Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/Today

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD/TODAY)
Purge

9 September 2024

Read how to nominate a redirect for discussion.

September 9

edit

Big Falls (disambigution)

edit

Typo in disambiguation qualifier, created while trying to create the {{R from disambiguation}} redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

André Bouchard ( environmentalist)

edit

WP:UNNATURAL. This was the page title for less than a day. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villarejo (disambigulation)

edit

Typo in disambiguation qualifier; these have been deleted in the past. Gets virtually no pageviews. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home computer game

edit

Not sure if these redirects should be retained at their current target or be retargeted to Video game. Per the result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Computer game, Computer game was retargeted away from PC game and to Video game. Considering the current states of the articles Home computer and Personal computer ("PC" in the current target), it does not seem as though the usage of the phrase "home computer" exclusively refers to "personal computer". Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the target works with the significant home computer game history on the PC game article and is not comparable to the computer game redirect result. A disambiguation hatnote was added to the video game article by me, maybe add something similar to PC game? IgelRM (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-Star Batman and Robin

edit

all-star batman and robin is a different goddamn comic from all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder, but its only meaningful goddamn mention is in the goddamn list of batman comics, and the goddamn results seem to give goddamn priority to all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder. should they be goddamn retargeted to the goddamn list of batman comics, or are they goddamn fine as is? cogsan (goddamn talk page) (goddamn contribs) 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on that goddamn note, should i bring up all star batman and all-star batman (the only goddamn difference is a goddamn hyphen), as they have different goddamn targets, or does the goddamn exclusion of robin narrow them out of this goddamn topic? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no goddamn way that the current goddamn arrangement with those two redirects (ASB and A-SB) is the correct goddamn outcome. Since this conversation seems to be lurching toward to a goddamn DAB, I think that the next goddamn question is whether the goddamn DAB is titled something like "All Star Batman" and includes all of these goddamn titles (ASB, ASBAR, ASBARTBW) or whether it's just ASBAR and ASBARTBW. The former "broader" DAB actually seems like my preferred goddamn outcome. —mako๛ 11:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Too many goddamn questions!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bats like their goddamn questions. they like them a lot. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry that I don't get the references here, and I'm thinking many won't. Heck, I don't even understand the nomination statement. What's going on with these redirects? Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
asbar and asbartbw (what a nice acronym) are different comics, though only the latter has an article of its own. the joke is mostly that the target really loves plastering the word "goddamn" everywhere, to the point where "the goddamn batman" is an actual redirect to it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough goddamn answers!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 01:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - Since it was too confusing, we should make into a disambiguation page. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Cogsan perhaps. This is a very confusing nomination (even without all the goddamns)! Are the very similarly named comics without articles at the moment not notable or do they just not have articles yet? If they are never going to have articles, the proposal sounds reasonable since it seems like this redirect should point somewhere and that seems like the obvious place that currently exists! Otherwise, I like the idea of redirecting to a DAB that explains the situation (perhaps with WP:REDLINKS?). —mako๛ 12:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not the biggest batman fanatic out there so i can't say for sure, but results for "all-star batman" and "all-star batman and robin" are riddled with all star batman & robin, the boy wonder, since robin is a pretty important character in batman lore and "boy wonder" is a pretty common nickname for him, so it's hard to tell
in case of doubt, i'll assume the answer is "their only notable trait is sharing their names with that one comic", and change my vote to dabifying between all star batman & robin, the boy wonder, dc rebirth, and the list of batman comics so i don't have to think about it again cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify as per the goddamn response by the goddamn nom and the goddamn conversation here. —mako๛ 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for goddamn opinions on this goddamn draft
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The other comic in question is "All-Star Batman", so I don't see the confusion because the titles in question are "All-Star Batman and Robin" (emphasis added). If you're specifically searching with 'and Robin', why would you be looking for "All-Star Batman"? If there is genuine confusion, add a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newman!

