Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28

November 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 28, 2024.

Musha-gaeshi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10#Musha-gaeshi

Zubon

Zubon → Trousers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

from ズボン (zubon), japanese for... trousers. no particular affinity with japanese. it's a chain of like 4 borrowed words, wow cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Zubon as trousers is covered at List of gairaigo and wasei-eigo terms;; Mike Zubon is listed at Chief Scientist of the United States Air Force;; The "zubon" used in martial arts schools is covered at Keikogi -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on the topic of the relisting, the pre-blar diff was an unsourced stub. really, nothing worth considering in this discussion cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

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. By the numbers, there are 19 keeps and 18 deletes. By the arguments, neither side has anything very strong. True, it's not very plausible that someone would type in exactly this many digits of pi, and other than auto-complete there doesn't seem to be a benefit for someone using more or fewer digits. But there is that auto-complete, even though in the absence of this redirect it seems that the next-longest non-unprintworthy redirect 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 is returned instead. And the possibility of phab:T379859 seems to influence at least one delete !voter. Anomie ⚔ 02:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 → Pi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Comment: I did not notify the creator of this redirect, because they were banned indefinitely a week after creating it, for sock puppetry. I notified 2003 LN6 as the only other user who has edited it. I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia records#New longest redirect title, which is where I originally became aware of it. I believe that should cover everyone who may have an interest in this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An overview of previous discussions of this question (up to 2018) can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10#Redirects to pi. Since then, there has also been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.141592653589.... Relevant arguments may also be found there. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless, goes exactly where it should point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a reasonable search term, created by a sock. Not useful. Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8 § The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won that in a case where the full title would exceed 255 characters, "I think it's reasonable to say that any plausible truncation of the full title is a valid search term". This is a bit different because the full length of the string in question is, well, infinite, and I wouldn't support keeping redirects for each of the 251 possible truncations past 3.14. But it seems reasonable to allow a redirect for the longest possible truncation supported by MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Plausible" is the crucial word here, and you have not explained why a number of 255 digits in particular is reasonable to keep. That it happens to be the maximum allowed by MediaWiki doesn't make it a plausible search term. Renerpho (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a plausible search term. Graham87 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do y'all really think it'd be plausible for someone to type this entire string in to search for Pi when they literally only need to plug in "Pi" or "3.14"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amending vote: I'd like to note that the idea brought up later to salt is a good one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:54, 21 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]

Delete - not a useful redirect title. Jay 💬 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no argument on here has convinced me that this is useful as a redirect. This RfD is useful because we need to have discussions on extreme fun redirect titles such as this which test mediawiki title lengths, and have nothing to do with regards to usefulness as a redirect title. Jay 💬 06:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unambiguous and cheap. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a sequence of digits no one will type into any kind of search engine. --Викидим (talk) 22:00, 13 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^(TALK_CONT) 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, SONIC 678 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. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 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 LN 6 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]

