Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 9

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

November 9

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 9, 2024.

Walt Disney Productions

edit

I'm very glad to nominate this on the 9th of a month. Throughout its 20-year/2-decade history, this title was never nominated at RFD or for any discussion as this is a contentious former Disney subsidiary/division name, being slapped with WP:STATUSQUO in the mix. I'm calling for either a set index or disambiguation treatment of this title, just like Fox (channel)/Fox Channel. Intrisit (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yosi (Nintendo character)

edit

Misspelling along with disambiguation. Don't see that as very plausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although I do see a good bit of evidence for romanization as "Yossy" (including official Nintendo material), I see nothing about "Yosi". And even the former seems to be somewhat outdated, with the overwhelming majority of contemporary sources using "Yoshi". Combining all that with the disambiguator makes any claim to usefulness of this highly dubious. It's hard to see whom this could possibly benefit. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England Lionhearts

edit

Mn1548 (talk · contribs) nominated this redirect at AfD, but in 18 years of existence it has always been a redirect. Their rationale follows:

Can't find sufficient references to make this a page, but it is obvious that this is not the England national team. Either a more appropriate redirect is needed or the page has to be deleted as the current redirect is very misleading.
— User:Mn1548 18:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The only other comment at the AfD simply expressed that this should have come to RfD. I have no opinion or comment on the merits of any potential article, but it is clear that the current redirect is of little use: the section it currently redirects to, and in fact any mention of "England Lionhearts" at the target, was removed in November 2015. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my error and putting this in the correct place for an appropriate discussion. Mn1548 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Another WP:CNR redirecting to featured topic criteria. It feels a bit like WP:SELF or WP:Clue#Readers. If average readers want to look at the content that Wikipedia considers to be the best of the best, then redirects like Good topics, Featured topics, and Good articles can be useful, but the criteria is for anyone who wants to understand the nomination process, which is to say, not a lot. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CNR to Wikipedia: should only be used for Wikipedian topics frequently searched by newcomers. This is not it. Ca talk to me! 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Since good article nominations don't really warrant a WP:CNR, then would the same apply to FT and GT candidates? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reason as above nomination. Ca talk to me! 15:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rúben Amorim

edit

Originally redirected from Ruben to Rúben in 2012 with this revision. Subject himself stated earlier today that his name does not have an accent mark in an interview (CNN Portugal). Inclined to rely more on the subject's word rather than inconsistent spelling through FIFA, UEFA, etc. sources. SunnyTango (t • c) 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page move suggested above has been completed. It was requested by a different user at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. The Rúben -> Ruben redirect still exists and can probably be kept per the above discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

98 degrees\

edit

I had nominated this a month ago, but the nomination was removed by Fieari with no explanation. This is in line with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 30#Various Redirects ending in \. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong but not speedy delete considering the outcome of the previous discussion. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it? If so, it was entirely unintentional... edit conflict maybe? I've also had some weird issues ocassionally when I click on the edit button for a section and a completely different section pops up in the editor, so there's some weirdness I encounter ocassionally, and accidents might happen because of it. If I intentionally remove something, I never do so without at the very least an edit summary. I have no memories of this particular nomination at all. (While here, might as well add I have no objections to deleting this redirect) Fieari (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Dragons

edit

Misleading redirect, "waking the dragons" is not a concept discussed at the target general article for Yugioh. "Waking", nor "dragons", is mentioned at the target.

If there's not an existing Yugioh location that this is able to point at, in an attempt for WP:ATD, this can be easily retargeted to Waking the Dragon which is an article that exists, and in the search bar having two would otherwise be confusing. I'm nominating here instead of BOLDly retargeting because I'm on a bit of a roll and there may be common threads if these are all "arcs" of Yugioh, as they seem to be, so better to have them all listed here for assurance and consistency. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrajectine

edit

The expression is not used anywhere in the articles, so it is a WP:RSURPRISE. The name "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" was previously present at Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), but was removed in 2023 as it was not supported by any source.

"Ultrajectine" is a pseudo-Latin adjective that simply means "of Utrech" (see: wikt:Ultraiectinus), and I did not find any use of this pseudo-Latin word to refer to the city of Utrecht.

Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to wikt:Ultraiectinus Google Scholar shows several uses of this term in old Latin sources but very few in English. I don't think there's enough to say that this is commonly used to refer to the Union of Utrecht in English, but it's possible that someone might come across this term. Redirecting to Wiktionary seems best here given it is more common in Latin sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony DiGerolamo

edit

No mention on the page; nor on List of The Simpsons comics. This deleted page about a comic writer redirects here, although it probably is meant to target the page about the comic book section of the franchise, as it contains content about the comic book series with the same name as the current target. Xeroctic (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of American comics creators. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD (or PROD). The current target is clearly inappropriate, but so is the list above, since that's a navigational list of authors we have articles about, which this currently isn't. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of American comics creators. WP:BLAR is valuable here, as while the article did not contain any secondary sources, I strongly suspect that secondary sources WP:EXIST for this artist, given his confirmed portfolio, and so the article history should be kept in-tact for whoever wants to fix the article. Yes, this means that the link on the list becomes a circular link, but I can think of little reason we would want to fully delete this article and its history. Perhaps it could be converted to a soft-redirect to encourage article restoration with sources? Bart Simpson definitely isn't the right target, mind you. Fieari (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification might be appropriate for that, but either this guy has a mainspace article and should be on the list, or he doesn't, and shouldn't. Keeping a list entry as a circular redirect to a BLARed article isn't really appropriate. (I really have no opinion on the actual notability, but the article as it existed had no sources). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jafar

edit

Not mentioned in the article. Looking this up, it appears to be a very briefly used fake alias in the episode Lisa's Wedding (that scene is set in a predicted future and is therefore not part of the Simpsons' continuity). Xeroctic (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

edit

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca talk to me! 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.
If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.
(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.
Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes (talk / cont) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN6 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless and accurate ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamster717, most editors are requested to delete for long digit number in terms of approximation equals to pi. But can you clarify your proof? It seems that WP:CHEAP is not advisable as harmless. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I swayed back and forth on this one but ultimately it’s just not plausible that someone’s going to search exactly this many digits of pi. And yes, this is a pretty straight-forward example of WP:Pandora. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: harmless and unambiguous. Deleting for the sake of deleting. C F A 💬 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Aside from the inanity of it, unnecessary redirects are not entirely harmless (and we should stop using harmlessness as a rationale):
    1. I periodically have to search for all uses of redirects to an article to do some associated cleanup maintenance, and having a multitude of such redirects makes this painfully tedious work.
    2. When redirects for misspellings or other deprecated versions of a term exist, this hides inadvertent spelling errors by editors that they (or others) would ordinarily be alerted to by a redlink.
    3. WP search suggestion already works suggesting article through similarity of spelling, so we do not even need the search benefit of minor variants being redirects. —Quondum 14:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator If more input is needed, I'm sure this would get more participation if it was relisted again. I'm leaving that decision to someone else. Renerpho (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Though WP:CHEAP, there's really no need for this, no one would search this up on Wikipedia at exactly 255 characters. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 20:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pi is among a very small set of such numbers someone could plausibly see/know/have conception of this many digits; the only harm in keeping is making the search dropdown look a tiny bit goofy because of this but see first item in my list, but I think because of it's history and consistent coverage makes it a net positive, actually. In terms of it being misleading because we don't have coverage since the exact string isn't included is not true, I don't think. It's obvious from the article on pi which includes a shorter prefix and talks about the nature of pi and its digits. Just like common synonyms do not need to be literally in the text, getting to the article makes it clear what it is. (I'd also support a retarget to Piphilology but that seems unlikely to gain consensus.) Skynxnex (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Myrealnamm. If I go to [2] (this redirect plus one digit) and get MediaWiki:Title-invalid-too-long, I learn that this URL is too long because the maximum is 255 bytes, but the message doesn't tell me how long my current URL is. How am I supposed to know how many characters to remove? I seriously doubt that many people will know pi to exactly 253 decimal places (255 minus "3."), so basically nobody will enter 3.14159...712019091456, whether by typing the digit sequence, or by copy/pasting it into the URL, or by copy/pasting it into the search box. This is different from the cited The Boy Bands Have Won, or When the Pawn... (same situation), because both of them are official titles with a limited number of characters; at worst you just type or paste the whole title and delete letters until you get to the maximum number of characters, but since pi is an irrational number, there's literally no "full title" in this sense, and someone who searches a dizzying quantity of digits is highly unlikely to search a quantity that's small enough to be reduceable to the MediaWiki maximum before the searcher gets tired and gives up. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates

edit

The process is not mentioned in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i mean... wp:fanom is right there... will still vote to weak delete as "not on the plausible side of xnrs" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late 00s recession