edit

Only mentioned once at the target phrase article, claiming to be "Jerry's trademark phrase" for Newman. Is the phrase trademarked? No clue, as there is no reference anywhere in the paragraph where this is stated to be true. Otherwise implausible for people to use this phrase to reach the article about Newman from Seinfeld, before searchers attempt to search for Newman (Seinfeld) (as the character's name is in the phrase in question). Utopes (talk / cont) 17:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we do soft redirects to Wikiquote? (Not sure if a target exists, not sure if we do such soft redirects these days ... just asking based on our Wiktionary soft redirects' existence.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do do soft redirects to Wikiquote when that's the best target. No opinion (at the moment) on whether that's true in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at Wikiquote for a bit: Seems it's more focused on non-serial media, such as films, instead of reoccurring media, such as TV series. What I mean is if a quote is stated more than once in a media (such as multiple episodes in a series), it seems there is no clear target for the quote on Wiktionary. (There may be character pages ... but I haven't figured that out yet.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrachromic pencil

edit

Does not look like we have any content on this, neither at the current target nor at Colored pencil. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtbag (and other Transformers redirects)

edit

(My first time to nominate a group, so I'm probably doing it wrong. Feel free to edit/fix the nom as appropriate, or tell me what I need to do.) I propose we delete these 8 redirects, all of which redirect to Transformers: Generation 2. These pages appear to refer to Transformers characters/toys, although they are not mentioned at the target page. So not useful for navigation, says I, and ought to be deleted. None of these names are mentioned at Transformers, either, or I would have suggested retargeting. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of High Beam (Transformers)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empty-warn

edit

Confusing. Much like {{db-empty}}, one would expect it to refer to A3 or C1 but not A1 which explicitly does not apply to empty articles. Nickps (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I agree its ambiguous due and I'd argue C1 is more likely as a category would be more likely to be considered to be empty because although its now possible to create an empty page (it never used to be) I wouldn't expect many articles to be created that are completely empty and blanking is often done when G7 ends up being the criteria used to delete. I'd also note that Template:Empty redirects to Template:Db-empty so I'd consider deleting them both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think {{empty}} is just fine as is. {{db-empty}} wraps both {{db-a3}} and {{db-c1}} and chooses which to serve depending on the namespace so there is no ambiguity there. Nickps (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading your comment again, I hadn't thought of the G7 point. I guess there is an argument to be made for deletion but considering that {{db-empty}} is probably associated with A3 and C1, I'd be very hesitant to delete. Nickps (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template shortcuts are quite often ambiguous. Created in 2006, then redirected here in 2012. It is included as a link in {{User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox}} (which is transcluded to many user pages). No need to take any action. Shortcuts have to be learned before use anyhow, and this only affects our editors (not our readers). Prefer a retarget over deletion (if it comes to that). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convenced by this argument. It's alao confusing for editors to have db-empty refer to C1 and A3 but db-empty-notice refer to A1. Every other notice template is named after the CSD template it is used with but this one alone breaks the pattern. That still makes shortcuts more difficult to learn for our editors for no benefit since most of them would know that db-a1-notice is the notice to use along with db-a1. Nickps (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've since made {{subst:db-empty-notice}} behave identically to {{db-empty}}, that is, it returns {{subst:db-catempty-notice}} if a category is passed to it and {{subst:db-nocontent-notice}} in all other cases. So, assuming the db-empty-notice RfD closes as "disambiguate" between these two, we should retarget there Nickps (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese coins

