Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 16

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 16, 2024.

Gamma squeeze

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Gamma squeeze

Hunger protest in Nigeria

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of protests in Nigeria. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. I highly doubt that there has been more than one hunger protest in the history of Nigeria. Delete. -1ctinus๐Ÿ“๐Ÿ—จ 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just as nom stated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, โœ—plicit 11:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay ๐Ÿ’ฌ 18:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lenticel suggestion, I guess. From a longevity perspective that appears like the better option as my google search located multiple different stories within just 2024 articles. The term seems probable and is roughly mentioned in target. Respublik (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C F A ๐Ÿ’ฌ 23:18, 16 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).

๐Ÿ†“

[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 Free. (non-admin closure) C F A ๐Ÿ’ฌ 23:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free is a DAB, don't see a reason for the emoji specifically to have a PTOPIC. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts โ€ข talk) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the DAB page as most helpful to the reader. Cremastra (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C F A ๐Ÿ’ฌ 23:16, 16 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).

Wikipedia:VB

[edit]

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

Obstipation

[edit]

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

Battle of City 17

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Battle of City 17

Shamrock Airport

[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 Brooklyn Airport with hatnote. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u โ€” c) 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Targets a list-class article that contains no specific information about the subject. The subject itself seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases, so it is unlikely that the redirect will ever warrant replacement with a full-blown article. Carguychris (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 16 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).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokรฉmon/Bulbasaur

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay ๐Ÿ’ฌ 10:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As talked with TechnoSquirrel69, would these be problematic? Web-julio (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

refine the second to list of gen 1 pokรฉmon#meowth, find a way to trout redirects and trout the rest for existing (optional) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a little late to comment on this relist, but nah, i think it was a clear-cut keep with at best not much prejudice to refining meowth. they're project redirects and all, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:42, 23 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).

2001 attacks

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#2001 attacks

Hall Airport

[edit]