Delete that's too implausible redirect and numbers are too long for the 255 digits so far per Utopes and other supporters. So, these would be applied as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 02:20, 20 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) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and salt~~ too long implausible and which may confusing an infinite number of 255 digits so far per Utopes mentioned earlier? IMO, this would be applied for deletion as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 21:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the double vote thing I'd also like to point out that WP:PANDORA should not be used, as per WP:GETBACKINTHERE. This redirect has plenty of plausibility issues without Pandora, trust me. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and struck this as a double vote. However, please don't tell people not to invoke PANDORA. I, and many others, find it a quite cogent and valuable essay. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should be telling other people not to use it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a marked difference between simply telling people that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and giving someone (what I believe to be) a well-written, detailed description of what PANDORA does wrong and why it should be avoided in RfD discussions. I do recommend reading WP:GETBACKINTHERE for said detailed explanation, I've put quite a bit of work into it ^^ 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, and it's frankly quite terrible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, I can't improve it if you won't tell me what you don't like about it, lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: Wouldn't it be better to have a centralized discussion about this (on the essay's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion), rather than bringing it up on every RfD that mentions WP:PANDORA?[1] Renerpho (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean. If you're referring to talking about WP:GETBACKINTHERE and ways to improve it, I'm perfectly fine with someone going to Wikipedia_talk:Please,_put_Pandora_back_in_the_box and striking up a conversation. I think the last time someone did so was an extensive convo I had there back in March, and that was enough to get me to strike an entire section 'cause I couldn't figure out how else to please the people in that discussion lol
If you're saying that I should stop mentioning WP:GETBACKINTHERE when people mention WP:PANDORA... I mean, the entire reason I wrote WP:GETBACKINTHERE was to compile and condense down the arguments against Pandora, because... well, before I wrote the article, people would go on paragraphs-long arguments about it and it got tiring and repetitive.
If you're saying that we should talk about perhaps making some changes to WP:PANDORA in order to have the arguments in WP:GETBACKINTHERE no longer apply? Yes! Please! I'd LOVE to have that conversation! I'd like to point out that a section on Pandora already exists on Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box, but the last time anyone replied to that section was... last March, when I posted to it, before writing WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Should stop mentioning" sounds a lot like "shut up". That's not what I mean. You argue that WP:PANDORA contradicts some core principles. Maybe that's true. Has there ever been a poll about whether either of the two essays is compatible with established policy? I feel like that discussion could be more fruitful than to keep shouting into the void. Renerpho (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean. I don't think there has been? I wouldn't know where to hold one, though.
Unless you count Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box, which... over the FIVE YEARS that that discussion has been allowed to stand without proper closure, has amassed four keeps to six delete !votes. Would that be considered enough to take action...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would count that, yes! But I see no consensus in that discussion, even though it has been ongoing since 2019 (if anything, there's a consensus to rewrite WP:PANDORA, but no agreement how exactly). That's the kind of discussion that goes on and on and on, but nothing ever happens.

I already suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for that very reason. Maybe this is a case where a formal RfC is necessary? Your essay may well serve as a baseline for what has to be addressed. (Make sure you read the examples for good questions/bad questions at WP:RFCBRIEF.) Renerpho (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarus58 you have already !voted. Please make one of your !votes a comment, or strike it. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 22:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarus58: Just to be clear, could you clarify if you !vote salt or not? Renerpho (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Icarus wasn't the one who struck that vote-- it was the IP editor, 35.139.154.158 (I've gone ahead and struck this as a double vote.) Given Icarus's two votes were "Delete" and "Delete and salt", I'd assume that unless Icarus comes forth and says otherwise, he'd want his vote counted as "Delete and salt".
Unless Icarus and the IP are one and the same. I'd hope not... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they may have forgotten to log in? Renerpho (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP just made a bold action. Cremastra (u — c) 12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann, you have no evidence for the suspicious IP user 35.139.154.158 as related for my account. It seems, you'll violated as WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I just stayed for login, but after all spend throughout my days — my account was logging out immediately before it immediate reload automatically. Sorry for my patience. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply sorry, to both you AND the IP user. My "evidence" amounted pretty much only to that one incident where said IP user struck one of your votes; Cremastra was right in that it almost certainly was just that the IP user was trying to be bold. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to apologize as well, for jumping to the same conclusion. Renerpho (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Who the fuck is going to type 255 digits of pi? I don't see how the hell is the redirect plausible at all. To discourage people from testing the limits of character limit the extra salt may also be needed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'd like to amend my initial delete !vote, and say that salt is probably a good idea. Renerpho (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment– I want to reiterate my support for deletion and for salting. My !vote is above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a plausible search term and already ruled out by previous discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 16:46, 21 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. ✴️Icarus The 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]
Your example is actually that redirect plus two digits. Which I guess proves your point. Although my first reaction to seeing that comment was to try to customize MediaWiki:Title-invalid-too-long to include the number of bytes the string actually is. My quickhack there didn't work, but I think that's a reasonable feature request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filed as T379859. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirects are cheap anyway and this isn't harmless considering that pi has an undefined number of digits. 256 charcters is the max it can go. JuniperChill (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill no. The length of pi numbers in undefined elipsis would be invalid and harmful usage of redirects. According to Myrealnamm and Quondum, we should stop using harmlessness as a rationale if do you think it is not really helpful in cheaper redirects. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 01:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho I'm unblocked now, and came across the redirect only by chance while skimming a user's contribs.

