Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 14

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2024.

Worker

[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 move and retarget, respectively. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 13:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if this is the best target. This redirect has targeted Laborer, Working class, Workforce, and the Worker (disambiguation) page. Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski and Pppery: who have been involved in this redirect recently. Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move Worker (disambiguation) to Worker over the redirect. There should be a primary topic here, but we've chosen to structure the article in such a way that that concept is covered across multiple articles rather than one, so the disambiguation page is the least-bad solution. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Draft:Cimexa

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Complex/Rational 15:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing WP:XNR from draft space. There is no page Cimexa or User:Cimexa and no evidence there was ever any content related to the current target. Delete unless there is an explanation. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 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).

Pizzaface

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Pizzaface

AN/ALQ-128

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#AN/ALQ-128

I am ..., Hear Me Roar!

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of any "..." ellipsis before "hear me roar". The only use of "hear me roar" is preceded by "I am Woman", not nothings or ellipsis. This is not the way this song would be searched. The only use of a replacement word is "Man", from Burger King. In any case, unlikely. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:20, 14 October 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).

Ting ting tang tang tang

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a lyric of the song. This incorrect name is not listed, mentioned, or featured anywhere at the article. The word "ting" or "tang" does not appear anywhere here, so in absence of any context the redirect is confusing, especially for general "onomatopoeia sounds" such as tings and tangs. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:16, 14 October 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).

Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?