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

Unmentioned Suikoden characters

[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 because of a trainwreck. Thanks to Jay for properly investigating some of them. Feel free to nominate them individually, but not 45+ at the same time. Legoktm (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all (applies to the above nominations as well; will C&P over there if necessary but it'll be the same discussion) per criterion 1 (these were all merged) and criterion 5 (they're useful - e.g. links from a disambig page or just searches on a character). It's also at least possible that the character lists could be brought back some day with better independent sourcing. Useful and harmless, best to let lie IMO. (See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_11#Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_V for an example character list that was redirected, the redirect was nominated for deletion, the RFD failed and the page history was kept, and the article indeed came back later.) SnowFire (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a distinction between redirects which refer to the characters as a concept, like the discussion you linked to, redirects which refer to the characters as a list, and redirects which refer to individual characters. Suikoden characters or Characters of Suikoden would be fine as redirects based on the precedent you linked to (which I agree with), because the target does contain some discussion of the characters as a concept. List of characters in Suikoden is harmful because its existence misleadingly implies that the target contains, well, a list of characters in Suikoden, which it doesn't, thereby leaving any user confused.
    Redirects for individual characters likewise are harmful because they misleadingly imply Wikipedia has some content on the character when it doesn't.
    And in particular they're not useful for links on a disambiguation page because any such usage would fail WP:DABMENTION, and the fact that it would fail that guideline is hidden from most of its enforcers who probably don't check for this.
    And I don't think either part of WP:R#K1 actually applies - the history of most of these is Fandom-style content which is worse that starting from scratch if you were to try to build an article on one of the characters, and nothing needs to be legally kept since nothing was merged any further than the lists that I also think should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List of characters in Suikoden contains significant page history that will be relevant if someone ever wants to attempt to restore these articles, and/or merge content from it. "Significant page history" is specifically a keep criterion at RFD. There's nothing misleading here at all: that was an article if someone follows some old links in the page history, and a redirect is the proper handle for it. Same for specific characters. There's no problem at all, and the standard at RFD is just "it's useful." I'm not saying that every single tiny piece of cruft has to be kept, if someone were to run around making redirects for every ability name or dungeon, but these all have non-trivial page histories and some of them are prominent characters where a redirect is useful (keep criterion 5).
    Would it change things if I said that I, personally, would find the page history useful? Because don't get me wrong, I do think that some of the list articles should come back, I just didn't want to bother fighting it out at a potential AFD unless I were to acquire sources that are probably in Japanese. But as the FF5 example shows, this absolutely can happen. I've worked on "serious" non-video gaming articles that were in weak, unsourced states, and generally the existing content - however problematic it was - was absolutely not worse than nothing, it was often quite helpful. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see redirects as based on the present, not the past - it's misleading to have a "list of Xs" redirect that points to a page where there is no list of Xs. It's misleading to have a redirect point to a place where no discussion of the term being redirected exists. I think we're coming from points of view sufficiently different that neither of us will convince the other one of our position, so I'll leave it at that. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, but this isn't just solely a matter of opinion with no right answer and just consensus. The RFD keep criteria are pretty explicit that "non-trivial page history" is indeed a reason to keep as is "useful to someone saying it's useful in good faith", both of which are met here. The characters of Suikoden are discussed in the relevant articles, if not to the depth the list formerly did. And just solely as a matter of practicality, rather than spend busywork deleting the redirects and requesting them to be recreated in userspace or the like, why not just let all the old redirects spring back to life if someone did write a modern-Wikipedia style Suikoden character list? (Not my main argument, but throwing that out there. Again, see the FF5 case - it seems by your logic, we should have deleted that article and all its redirects, then forced people wanting to recreate it to talk to an admin if they wanted to see the page history before recreating it and the redirects all later. For what advantage?) SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the claim that deleting redirects that are unhelpful to readers is busywork. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943, given your vote below, I suppose you are trying to +1 my comment and not SnowFire's? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My indents don't lie! Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, it was about Pppery's altogether? Looks like I was confused by CD's indent lines due to the +1. Though I guess that's what the "Go to parent comment" button is for! 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All for nontrivial history preservation and the usefulness to someone. WP:CHEAP applies, and I don't buy the argument that it is harmful. I don't think WP:LEAST would be violated if someone was redirected to this target, even if information is currently lacking, and there is a good faith statement above that these characters may have enough sources to be considered notable by wikipedia standards in the future, which I will accept at face value. Fieari (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't the same logic that states that individual unnotable fire emblem character redirects (like matthew) should get deleted apply here? this seems a little too indiscriminate for me cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If they are not there, they are not there. Having readers being forwarded to the target article when there is literally nothing there about the redirects' subjects is misleading. If there is a concern with the histories of any of these redirects, consider restoring them and sending them to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To put this in perspective, the WP:RCAT template {{R without mention}} puts the page into a maintenance category called Category:Redirects to an article without mention. The purpose of the aforementioned category is essentially a maintenance backlog; the category is meant to be empty, which means either the redirects that are tagged with this template should be deleted, or a mention of the redirects should be added to the target article. None of the "keep" votes yet have addressed this hypocrisy. If neither of the aforementioned actions are taken, it is akin to throwing the redirects back into the same maintenance backlog they were already in, resulting in no progress to improving the encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would relevant histories mean that they should go to AFD? Nobody is advocating bringing back the character-specific articles, so there's no point in AFD, it's a matter for RFD.
    As far as the maintenance category, I'm sure that there are literally thousands of redirects that "should" be in that category but are actually harmless and "useful" and would be kept in hypothetical well-attended RFD arguments. We routinely have minor redirects for a variety of reasons, including preserving page histories and being useful. RFD Keep #5 is quite direct: if you want to improve the encyclopedia, just let useful-but-minor redirects exist. They're fine. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding that this is RfD and not AfD. However, the way that you have been referring to these redirects makes me believe that the existence of these redirects formerly as articles or being mentioned at the target before validates them existing as redirects. That is not the case, it causes problems, and I don't feel like repeating my arguments that I stated earlier, which are still valid and refute this point. My AfD comment was catering to the "keep" votes above, but I'd rather these redirects be deleted immediately. The redirects are not "fine" and are currently not "useful" since readers will find nothing about the subjects of the redirects at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see WP:RSURPRISE, which totally applies here due to lack of mentions in the target article. (Related note, one would think me, an editor working primarily with redirects for over a decade, would know Wikipedia:Redirect well enough to know of the section linked from the aforementioned shortcut's existence ... well, I just discovered it ... ๐Ÿ˜…) Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: No waayy, I just discovered that redirect for the first time myself too, like last week or so LOL. Was thinking "how had I never seen this before; I feel like I cite this all the time". ๐Ÿ˜‚ Utopes (talk / cont) 22:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 16 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).

Laila Bonita

[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. โœ—plicit 00:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this, or any other Indonesian cover (per the edit summary) in the article. Xeroctic (talk) 15:23, 16 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).