Keep per above. Given phab:T379859 has been filed, there's use in having the max number of digits (plus the search prediction thing 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 18:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, JayCubby.

Comment from nominator To the point: If that phab case results in a change to the search function, I'd be less opposed to this redirect than I had been. It doesn't address all the problems I have with it, but it solves some. In particular, my point that many of the keep !votes are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the search function would no longer be true. On the other hand, I want to be clear, I'd nominate this for deletion again the second I learn that this change is impossible to implement. Renerpho (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly possible to implement. Writing a patch for that is on my queue to do eventually. Whether it will get code-reviewed is always the biggest challenge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though there seems to be two more delete votes than keep, and this discussion has already passed its final relist, there's no consensus, and no one has edited this for a week now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Myrealnamm you shouldn't really relist something you have already posted an opinion on. It's also not a great idea to relist something that has already had it's "final relisting". Can someone just close this as "no consensus" already. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugghost Sorry! I didn't know. My first time doing something like this. I'll keep this in mind in the future. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:11, 29 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).

The Communiqué

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 Communiqué (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Communiqué → Trekkie#Activities (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Sorry Trekkies, but there's no longer any mention of this mildly ambiguous phrase here, so delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Communiqué (disambiguation), as there are several publications listed there which could plausibly be referred to as "the Communiqué." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Communiqué (disambiguation) per Presidentman. Gelasin (talk) 20:49, 28 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).

Taiyu

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 Táiyu to Taiwanese Hokkien and Disambiguate others. Jay 💬 09:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyu → Taiwanese language (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Táiyu → Taiwanese (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tai yü → Southern Min (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tai-yü → Dream of the Red Chamber (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Taiwanese Hokkien. While "Taiyu" (臺語台语 táiyǔ) literally translates to Taiwanese language, it is almost unambiguously used to mean Taiwanese Hokkien in Chinese. In the English Wikipedia, it is also the name of a temple (Taiyū-ji) and a village (Taiyū, Akita), so delete could also be the best course of action. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bundling Táiyu, Tai yü, and Tai-yü, which all have different targets and should probably be consistent with Taiyu (or should point to Taiyu if it gets turned into a separate disambiguation page). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Create a disambiguation page at Tai Yu and list the uses there. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Táiyu to Taiwanese Hokkien, as there is no other reasonable target (similarly, zh:台语 redirects to zh:臺灣話). "Táiyu" is not a plausible spelling for Lin Daiyu or for the Japanese topics. For Taiyu, I would suggest a disambiguation page listing Taiwanese Hokkien, Taiyū, Akita, Lin Daiyu, and Taiyū-ji. For Tai yü and Tai-yü, I lean towards targeting the disambiguation page due to the ambiguity between Taiwanese Hokkien and Lin Daiyu. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Taiyu (drafted) and retarget others per Mx. Granger's suggestion. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 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).

Fork Knife

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 Knife and Fork. Jay 💬 20:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fork Knife → Fortnite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Likely originated as a joke redirect, but unclear target as is (fork or knife?). Recommending deletion, as it does not benefit Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Fork Knife" is a Fortnite meme from around 2018 [3] and while not in use anymore, still was recognized in game and makes it a viable search term, redirected to Fortnite. Masem (t) 15:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Dvandva, where it's a literal translation of an example term. The reference to fortnite is unmentioned, and I expect anyone who wants information about that will be left at a loss, since the article has none, making the redirect inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The better target would be Fortnite Battle Royale where the term is mentioned, however, the redirect to Knife and Fork also is completely fair. — Masem (t) 17:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Knife and Fork (disambiguation), where the Greek term mentioned by 35.139.154.158 can be added -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing appears to link here; there have been 29 page views in the past 90 days. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:36, 6 December 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).