[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. Legoktm (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This line is not at the target article. People who use this term instead of looking for "Mickey Mouse March", will not receive content related to their search term. It is currently impossible to verify whether this line is indeed from this song (based on the lack of material in Wikipedia mainspace here), so in absence of any content or material related to the "leader of the club", this redirect is not helpful. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The natural way to search for songs is by typing in the name of the song. there is no one "natural" way to search for anything (that's why we have redirects), rather there are many ways people look for things that exist on a spectrums of plausibility and usefulness as a redirect (the two do not always align, e.g. when plausible search terms have no primary topic). In the case of songs, prominent lyrics are very much a natural way to search for a song when you don't remember the title, and in most cases someone searching Wikipedia by the lyric is looking for information about the song not necessarily about that specific lyric so not being mentioned is not a reason on it's own to delete such a redirect. When a lyric is included in multiple notable songs, very prominently in one and not at all prominently in the other then the one in which it is prominent is almost certainly going to be the primary target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia pages are governed by the titles of articles. Wikipedia is not a FAQ, it is not a question-and-answer, it is not a lyric database, and it is not a type-in-a-line-from-a-song-and-get-the-song-it-comes-from service. We DO have some lyrics that are baked in as redirects. Sometimes it's because people might get confused between a title, and its stand-out lyric (see: The Longest Time vs For The Longest Time. The latter redirect is not the title, it's a lyric, yet the two are practically the same that it's almost interchangeable, and is very frequently used in sources. These are, imo, equally likely to be searched.) But in practice, the the odds of typing in any ole lyric into the Wikipedia search bar, and ending up at the song it came from, sits at a very comfortable ~0% chance of occurring. This is because there are near infinite-permutations of lyrics in existence, millions of songs with thousands and thousands of song articles on Wikipedia, so it just doesn't happen in practicality. Yet, per WP:Article titles, the best way to end up at an article is to type in the article title. With it, one cannot possibly go wrong. If something went wrong? The built-in search engine catches all mentions of keywords in case someone doesn't know the song name (but there are services for specifically finding that), so with enough trial and error you're sure to get to where you want to go. What doesn't occur on Wikipedia? The millions of song lyric databases for the millions of songs that exist. This is not Wikipedia's purpose; this is the purpose of Genius and Lyricfinder. We build redirects for likely search terms with directly associated content. There's trillions of likely search terms out there. We do not have trillions of redirects; we keep and maintain the redirects that are directly governed by what information is actually listed at the page, in order to educate readers on material directly pertinent to the term they searched for, without having to make guesses of purpose i.e. that they're okay with not getting the material they deliberately searched for (chances lean no, such unmentioned redirects are often fairly described as "misleading" and "unhelpful"). Utopes (talk / cont) 23:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not find it implausible that someone would search for the 1st line of this song. It's helpful. I do not find Utopes' argument above compelling. Sure, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a lyric database, but that's why we don't have the full lyrics in the article. All the list of things we are not is about article content, not the search methods to get to an article. Quite frankly, I find the application of article content standards to redirects entirely inappropriate. The only questions we should be asking are "is it plausible?", "is the target unambiguous?", and "is the result helpful? (does it violate WP:ASTONISH?)". This passes all those questions, and that is the criteria by which I !vote keep, basically every time. I do not believe I am alone in my interpretation of our policy in this way. Fieari (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that people may remember first lines of songs. After all, that's the first impression people have of a song. I do the same, especially if a lyric is particularly memorable (a factor that is wholly subjective; I'd personally never create a lyric redirect for my own personal favorite lyric just on that fact alone). But if I don't know the name of a song, I wouldn't imagine going to Wikipedia as my first fix for that, and cannot fathom a single person who would. But moving your main thing, I hope you are aware that redirects are still pages that are in mainspace, and that ALL of mainspace is held to the standard of what Wikipedia is and is not. So that includes redirects, which can very well violate WP:NOT, effectively spanning millions of pages. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should have redirects for every first lyric of every song, and seem to support creating and maintaining/!keeping redirects for every single one without exception. So a database of first lyrics. Maybe even the second lyric. In mainspace. With histories spanning millions of pages. I don't even know where to begin unpacking this. On every front, for every uncited lyric created as a redirect in mainspace, this is a violation of WP:V.
    Based on WP:NOTDB, the policy page that Wikipedia should not be hosting unexplained, indiscriminate information. Millions of lyrics baked into redirects, is exactly that. WP:NOT applies to redirects. The way to alleviate this perennial issue of unmentioned/contextless material, is to at least have the information contained in redirects be verified, SOMEwhere, in an accessible location (like the target, for instance), and ALWAYS verify it if the material is challenged or if it is a direct quote. Redirects are absolutely bound by the verifiability policy, unless you disagree that "all material mainspace must be verifiable" and "redirects are material in mainspace". There's no other way to tell if a redirect lyric is even correct or not. There has to be a standard, and there is a standard, as nearly all unmentioned lyrics have been getting deleted (and only have recently been contested from my own experience). The VAST opinion on unmentioned redirects is that redirects to articles without mention are problematic, which is why CAT:RAW titles are nominated over and over again at RfD to clear out the backlog of neglected titles which nobody wants to resolve. Because at the end of the day, the redirects should not shape the content in existence; the content should shape the redirects in existence. No harm in deletion; pages can ALWAYS be recreated once verification occurs. (It's for that reason that RfD should be the lowest stake XfD as zero valuable history is lost, usually. But whatever.) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. For once, I think this this actually something that might reasonably be remembered and searched for over the name of the song itself. The problem though, is that it's unclear if someone would be looking for the song, or the show the song was used in (I think the latter is more likely). And without a clear target, we shouldn't be guessing which of the two possible targets was intended. Disambiguation is clearly inappropriate here, so that leaves us with a delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Utopes, even though I think this might not be the best test case, what you've got here is absolute gold. For the love of god, please organize it all into an essay. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K3 and WP:R#K5; someone who hears this line out of context and doesn't know where it's from can look it up here. Compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#177013. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    177013 is incomparable because 177013 is mentioned at the target article with verification, whereas this is demonstrably not the case here (as this was nominated under the pretense that this lyric exists nowhere on Wikipedia, in any form or amount), so no way to currently reliably verify the existence of the lyric, and have such verification viewable in mainspace, much less verify any possible claimed use this string of unmentioned words could have (beyond Wikipedia being misused as a lyric database, when Wikipedia is WP:NOTLYRICS). K3 does not apply because unmentioned topics cannot aid searches, if the search itself cannot be linked back to the target with any sourcing or mention at bare minimum, and K5 does not apply because unmentioned terms are never ideal or useful for readers, as people who search for a lyric are likely to be looking for the lyric and information relating to the lyric, rather than information on the song (that they could've otherwise typed into Google to ascertain the name of) and nothing about their actual search term (a lyric). Unless a source can prove that someone searching Wikipedia for a lyric topic is NOT actually seeking out a lyric topic, as this would make it an exceptional circumstance for the infinite number of lyrics out there, and such unique lyrical circumstances should be inserted into the article to explain why people searching for the lyric should arrive here instead as a subject discussed on Wikipedia, instead of not being mentioned as a subject that is not discussed on Wikipedia (which also verifies the accuracy of the lyric in the same fell swoop, giving this information to readers would make it helpful and is required per WP:V). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time the RfD I linked to took place, there was no mention of 177013 at Metamorphosis (manga). The point of me bringing up K5 was to say this: I find the redirect we're discussing useful. Also, funnily enough, the lyric (which you apparently removed) has been restored to the article. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mention was added yesterday. Jay 💬 16:29, 30 October 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).