Gypsy

[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 most except to soft redirect Gyp (slang) to Wiktionary. (non-admin closure) feminist๐Ÿฉธ (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently targeted at Romani people. Controversial term, considered a slur by considerably large groups of people - Names of the Romani people#Gypsy and gipsy would be a better target, which discusses the terms better. There is also a disambiguation - Gypsy (disambiguation). Bug Ghost๐Ÿฆ—๐Ÿ‘ป 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
An article discussing the term would be very helpful. If anyone wants to start such an article, I'd be willing to help and you might post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that citing WP:NOTCENSORED in this case is running into WP:UPPERCASE issues, see WP:UPPERCASE#WP:NOTCENSORED. The correct essay to cite here is instead WP:RNEUTRAL as I have below. ๐”๐”ฒ๐”ซ๐”ž๐”ช๐”ž๐”ซ๐”ซ๐ŸŒ™๐ŸŒ™๐ŸŒ™ ๐”—๐”ฅ๐”ข ๐”๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ซ๐”ฆ๐”ข๐”ฐ๐”ฑ (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per WP:RNEUTRAL. Once again, I'll break down why we keep slur redirects like these into two parts, although I'll throw in a third part.
  • As noted by WP:RNEUTRAL, Redirects have far more leeway than the rest of the encyclopedia as per neutrality, because they're almost invisible except when actively being used (or mentioned in hatnotes/boldtext as per WP:RASTONISH). Nobody is going to start at Romani people and end up at Gypsy because of the redirect itself, unless they go out of their way to check the Special:WhatLinksHere/Romani_people page.
  • Non-neutral redirects also serve as an important teaching tool. Say that a user watched Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film), which heavily features the Romani people in the plot but consistently uses Gypsy to refer to them, and has next to no other information about the Romani. They go to Wikipedia, and type Gypsy into the search bar. Would they not be well-served to be taken to the article on the Romani people, and taught that the correct, neutral term for them is the Romani?
  • And finally, for these redirects in particular, people probably aren't looking up Gypsy to find discussion of the term itself-- they're looking up Gypsy to find discussion of the Romani. Thus, the paragraph in Romani_people's opener, which already talks about the term Gypsy and how it's an exonym widely thought of as a slur, is plenty sufficient for the purposes of both avoiding WP:RASTONISH while addressing Point 2 above. At the very least, a more accessible link somewhere in that paragraph that points to Names of the Romani people#Gypsy and gipsy may be warranted; however, the current target of the redirect is definitely going to the right place.
๐”๐”ฒ๐”ซ๐”ž๐”ช๐”ž๐”ซ๐”ซ๐ŸŒ™๐ŸŒ™๐ŸŒ™ ๐”—๐”ฅ๐”ข ๐”๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ฌ๐”ซ๐”ฆ๐”ข๐”ฐ๐”ฑ (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the point of redirects are to benefit readers, if they are looking for Romani people who are still commonly referred to as gypsies they will find it, if they are looking for information on the term itself that information is provided there. Gyp (slang) is a redirect with history so a retarget to wiktionary might be better. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether it is a slur or not, "Gypsy" is an equally or even more recognizable term than "Roma". Especially in some countries, such as Hungary, where "Gypsy" or it's regional variant (cigany) are the official term to refer to this people group, even among themselves. Plus, per User:Tamzin, related terms such as "Gypsies" and "Gipsy", plus terms in other languages such as the page Cigan redirect to Romani people as well and are included in the hatnote. Deleting or redirecting the page will also require lots of links in lots of articles to be fixed. VojvodaStranih (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with the keep points made above. Neutral on Gyp (slang) if people want to do something else with that one. Schรผtzenpanzer (Talk) 01:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it is far more likely that if someone searches "gypsy" they are looking for the people referred to by that albeit offensive word, rather than a discussion of the word itself and whether is a slur etc.. Besides, the topic is discussed in the second paragraph of the lead. Cremastra โ€” talk โ€” c 01:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most per Lunamann; soft redirect Gyp (slang) to wikt:gyp#English (second choice delete). J947 โ€ก edits 00:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most per above, soft redirect Gyp (slang) to wikitionary, as that is where the user will find out about this word as slang until such time as we have encyclopedic content on it. Fieari (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's important to remember that "Gypsy" is not considered a slur in all countries - most relevantly for an English-language Wikipedia it is definitely not a slur in the UK.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:55, 22 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).

Jamie Jungers

[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. โœ—plicit 14:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. (As below, Redirects from people seem a little more urgent than most Redirects to an article without mention.) jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for other mentions on Wikipedia: the set index article Jungers says she's a woman associated with Tiger Woods, and she's described tangentially as one of Tiger Woods' alleged mistresses at Be-Shure ยงย Notes and Dog's Most Wanted ยงย ep6. Be-Shure only cites TV guides for that claim, and the other is uncited. Since there's no good target elsewhere, I think the redirect should be deleted unless a WP:BLP-satisfying mention is added to Tiger Woods. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arguably BLP violating redirect with little purpose. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:55, 16 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).

Srishti

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Srishti

Japetus

[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 Iapetus. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u โ€” c) 19:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason why this spelling would not have the same primary topic as Iapetus. Would boldly retarget, but it's been a redirect to the moon for 18 years with a hatnote, seems like it's worth a discussion first. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Japetus (moon) was recently created as a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:47, 22 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).