Forkknife

Forkknife → Fortnite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Likely originated as a joke redirect, but unclear target as is (fork or knife?). Recommending deletion, as it does not benefit Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The creator, Sandstein, explained the reasoning on the redirect page: The use of the name "fork knife" has been reported [4]. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a plausible mondegreen. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Masem, Redirect to Fortnite Battle Royale, where it is mentioned. I struggle to see how redirecting a to a linguistics article with the term as a passing example is helpful. We don't have redirects like breakhead(literal translation of Spanish word rompecabeza) targetting puzzle. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, Forkknife (without a space) unambigously refers to the fortnite meme. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Dvandva, where it's a literal translation of an example term. The reference to fortnite is unmentioned, and I expect anyone who wants information about that will be left at a loss, since the article has none, making the redirect inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No pages currently link here; there have been 33 page views in the past 90 days (16 on November 21). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Fork Knife was redirected to Knife and Fork at the recently concluded WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Fork Knife. Jay 💬 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per Jay, there is another redirect Fork Knife was discussed and concluded as retarget on WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 28#Fork Knife. Now as there is another redirect related to such is available, this should go the same way. Also the creators claim is not a vulnerable fact cause Fork Knife was also like that.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

019

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) 17:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

019 → Tyrrell 019 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 19 § 019 – Delete

At the RfD that I closed yesterday as Delete, the nomination had asked the question "Should we .. retarget to Tyrrell 019", and while one opinion was that it is a decent option, other opinions were not in support. Jay 💬 15:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It is the only known page to have "019" in its title. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus did not exist to retarget to Tyrrell 019. Indeed, several participants noted that there was too much ambiguity to determine a primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget We can retarget 019 to 19 (number) or 19 (a disambiguation page). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!}
19 was the target during the previous discussion and would disqualify under WP:G4. Jay 💬 18:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the current target seems surprising, and the others wouldn't cut it for one reason or another. the car is more likely to be referred to just by its number, sure, but only in discussions already about f1 cars. like using "2016" or "'16" to refer to the second best doom game in discussions about doom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not only that, 019 (disambiguation) was also created recently -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Id bundle that in as well. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'd say let's see how this one plays out first cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely non-specific. Let the searrch function do its work. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of it's confusing and needlessly vague nature Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 11:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone-123-321 (talk • contribs) [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).

Heavy vehicle

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#Heavy vehicle

Camión

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 14:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camión → Truck (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

no particular affinity towards asturian, galician, or spanish cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:RLOTE. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:07, 29 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).

Lymbriciform

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#Lymbriciform

antiwhatever, helminth

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#antiwhatever, helminth

Worms, animals

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 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worms, animals → Worm (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

weird way to word a disambiguator, i'll say. created as an unsourced (inconsistently written!!) stub and blar'd in the span of 5 minutes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its from 2002 but doesn't appear to contain any useful history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll just consider this as a malformed dabifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is from 2002, before standardized disambiguators or disambiguation format; before categories, before templates. WP:R-OLD Thus could easily be referred to from offsite. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete technically speaking, this IS from 2002. However, it never had useful content outside of an unsourced essay (not even sure if I can call it an essay though) Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 11:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone-123-321 (talk • contribs) [reply]

It's unrelated to the 2002 article, and rather the redirect that has existed over 20 years instead, since 2002. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But its not likely many people would have linked to it since its implausible anyway and since something like 2012 when you go to a redirect the URL in you're browser shows the URL of the target page so people linking to it on external sites etc would probably have used the target title anyway. If the article was at this title it would be a different story. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The operator phrase here is "something like 2012". Since the redirect existed for a decade before the change was added, there would probably still be one link out there on some obscure corner of the internet. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good giratina this thing is almost as old as me cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this thing is about 7 years older than me lmao Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:32, 3 December 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).