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 27#You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

Into the Motherland the German army march

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "into", "motherland", "german", "army", or "march" at the target page. Listed as a quotation, but it is not helpful when there is zero context about what the quotation is, who said it, or why it targets this Sabaton album in the article's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:06, 14 October 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).

My tea's gone cold, I'm wondering why I got out of bed at all

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed lyric, nothing about this line is written at the target page. The natural way to search for songs is by typing in the name of the song. There is no guarantee, and shouldn't be a guarantee, that typing in the first or any line from the song, will take you TO the song. In this case, people who search for a lyric will expect to see material related to the search they used (i.e. a lyric). At the very least a mention. But none exists, and no verification exists for this line at the target article. (Furthermore, it's also a lyric in Stan (Eminem song), which that article links to this song as the third wikilink on the page.) No need to have an ambiguous unmentioned line be a redirect to one particular song when there is no guarantee people are looking for it. "Stan" and "Thank You" have plenty of links between the two already. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I sort of know the Dido song, where it's not particularly prominent, and don't know the Eminem song at all. Google results (both personalised, where I would expect it to show me Dido in preference to Eminem, and not personalised) and DuckDuckGo via tor all show me the same mix of results favouring Dido by about 60-70% but that's not enough for a primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 14 October 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).

Nikostratos Greco-Roman Warrior

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No clear basis or target, not mentioned at current target. Could possibly retarget to Nicostratus (mythology), but the title conveys several different ideas with the Greco-Roman and Warrior aspects. Delete due to lack of clarity. TNstingray (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The history shows an old article that looks to be an attempt to make an article for Nicostratus (mythology). I don't think retargeting is helpful though as this seems like an unlikely way to search for the mythological figure. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unlikely search term for anyone looking for Nicostratus (mythology), and the other options listed under Nicostratus are even less plausible. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The pre-redirect article appears to be about a fictional character, possibly from a modern work of fiction (in which case, it's one that nobody has yet recognized), or perhaps made up by the author of the article. It doesn't correspond with any of the persons listed above, and I don't see any matches in PW, although I admit my ability to scan the German text is inadequate; the most accessible copy of the DGRBM is down along with Internet Archive, but this article just doesn't seem plausible. The use of "Greco-Roman" in the title for someone who would obviously belong to Greek mythology or history, and the fact that the author never contributed anything else to Wikipedia, suggests that this was never a legitimate subject from either history or mythology. P Aculeius (talk) 14:35, 15 October 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).

External factors plant

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is "???" a valid reason? created as a stub of debatable coherence, currently a little too vague to be used anywhere. it might even be subject to differing definitions of "plant" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ill-formed and unsurprisingly unused. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:02, 15 October 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).

WRYYYYYYYYYYY

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

too many ys? wryyy already exists, and i doubt there's the need to type more than 3 of them for a sort-of-catchphrase cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, excessive, implausible, unnatural, not needed; people would be unlikely to use this search term to read about "Dio Brando", when they can use the incredibly natural way of searching for an article about a person or character, i.e. by typing in their name. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:11, 15 October 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 World (weapon)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#The World (weapon)

Wikipedia:Requests for creation

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 13:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The reason is the article wizard is for if someone has an article that they want to get started on but do not have any ideas, not to request an article be created. Awesome Aasim 18:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fedback 2400:9800:3B1:9646:1:0:84D6:D5A2 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 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).

buccal organ(s)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#buccal organ(s)

