant as the page Ultra short-term memory was originally created as a redirect anyway so USTM (disambiguation) doesn't need disambiguation and can be deleted as well. -- Ϫ 23:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Redundant" is never a reason to delete a redirect, search suggestions are only available for a subset of ways people find Wikipedia content so are also not relevant to determining a redirect's utility and the existence and number of incoming links are explicitly irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Utopes. Nobody is going to be surprised by arriving at this target having used this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is misleading to redirect something somewhere that has no information on the term in question. -- Tavix (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Utopes. Redirects are cheap. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sensory memory per [5]. The nomination is flawed, because the "not mentioned" rule is exclusively about novel or obscure synonyms, not obvious variations like this. Editors who are writing about ultra short-term memory, listing it on the dab page, or discussing article improvements (and @Paradoctor was) should not have to go searching for a functional link just because someone else didn't see the exact phrase in the current version of the article. However, in this particular case, it turns out that ultra short-term memory is another name for a sub-topic that we already have a separate sub-article about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WhatamIdoing: OK but ... the definition you quote isn't in the article; Sensory memory isn't linked from Short-term memory; and "ultra" doesn't appear in Sensory memory either. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:SOFIXIT, @Shhhnotsoloud. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • My fix is delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Shhhnotsoloud: I've unbolded the word "delete" in your comment. Your nomination statement clearly indicates that deletion is your preference, you don't get to !vote again. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        My nomination is expressed as a statement without an opinion, but never mind. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Deleting a valid redirect isn't fixing the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        ...The argument about "...a valid redirect..." aside, not fixing the article yourself after linking WP:SOFIXIT at someone is not fixing the article either. That's equally as helpful and productive since the buck keeps getting passed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the redirect is not mentioned in the target article and since nominating a redirect because of that issue is literally a fix. (Seriously, linking WP:SOFIXIT to tell an editor to fix an issue they found in an article is about as useful as the WP:SOFIXIT linker doing absolutely nothing and leaving the status quo problem existing themselves. No one wins.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. Google tells me ultra short term memory is milliseconds to a few seconds long, and I find no content at the current or proposed targets on the subject. But I do hope for an WP:EXPERT to FIXIT sometime! Jay 💬 08:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay. This seems like a WP:REDYES situation where it's better to leave the reader saying "darn, I guess there isn't an article on that" than "what? Why'd I end up here?!" 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:41, 17 February 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).

Misleading “o” Bayer designations[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) 02:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The “o” is not the same as the “ο” (omicron). They are two different letters. Thus, these redirects are misleading, and I’m nominating them for deletion. Astronomical Editor (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: readers shouldn't be forced to copy/paste ο (omicron) into the sarch bar. Vital {{r from misspelling}}, especially given latin o and omicron are identical and could be easily confused by someone not familiar with Bayer designation. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cremastra. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People can just type in
    &omicron ;. Astronomical Editor (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone unfamiliar with astronomy, I wouldn't have noticed the difference between "o" and omicron unless it was pointed out to me. I don't think we should expect the average reader to notice it either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if they know it's an omicron, know they can do that, and the method they are using to find the page allows them to do that. We cannot be sure all three will be true in all cases. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Astronomical Editor: Have you realized that some people might not even recognize omicron? I mostly understand Bayer designation, because I think astronomy is fun, but I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to properly format, say, a genome or something. Do you seriously expect readers to type in &οmicron; when they can just type in an identical symbol!? You see ο on something, but you don't understand Bayer designation. So you look it up on Wikipedia, typing in, say, O Indi instead of using omicron. These redirects are vital, and I think an early closure is in order. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, how in the heck should anyone not familiar with HTML know about that? Heck, I know a bit about HTML, and this is the first time I've ever seen or heard of that combination of ampersand and characters. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Cremastra. Generalissima (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cremastra. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, unless there is some instance of ambiguity somewhere? Certainly absurd to expect readers to search using an omicron rather than an O. A7V2 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete though these appear reasonable as typo redirects, the Bayer designation for star names actually does use the latin uppercase letter "O" and lower case letter "o" as different star names aside from omicron, which would be a third different star name. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did find one star article using upper case 'O': O Carinae. There's also 'o Leo' on the 95 Leonis redirect. However, later alphabetical star designations such as 'O'/'o' are going to be uncommon, perhaps used for a notable but rather faint star in a bright-star rich constellation. This exception can be handled via hatnotes. Praemonitus (talk) 16:55, 11 February 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).

Neurodiversity movement[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 Neurodiversity#Within disability rights movements. Supported by every participant except Zxcvbnm, and even their concern I think is taken care of (that the "neurodiversity movement" is different from "neurodiversity" in general) is handled by the appropriate choice of section. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per discussion. Retarget to neurodiversity. --MikutoH talk! 01:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the discussion cited by the nom. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't believe the proposed redirection helps users as if they searched for "neurodiversity movement" they likely are looking for something different than simply neurodiversity, and the most obvious thing they'd be looking for is the movement on autism rights, otherwise there should be a separate article at "neurodiversity movement" explaining what other movement it could be talking about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and refine to the Neurodiversity#Within disability rights movements which has a hatnote to Autism rights movement. As written the redirect includes autism, but is not limited to autism. ― Synpath 18:10, 16 February 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).

Serge Blanc (violonist)[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) 02:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer, that should have long been deleted. A violonist plays the violone, while the violin is played by a violinist. No links to this redirect in the main namespace as the article has been just a couple of minutes after creation; the redirect has just never been cleaned up properly. The edit-history is trivial. FordPrefect42 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: harmless, and a plausible mistake to make. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom: misleading (yes, French "violon" is English "violin", but on the English Wikipedia, it's not needed) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as violin =/= violone so this redirect is confusing. Paints the false picture that this individual plays the violone, when they don't actually. Also per Gerda. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete normally a misspelling is a non-issue but given that this is an actual term then it can be confusing to our readers --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: because violonist is an actual term this becomes confusing/misleading. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nomination, the actual article is about a violinist and not a violonist. The redirect is therefore misleading. TarnishedPathtalk 13:25, 14 February 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).

Galactose 1-dehydrogenase[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 Set Index. Jay 💬 08:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect as part of a page move from the former name as it is easily confused with L-galactose 1-dehydrogenase and the title muddles search results (especially since "L-galactose 1-dehydrogenase" does not appear in the dropdown after typing "galactose 1-dehydrogenase" into the search bar). Delete. ― Synpath 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed set index looks good to me, too. If you're also satisfied, this could probably be closed as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:59, 10 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_10&oldid=1214536580"