Bo Hagon

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 14:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Hagon → Lil Jon#BME Recordings (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, making this a misleading redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Misleading redirect. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:33, 28 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).

Talk:FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry → Talk:FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Consensus exists that, for titles with en-dashes (such as Talk:FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry), a bot should create redirects from the corresponding titles with ASCII hyphen characters (such as Talk:FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry). As long as the former title exists, the bot will continue to recreate this redirect per that consensus. Anomie ⚔ 14:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:12, 29 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).

Talk:F.C. Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:F.C. Porto-Sporting CP rivalry → Talk:F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for now Consensus exists that, for titles with en-dashes (such as Talk:F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry), a bot should create redirects from the corresponding titles with ASCII hyphen characters (such as Talk:F.C. Porto-Sporting CP rivalry). As long as the former title exists, the bot will continue to recreate this redirect per that consensus. If Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry happens to close as delete, then this redirect can be speedy-deleted as any of G8, G7, or G6 and a template on the redirect will automatically active to tag it as such. Anomie ⚔ 14:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:12, 29 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).

Talk:F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry → Talk:FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:12, 29 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).

F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry → FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles and it might cause confusion, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. This redirect also looks more like a phrase than a title. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. It's perfectly plausible to write the word "and" rather than a dash of some sort in a football rivalry title, and there's no limit to the number of redirects to the same page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:12, 29 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).

F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry → FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
F.C. Porto-Sporting CP rivalry → FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles anda it might cause confusion, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. This redirect also has implausible punctuation typos in the title. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged your identical nominations for the en-dashed and ascii-hyphen titles, as they should be considered together. In particular, note that if the en-dashed title is kept while the ascii-hyphen title is deleted, then the bot will re-create the ascii-hyphen title per the consensus I mentioned on some of your other nominations on this page. Anomie ⚔ 14:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:12, 29 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).

FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry → FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles anda it might cause confusion. This redirect is exactly the same, which makes your search even more confusing, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Consensus exists that, for titles with en-dashes (such as FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry), a bot should create redirects from the corresponding titles with ASCII hyphen characters (such as FC Porto-Sporting CP rivalry). As long as the former title exists, the bot will continue to recreate this redirect per that consensus. Anomie ⚔ 14:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:12, 29 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).

F.C Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F.C Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry → FC Porto–Sporting CP rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mark for deletion: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles anda it might cause confusion, in addition to there being 6 other similar redirects. This redirect also has implausible punctuation typos in the title. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it be a good idea to clump those noms together?

also, you don't need to nominate the talk pages as well, that's automatically handled when the discussion is closed cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of 44 Gabriel's nominations here on the merits, for completely failing to articulate an actual reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:12, 29 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).

Specialization in bees

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 5#Specialization in bees

floor sugar

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 14:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floor-sugar → Sand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Floor sugar → Sand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

bröther, i crave the floor sugar. created as vandalism, but there's a really really small chance that i'm missing something that could be an actual synonym, so i think it narrowly dodges the g3 beam cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Oh yeah!! You've missed everything! Floor sugar totally, totally, totally, x100, is sand! I learned that when I was a baby, before I learned to yap!^{[just kidding]} Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as confusing at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiktionary says nothing on the matter, a site called "TheFreeDictionary" simply redirects back to their page on sand and Urban Dictionary says that it's what Salad Fingers calls sand??? Yeah, this is too confusing even for me. Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 11:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone-123-321 (talk • contribs) [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).

Fireworks (TV Series)

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 Fireworks (TV series). Jay 💬 10:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks (TV Series) → Fireworks (2000 TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Badly targeted and unnecessary given the existence of Fireworks (TV series) which correctly targets Fireworks (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to the dab. different capitalizations are fine, so long as it's not random or something (so, say, WikipediA is fine, but WikIPeDiA) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB and retarget to DAB if not deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the DAB. The article Fireworks (2000 TV series) was at this title for a few months, which is a reason to avoid deleting so that we don't break incoming links from other websites. Redirects are cheap, so I see no harm in retargeting. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:12, 29 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).