T:WPMHA

[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. Legoktm (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~Two incoming links. With the existence of the "TM" alias, TM:WPMHA is a totally sufficient shortcut for navigating to this page, in an effort to keep a confusing PNR out of namespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the redirect predates "TM:". But 2014 is really not that old. Pseudo-namespace titles have been majorly contentious for much longer than a decade. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18#T:WPTECH is an example of a heated discussion, but T: titles have been getting nominated since 2010 and earlier (on principle of being T: titles). So I'd hardly call 2014 a "longstanding example", especially as this title has never stood the test of time. As an example, T:AC has been the subject of 3 RfDs. T:WPMHA has been the subject of none, so there's no precedent of !keeping. It's only been "unearthed" as of today, basically. Compounded with WP:NORUSH to discuss this PNR sooner.
We don't "generally keep" cross namespace redirects on the premise of "being old", so I'm really not sure where that statement comes from. Being old does not inherently give a title immunity. Especially so if the title is otherwise problematic, which cross-namespace redirects inherently are, especially ones from mainspace where our casual readers stick to. The "problematic"-factor is offset by some level of demonstrable utility, which is why such titles might stick.
Quick aside: pseudo-namespace redirects =/= cross-namespace redirects. WP:PNRs are designed to allow for easily linking to a title, without the need to write out the whole prefix for the namespace. "Template" might only be 8 letters, but if you're typing it ten or so times a day for monitoring purposes, those keyclicks add up. PNR utility can come from either use in wikilinks, as well as use in a search bar.
So let's examine demonstrable utility. This title was created in 2014, exclusively as a compromise when T:WPMA was getting deleted. Since its creation, it has only been used by one person, the creator, on this talk page. As far as T: titles might go, 1 usage per decade is on the low end. The wikilinks are easy to adjust. Pertaining to "use in a search bar", well, the TM: alias makes it easy to access ANY template now, so all search-bar-efficiency rationales are essentially caput for T: titles. (Unless, for some reason, there's a template on WP which is so vital that its "utterly necessary to shorten 'TM:' to 'T:', saving a singular keypress". That might've been the case when 7 key-presses were being saved by "T:", but now that it's down to 1, I'd be shocked if that's the case for any template on WP.)
In closing, cross-namespace-redirects from mainspace are always unideal. Casual readers should not be accidentally falling through a trapdoor only to end up in the Wikipedia backrooms, if they can help it. T:kort, T:SCC among others, are content articles on in mainspace which "T:" titles actively infringe on. So PNRs of this type should be kept to a minimum, as they interfere with reader navigation to actual articles. Now that the TM: alias is a feature that exists, I predict most (if not all) "T:" titles will be deleted before the end of 2024, but that's just my own prediction and idk if that'll truly occur or not. But this I feel is one of the more uncontroversial ones to go; its a comparably easy two-link repair, and a solo nom to test the waters before a potential group nom of other T: titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's old, it is getting used (as determined by page views, not by count of links from current revisions of pages on en.wp), it is unambiguous and I'm not seeing any evidence of it having caused any actual (as opposed to theoretical) problems in the last 10 years. We need more than that to justify deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Learn something every day. I wasn't aware that T363757 added TM: as alias to Template: on English Wikipedia five months ago – in May – until now, and I'm probably not the only active editor for which this is the case. I see that ever since the T: prefix was snowed under back in December 2010, a subset of these have been picked off one or a few at at time. We currently have just 63 categorized redirects to template namespace and Special:PrefixIndex/T: finds 79 pages. (79−63)=16 non-template T: prefix redirects:
Non-template T: prefix redirects
# Redirect Target
1 T:A Tribes: Ascend
2 T:APRM Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie
3 T:DS Thief: Deadly Shadows
4 T:SCC Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
5 T: SCC Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
6 T:TSCC Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
7 T:SCC Episodes List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes
8 T: New York Times Style Magazine T (magazine)
9 T: The New York Times Style Magazine T (magazine)
10 T:kort T-kort
11 T:MP Talk:Main Page
12 T:DYKT Template talk:Did you know
13 T:TDYK Template talk:Did you know
14 T:TDYKA Template talk:Did you know/Approved
15 T:tdyk Template talk:Did you know
16 T:OTD Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Today

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list is for non-Templatespace redirects, 16 of which exist says wbm1058. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comprehensive list of T: prefix redirects to template namespace is the first 63 redirects listed here. I made sure that list was comprehensive (as of the time of my edit) by making one – two – three edits. Indeed, one of those was to T:CENT. It's so easy! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 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).