Substituted

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Substituted

ฮ’-aminoethylamine

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. โœ—plicit 12:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This bot redirect makes no sense, replacing phenyl with amino. Delete to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I suppose it would be just aminoethylamine or ฮฑ-aminoethylamine, which aren't used, whereas ฮฒ-aminoethylamine just makes no sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the convention is for alpha in aminesโ€”whether it refers to the carbon with the amine itself, or the next carbon over. Based on ฮฒ-Methylphenethylamine as naming precedent, wouldn't ฮฑ-aminoethylamine be 1,1-diaminoethane (Ethane-1,1-diamine (Q82220114) doesn't seem notable enough to merit an article) whereas ฮฒ-aminoethylamine would be 1,2-diaminoethane (our ethylenediamine article)? DMacks (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the nomenclature does seem to be different. I don't think a retarget to ethylenediamine is warranted regardless. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:59, 16 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).

Wikipedia:PCR

[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 Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do editors think of a retarget to Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes? In my experience I've often seen this initialism used to refer to the pending changes reviewer user group, and absolutely never for this essay section. โ€”TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's used a lot in mainspace, but I think it's all through {{context inline}}. It would be easy to not use this shortcut in that template. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:31, 16 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).

Glenn Trumpkin

[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 Glenn Trumpkin, Amy Covid Barrett and But his laptop, Keep Leningrad Lindsey and Mthreegan. . Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Rapey McForehead led me to examine the past redirects of Jasonbresย (talkย ยท contribs), who has a mile-long talk page of warnings (including for the inexplicable redirect of Donald Faison's character Christopher Turk on Scrubs to Black Scrubs) and one past block on their record, and these are the most inappropriate and provocative out of all of them, unlikely to be used, and after being asked by Traumnovelleย (talkย ยท contribs) why they'd even fathom creating such a provocative rd, answered "I think at the time, it was trending on Twitter, and I created a redirect for people who wanted to know who that name was referring to", which for the first three, I don't consider post-sink Twitter's trending topics a source for anything, much less redirect material. The last one is just clear nonsense, but the first three are undeniable WP:BLP violations, while the laptop reference is for terminally online political folks only (re: a 'blue-check' counterpoint to this). Nate โ€ข (chatter) 00:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Trumpkin is used in RS: [1] [2] and whilst a non-neutral name I don't think it is a BLP violation, although the lack of views suggest this redirect is not useful and not worth the lack of neutrality. It isn't like these articles aren't using his full name.
'Amy Covid Barnett' is a clear BLP violation, only search result I get is a forum that is filled with offensive remarks about Barnett.
'Leningrad Lindsey' is used here: [3] and has 53 page views so might be an okay non-neutral redirect, although the RS clearly identifies his full name.
Last two are highly unlikely search terms as demonstrated by their 6 views in the past year.
Delete all bar Leningrad Lindsey where I am neutral on keeping it for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't think the last one is nonsense, and imo it should be unbundled from the rest of the political-people redirects. We should be discussing redirects based on their individual merits, not bundling based on assumptions about the creator. "Mthreegan" is a very common spoken-name for the film. (Also, the block was for 24 hours in 2008. Recent warnings and RfDs aside, I'd hope one would be able to consider that event looong past). Utopes (talk / cont) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete the first three as implausible jokes (not even worth being called puns) and as not notable enough attack redirects (even if there are sources, they'll also mention their actual names, so there's no point), the fourth per "i only found miscellaneous comments on reddit", and keep the fifth as a plausible enough phonetic spelling. wouldn't be surprised if the first three were also eligible for g10
is "but his laptop" the political equivalent of "but the rat, it stole my documents"? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of them really seem like plausible search terms anyways. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Glenn Trumpkin and Amy Covid Barrett as WP:BLP violations that don't get very many views (even if the first does appear in reliable sources, I'm not 100% sure it's a reliable search term), but weak keep Leningrad Lindsey as a non-neutral nickname that actually gets decent usage in Wikipedia searches. Also, delete But his laptop as an obscure phrase coming from Reddit and similar whose context would be murky for those unfamiliar with the conspiracy theory in question, and keep Mthreegan as a plausible way to search the movie in question. I also second Utopes' comment above meโ€”I honestly think these redirects should be nominated in more related groupsโ€”just because they're made by the same creator doesn't mean they should all be bundled into a single nomination together. Regards, SONIC678 23:23, 18 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).

Beta-ethylphenethylamine

[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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This indicates a different compound than the target (one with an additional carbon atom, ethyl instead of methyl), one for which enwiki does not seem to have any content (see C10H15N, versus target's C9H13N). Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:48, 16 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).

Ra'ad 1

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Ra'ad 1

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_16&oldid=1254501540"