Maha Abdelrahman

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Abdelrahman → Murder of Giulio Regeni (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Non-notable person who got mixed up in a murder investigation. See Murder of Giulio Regeni. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/04/egypt-murder-giulio-regeni says: "Relations between the Italian investigators and Cambridge University got off to a bad start when Abdelrahman declined to hand over her emails and text messages after the funeral. She also kept the police waiting for three hours, turning up for her interview at the police station at 10pm. Abdelrahman’s reluctance to hand over her personal data is understandable, given her background – she had grown up in Egypt under a military regime, when a person would never have given anything to the police if they could help it. Abdelrahman has chosen not to speak to the press since Regeni’s death, but told colleagues at Cambridge that she cooperated with the Italian police the day of the funeral.". For more see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Maha_Abdelrahman and Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge. I don't think there is a suitable target for this redirect. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE this person should not be identified by name in the Murder of Giulio Regeni article at all, rather by title. Once that certain edit is made ("that Regeni's tutor Maha Abdelrahman had followed" --> "that Regeni's tutor had followed"), all that we'll have here is a non-notable person whose name we've turned into a redirect to an article on a torture/murder. The numerous ways this violates WP:BLP does not require further explanation. Given the frequency this article seems to attract problematic editors seeking to grind an axe, it may be worth applying an IAR SALT to this page as well. This is a unique name and there's only the lowest of likelihoods it will ever be GF recreated. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask for more good faith please. I do not remember, to be honest, why I created this redirect eight years ago (I probably had a good reason which I can not reproduce now, I create a lot of redirects anyway), but I do not like the notion that I am a problematic editor seeking to grind an axe. The topic is not within my editing interest, and I absolutely have no hidden agenda. Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ymblanter, by "problematic editor" I was definitely not referring to you. The Murder of Giulio Regeni article and closely linked articles seem to attract a lot of drive-by IP editors that make a variety of questionable edits. I know you have no hidden agenda. Apologies if I worded this in a confusingly accusatorial way. Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sure, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I doubt salting will be necessary. Regeni was murdered in 2016. Polygnotus (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that that has been cleared up, @Ymblanter: do you agree the redirect can be removed? Polygnotus (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not particularly care. Judging from the edit summary, when I created it, Abdelrahman was mentioned in the target. Now, if she is not mentioned there, and there is consensus not to mention her (I did not check whether this is the case), then there is probably no need for a redirect. Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"if she is not mentioned there, and there is consensus not to mention her" I think the issue is that neither of these things are true. She is mentioned once in passing (and probably shouldn't be) and there is no consensus to mention her (nor is there a consensus not to do so --- it's not been a topic of discussion). Either way, though, she's a not notable, private figure whose name is currently being redirected to an article about a brutal torture-murder. The pageview analysis doesn't seem to indicate this is something people are seeking out. Chetsford (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not really any useful information on this person here. Oppose salting. I don't see any compelling reason to remove her name from the article, so I would be against removing it, but this redirect has no use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 29 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).

BreakThrough News

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 refine to the BreakThrough News section. Jay 💬 10:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News → Party for Socialism and Liberation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A recent AfD closed with consensus to redirect the page to Party for Socialism and Liberation, but I think that refining this to the more precise link of Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News (as proposed during the discussion by WikiShovel) would be an improvement, as that section directly covers BTN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:05, 28 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).

Stephen Hume

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hume → 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan#District 13 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect representing an unsuccessful candidate in a political party primary with no other claim of notability. Problem is, however, that there are three articles linking here expecting somebody else, an award-nominated Canadian journalist and writer with a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the undisambiguated name. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect should not exist when there is clearly someone more notable when this name. A redlink is preferable here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 2 December 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).