Ryl

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 13:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to end up at this target. "Ryls" are mentioned, sort of in passing, but there are equal mentions in articles about multiple other books by Baum (including The Runaway Shadows and Nelebel's Fairyland), L. Frank Baum bibliography indicates it is part of the title for multiple of his works. It is also the name of the protagonist in Pastures of the Blue Crane and, in capitals, is an acronym for Radical Youth League. The current target is a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knook from 2011, but the closing admin (SilkTork) said there was no agreement on [a] target. with two different places (neither of which include a mention in their present version) suggested. On google the primary topic is a brand of iced tea, but we don't seem to have content about that. I'm not sure what the best option is here, maybe disambiguation? Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've been pinged as I created the redirect after the AfD, but I don't think I have anything useful to contribute, other than to feel that Thryduulf's suggestion of disambiguation appears to be useful. SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dabify. good job, ip :3 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:11, 15 October 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).

ps triple

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

testing the mass xfd tool, sorry in advance for any errors. a meme, from a guy named chad warden, who parodied the gen 7 console war. the only contexts in which this name is used are as references to chad, as a siivagunner meme (which is actually also chad warden), and in miscellaneous contexts in which "ps" doesn't stand for "playstation". (un)fortunately, chad and the meme associated with him aren't notable cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 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).

Open/Point No.1

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the names of the first two tracks. But not a likely search term, and fairly open to interpretation. Cremastra (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Cremastra (talk) 14:06, 14 October 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).

Online education

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. I don't see any consensus here, nor do I think relisting would help. Legoktm (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Seems ambiguous. There is also Online school. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Involved) Relisting as the September 15 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Retarget to Distance education, Online learning, or Online school?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to online learning. in this case, i feel a dab would be more helpful, as it also includes all the suggested targets (and then some) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the above. This relist comment comes off as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Jay 💬 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Steel's insinuating that CycloneYoris specifying Online learning and Online school as the two targets worth talking about, comes across as having a stifling effect on the discussion that excludes the option Steel himself advocated for way up at the start of the discussion, which was Distance education
I'll also note that this is... not actually what a supervote is, given an actual supervote is a closing admin who forces a non-consensus close. Possible WP:UPPERCASE issue lol? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah.. got it. I guess it was the wording of the relist. CycloneYoris could have said two new suggestions have come up, or generically said there are multiple suggestions. Jay 💬 05:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed. I somehow forgot to include the first suggestion in my relisting comment. Sorry about that! CycloneYoris talk! 06:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that resolved my concern. However, I feel as though the damage may already have been done due to Cogsan's vote/comment preceding mine. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my first instinct is to retarget to Online learning. Learning and education are closer synonyms than online > distance and online > distance. However, it may be a better idea to retarget with hatnote to Distance education, with the following hatnote: "Online education" redirects here. For other uses, see Online learning. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:47, 24 October 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).