edit

Ambigous with Panic of 1907 and possibly Panic of 1901 (depending on one's definition of "late"), given the redirect does not make it clear which century it refers. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote. Very nearly 100% of google hits for the exact phrase return results related to the target, so in practice it is nowhere near as ambiguous as it seems in theory. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...in theory"? Literally explaining how something is ambiguous and providing examples is not a theory, it's a fact. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something is ambiguous in theory if the plain reading of the words can refer to multiple things. It is only ambiguous in practice if people use those words to refer to multiple different things. Only the latter matters for our purposes, and people don't use these words to refer to things other than the current target, even if they theoretically could. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I think you have the concepts of being ambiguous and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC confused with each other...? Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are related. When something is only used for one of several theoretically possible meanings, that meaning is by definition primary, but there can also be a primary topic when multiple meanings are in use. In the present circumstance though, whether you want to say the current use is the primary topic or the current use is unambiguous in practice, the outcome in terms of the redirect is the same. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell Harr

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. I have a working draft under my sandbox, so this redirect will be a page in less than a week. If you want to continue the discussion about the Hall of Fame members, start one on the Percussive Arts Society page. (non-admin closure) Why? I Ask (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell Harr is a Percussive Arts Society Hall of Fame member, but that is as far as his connection goes. He is currently not listed on the page. I would prefer this to be a redlink to encourage the creation of a proper article. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm.Keep. I created that redirect but I have no recollection why. Typically when I create one, it's because I was searching for a term and never found it, so I create a redirect to a related term in case someone else might also look for it. I have no objection to deleting this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Changed to "keep" after reading Thryduulf's comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore mention and keep. He was mentioned in the article when the redirect was created, and indeed remained so until the section was boldly removed by the nominator in September this year for being "incomplete and unwieldy". It was incomplete - the website lists 152 members, the list had 136 when it was removed, but that's just a reason to tag it as needing an update (or better still just updating it) not removing it. It doesn't seem unwieldy at all, and indeed such content is encyclopaedic so should be restored. The redirect should be kept if the mention is restored but deleted if it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that the Hall of Fame should be added back. I say this as someone who just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/To-do listing the missing members which is why I started this discussion. Most other publications/professional organizations pages (e.g., Modern Drummer or the National Flute Association) do not list those in the Hall of Fame, so I do not see why this should. Either way, the goal should be to get a proper article on the man, which I am sure you can agree to. A red link works much better for getting others to help. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on restoring the mention that was removed from the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:50, 9 November 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).

Claire Miller

edit

This is a fictional character in a 2008 film - cannot see any point in the redirect, and confuses with another Claire Miller (with no article as yet). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting to Claire Rochester?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President of Spain

edit

Disambiguate. I do not see why a historical role should have primacy over this term over a current head-of-government position (Prime Minister of Spain) officially called a "president". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 05:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom. Normally I'd say "go with the one that's the official title", but both of them are official titles. When a world-prominent political title is "X", it seems a bit preposterous for "X" to redirect anywhere else. I could be convinced that a special situation exists somewhere, but the president of the 1930s republic isn't such a situation. But, since just about nobody calls the PM "president" in English, and since the 1930s president would reasonably be called this, it doesn't seem wise to retarget this to the PM article. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel

edit

This was blanked by Quindraco. When I investigated, I saw why. "Asmodel" was removed from List of DC Comics characters: A, therefore breaking the redirect. It was if Asmodel, who is apparently a ten foot angel/devil, simply blinked out of existence. I would imagine this would be difficult for any ten feet being to do. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Please stop move

edit

From the editor who created WPT:NFCC, I think the only users who would use a template redirect are editors who use templates and they would be more than acquainted with their names rather than the phrase, "Please stop move". This might be acceptable if it was reader-facing but most readers don't know templates exist, much less be searching for a specific one. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this, I got a red alert message about this entry because it involved a template redirect. But I think that this discussion should happen here, rather than at TFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile

edit

No mention of "file" at the target article. Was created with the edit summary "website of", but this is not accounted for at the target. The website that IS given, for Asia Society, is asiasociety.org. Without any context this redirect is unhelpful, and misleading as people who search this term are not given the context as to why they ended up here. Maybe a reader was looking for a file about China? No answers, currently. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaFile is an online magazine published by the Asia Society. (See https://asiasociety.org/center-us-china-relations/chinafile) W9793 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine is mentioned in the lead now, but it would probably help to provide further context later on in the article too, maybe under Functions. Reconrabbit 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Does the mention in the article influence this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mention in the article is sufficient to support the redirect; while some more information about ChinaFile might be helpful, as far as we're concerned here at RfD, this is the correct target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_9&oldid=1256778714"