26, November, 2006

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26. There's really no consensus here over whether to delete, but given that no one supports the current target, retargeting seems reasonable. Legoktm (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This day is not discussed at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per, nom. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? There's nothing wrong with the formatting. "Day, Month, Year" is totally plausible. The issue is a lack of coverage of this date in mainspace, for a mainspace search term where readers predict, and expect, to end up in mainspace when typing it. A blue-link here is misleading to prospective searchers, when we have no mainspace coverage for such a term. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, Retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26 where there are plenty of mainspace links to events that happened on that day. -- Tavix (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try… Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't explicitly cite WP:PANDORA, but "...would only justify creation of similar redirects" is pretty much entirely what a WP:PANDORA argument is-- so I'm going to direct you over to WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Tavix and Utopes. The Day/Month/Year formatting is completely plausible, and the only thing at issue is an extra comma-- which, one extra character added by accident shouldn't impact plausibility enough to delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer deletion, so I wouldn't say via of me. The formatting is totally fine, but because there is no mainspace coverage of this encyclopedic search term, going to a portal where there is no encyclopedic prose or editable material is unideal. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes, Champion and other nominators above supposed for the deletion as costly redirect. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 22:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the portal per Tavix—that's the option that is most helpful to the reader. If a reader wants to know about 26 November 2006, then they get redirected to the portal which tells them about things that happened that day. The redirect is helping them. That's what it is for. I cannot stress that enough—our primary goal here is helping the reader. Retargeting to a reader-facing content page which has plenty of information on the exact thing the reader searched is a far superior option to just deleting and leaving the reader annoyed by many, many orders of magnitude.
The WP:PANDORA argument can be discarded, since it doesn't address the actual quality of the redirect (besides other issues discussed at WP:GETBACKINTHERE, which maybe should be moved to the WP namespace at this point). If I like the redirect, I could in theory say "keep per WP:PANDORA; it will encourage creation of more redirects of this type". That's essentially a WP:ILIKEIT argument; accordingly, WP:PANDORA amounts to a hidden WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
WP:COSTLY is also cited as a general reason for deletion, so I looked at that essay and its examples of unneeded redirects.
Numbers one through five don't apply to this redirect.
Number six is WP:PANDORA, which has already been discarded.
Number seven doesn't apply.
So I do not understand how deletion as costly redirect is correct here.
Regarding Utopes' argument, which seems to be that the portal is not mainspace and not very "encyclopedic"— I agree that it is not mainspace, but portals are still intended to be user-facing content. If portals exist as user-oriented content, and they certainly do, I don't see why it's not a valid target. Portals are exempted from WP:R2 and are not considered harmful cross-namespace redirects. Cremastra (u — c) 20:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of WP:GETBACKINTHERE I am perfectly okay with moving it to WP namespace! I just haven't done so myself mostly because I'm not sure if I have the authority to lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know what, after seeing User:Cremastra create WP:RDATE, I've decided to say screw it. I've moved WP:GETBACKINTHERE to WP namespace, and added three more shortcuts-- WP:GBIT, WP:BACKINBOX, and WP:UNPANDORA.
If I shouldn't be doing this please slap me with a fish. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've spewed out a few of my thoughts at WP:RDATE. Cremastra (u — c) 20:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw as a clarification, @Cremastra:, where you say that I say "the portal is not mainspace and not very 'encyclopedic'". From my POV, scratch the very because it is not encyclopedic, period. It is functionally not a part of the encyclopedia and its corresponding set of articles (per the definition of a namespace and the content of WP:NAMESPACE). Even if "intended to be user-oriented content", it's not what people are after when searching Wikipedia (i.e. not randomly being surprise-redirected to non-encyclopedic namespaces). Portalspace is purely the Wikipedia community's concoction, and would never be printed into a real encyclopedia. The question becomes, whether we should take readers who type in a date to A: a valid encyclopedia article, if it exists, or B: The Wikipedia community's uneditable concoction. If someone types in Geography portal, there is no doubts in that person's mind that the user in question will be sent to a portal; the community's concoction, and that's exactly what they wanted when they typed in that term. But what about someone who types in January 3, 2003? There is no indication that this redirect goes to a portal the slightest, and most readers won't even know that a portal even exists! And that's a good thing. Because a portal is not being sought out, so it shouldn't be unfairly pushed on someone who never asked for it, especially so when mainspace content is delivered for mainspace searches for approximately 100% of mainspace redirects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit. It is not means of viewing uneditable user-facing content when typing in mainspace search terms. There is nothing to edit at the portal. If you want to redirect like so, try: January 3, 2003 portal. To differentiate from the mainspace date. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: There are quite a lot of things on our project that would never be printed into a real encyclopedia—including many redirects. If we imitated a real paper encyclopedia, we'd probably just have a few pages saying "see x".
Our goal is present information to our readers. Redirects help readers get to the information they want. I see no reason why readers would be disappointed to end up at portal when it gives them the information they searched for! You characterize the current events portal as the Wikipedia community's uneditable collaborative concoction. This entire project is a collaborative concoction. Also, I don't know why you're deriding portals as "uneditable". Do you mean there's a technical restriction (there isn't), or something else?
Anyways, current events portals aren't like other portals. It would be of course ludicrous to redirect, say, Plant to Portal:Plants. Portals, except for the current events portal, act as "main pages" for topics and don't cover anything that isn't dealt with in a mainspace article.
The current events portal, on the other hand, is basically a short list article about Stuff That Happened On This Day. That's useful to the reader. They shouldn't be discriminated against because they have "Portal:" in their name. We should help the reader, regardless of namespace.
I'll continue the museum analogy employed at WP:XNR. Mainspace is the main "gallery". There are maintenance, technical, and administrative offices in the basement. There's an annex where new exihibits are started and improved. There's also a small additional wing that's open to the public that gets a bit less attention, but is still useful. These annex galleries supplement the encyclopedia (—WP:P), and they're called portals. There's a big section in this annex gallery that has logs – newspaper clippings and whatnot – of stuff that happened on each day for almost 20 years. This collection is maintained and added to by a special department of the museum administration.
A visitor comes to the museum, maybe to do some research, probably just browsing (the museum is free, so lots of people drop in.) They ask at the front desk for information about what happened on the 26th of November, 2006.
Now there are two things that could happen here. Following "the redirect is deleted", the person at the front desk directing people to different galleries says “I'm sorry, we don't have that information.” The visitor leaves. They'll probably come back, but they're still slightly annoyed, because the museum couldn't help them.
In the alternate reality, the person at the front desk (the redirector) says, “yes, we can help you.” And they give directions into the portal gallery. The visitor finds the information they want, and is pleased.
Why would we want to operate in the first reality? Deleting the redirect is effectively lying to readers, saying: no, we don't have that information. When really, we do, and we could help them. Why would we want to mislead readers and deliberately hide information from them?
Now for my potential compromise. I'll stop blathering on about museums and just ask: how about a soft redirect? That would a) lead the reader to the information, but also b) not "drop them" into portal namespace unawares, thus dealing with your concern. Is that an acceptable compromise for this redirect? Cremastra (u — c) 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely, thank you for the thoughtful comment, and the time spent to write it. I feel like we're close to common ground here. I don't think I'll be able to respond to everything while keeping the response manageable, but based on what I've read that you wrote in WP:RDATE, you've thought this through, so I appreciate that.
You are right in the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. In fact, that's one of the best things about Wikipedia, is that it's not bound by paper encyclopedia norms! Redirects, too, are not something that would generally be printed. Yet, we create and maintain an ample amount of redirects to allow readers to access the material that WOULD be printed in an encyclopedia. As the core tenet of WP:CHEAP, it doesn't hurt to have extra redirects lying around here and there to assist in navigation; I'm sure we agree to that.
Regarding "the collaborative concoction", yes, it is true that the entire project is "a collaborative concoction", hence I revised that shortly after. But, perhaps the singular better word for mainspace that solely differs it from portal space, is an "encyclopedia". Mainspace, the crown jewel of Wikipedia. Portal space is what the Wikipedia community concocted, wholly outside the border of the actual masterpiece. The masterpiece, being the encyclopedia residing in mainspace, which people search Wikipedia to navigate.
Wikipedia has a strictly-defined purpose that we adhere to. As it happens, our goal is not to "present information to our readers". Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia. Not a dictionary, nor to amass a "list of things that happen on every date for all time beyond 2003". Especially so when this "list of things", isn't even an encyclopedia, i.e. the thing we are here to build. A similar thing would be why we don't create redirects for all words, such as Purportedly to Wikt:purportedly. Sure, having a cross redirect would "present information to our readers", but that's outside the scope of Wikipedia, which people use to navigate to encyclopedic entries. I don't share the same fear as you when you say Deleting the redirect is effectively lying to readers saying we don't have that information. I disagree, and in fact it is telling the truth. We do not have any encyclopedic content regarding the search that the user has entered. We don't compromise, we don't give our "next best guess for what readers might want instead of encyclopedia information"; we have nothing on the encyclopedia for it.
The potential counter I'll offer back to you is this: redirects to portalspace should be fully communicative that the redirect is taking someone outside of the encyclopedia, and to a portal. Feel free to look through Category:Redirects to portal namespace for examples. If we want to have a mainspace means of navigating portals (as it so happens, this portal is called "Current events"), then the redirect should reflect as such. 26, November, 2006 portal communicates that it's going to the right place. For a likely encyclopedic search term for an encyclopedic article, an encyclopedic target is the only possibility. If we don't have an encyclopedic target, the link should be red per WP:REDYES, which communicates the truth that we have no encyclopedic information for the encyclopedic search term. For that reason, it would be acceptable to have 26, November, 2006 portal as a blue link, and to have 26, November, 2006 as a red link, in the absence of any mainspace coverage of this topic, and only if a "portal" blue link of this manner is actually desired. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for this comment. You're right that Wikipedia's purpose is more precise than just "giving people information". A better statement would be: the goal of the Wikimedia movement is to present information to people; the goal of Wikipedia is to do with encylopedic information.
Anyways, the root question seems to be: are portals part of the encyclopedia proper, and/or are they encyclopedic? Cremastra (u — c) 21:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the portal per above. Portals are reader-facing content in the same way that navigation templates, disambiguation pages, categories, etc. are reader-facing, encyclopaedic content despite not being encyclopaedia articles. I see no reason not to redirect to portals when there are no articles that make better targets, and there aren't in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 30 October 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).

Wpedia

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There's some support for keep, but not enough to convince the delete !voters, who outnumber the keeps more than 2:1. asilvering (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausable redirect. No hits on google for usage as a shortform of "Wikipedia" -1ctinus📝🗨 21:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 14 October 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).

Presidential Board

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague term. Searches turn up a mixture of results about political entities as well as boards at universities. Champion (alt) (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_14&oldid=1254479945"