edit

Is there some reason that Chinese coins are assumed to be ancient? To the contrary, I would personally assume that people looking for information about Chinese coins would be looking for information about modern coins. The same for Chinese coin. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added/bundled Chinese coin into the discussion. (Was checking to see in the singular and plural had different targets, and well ... they do not.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What a cluster of existing articles did I run into: Between Chinese currency (a disambiguation page), the fact that the aforementioned page has multiple articles listed related to subjects named "Yuan" (including Renminbi, which is alternative called the "Chinese Yuan"), History of Chinese currency, Chinese cash (currency unit), the nominated redirect's current target and ALL of the potentially ambiguous redirects targeting EACH of the respective aforementioned non-redirect pages ... this whole situation is a mess. Obviously, the current target is wrong; my vote here is weak retarget to Chinese currency as a {{R from ambiguous term}}, but oh my gosh, there seems to be a need for a WP:BROADCONCEPT somewhere ... but does History of Chinese currency already serve that purpose? (Honestly, I'm thinking Chinese currency should be WP:BLARed towards History of Chinese currency, but that's a different discussion for a different day.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...And just found Chinese cash, another disambiguation page ... with more articles including Cash (Chinese coin). Wow... Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I ran into this redirect by trying to identify the origin and denomination of a modern coin that I have laying around. It doesn't have English writing on it, so I thought it might be Chinese and looked for info by putting "Chinese coins" into the search box. I suspect that happens a lot. (Unfortunately, even at Renminbi § Coins, I didn't find any pictures, unlike for American coins, Canadian coins, Japanese coins, Korean coins, Russian coins, etc. I eventually had to look outside of Wikipedia to identify it as a Chinese one jiao coin.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​The current redirect targets are {{R from move}} results of a long-ago move. ​"Currency of Foo" and "Foo currency" titles tend to be all over the place. Most redirect to the page on the currently used currency in question, but the Eurozone can get weird (e.g. French currency redirects to French franc, but Currency of France to euro, which is technically correct based on grammar). Countries that have had several currencies or that have had currency substitution tend to have standalone articles, but these differ in scope from disambiguation articles (e.g. the very simple Currency of Greece or Currency of San Marino), to list-type articles (e.g. Currency of Spain, Currency of Germany, Brazilian currency), to full-text/list articles (Currency of Ecuador, Currency of Maldives), to extensive history articles (e.g. Korean currency).
TL;DR It's fine to have Chinese currency as a disambiguation page. Whether Currency of China should direct there might also be considered.
On the nominal topic of this discussion, I support a retarget of both to Chinese currency. —  AjaxSmack  20:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Royalty

edit

This term does not appear in the target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Royalty and Majesty are somewhat synonymous. Josethewikier (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it looks like the first Google hit for the term is a Pomerian dog breeder, which wasn't exactly on my bingo card. The other results seem to be mostly the kind of keyword synonym spam people use for SEO. There seems to be the occasional usage in historical contexts, e.g. an old history book or museum listing. I think they're using it to emphasize that these are imperial royals, e.g. emperors and not kings, but it doesn't seem to be a term of art. In any case, serious use of the term is rare and doesn't not appear to be a synonym for Imperial Majesty or King-Emperor. Rusalkii (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

edit

Never happened. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C F A 💬 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Abritration Committe

edit

Both "Arbitration" and "Committee" are misspelled, making this an implausible redirect. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Created 8 years ago purposely as a misspelling, and is in no way ambiguous. (The forecast is calling for WP:SNOW.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a lot, maybe even the majority, of R3s are created on purpose. The only reason this doesn't suffer the same fate is its age, which is only relevant to R3 and nothing else. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Seems the WP:SNOW forecast was canceled... Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused and implausible. Would have qualified as an R3 had it been caught early. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible and harmless, especially as it's in project space. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being in project space is irrelevant. And plausible? Really? Two totally random letter deletions that are horrendously unlikely to ever happen together in that exact way along with no other typing errors, precisely? There's a small but nonzero cost to keeping it as a maintenance burden. There's zero harm in deleting it. Why are you so hell-bent on keeping all these useless redirects? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only cost comes from discussions like this one - in the past 8 years this redirect has required no maintenance and caused no harm. Indeed this nomination has resulted in the expending of almost infinitely more editor time and effort than this redirect would have done in at least 20 years had it been left alone. I'm not hell-bent on keeping all these useless redirects, I'm simply opposed to the deletion of harmless redirects because deletion is never harmless (for example it hinders navigation) so we should only delete pages when the harm from the existence of the redirect exceeds the harm caused by deletion. In this case there is truly no harm from the redirect's existence - anyone stumbling across it will be taken to where they want to go. It being in project space is relevant, because there is no chance of someone finding this while looking for encyclopaedic content. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I was I was getting at but in a lot more words: This redirect is in the project/"Wikipedia:" namespace. If someone types this redirect out, they are obviously looking for the current target page. Deletion does more harm than good. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Thryduulf on this. There was zero maintenance burden from this redirect until this RFD was created, which has used far more storage space/processing power/brain power than the redirect ever has. The redirect probably isn't that helpful, but that isn't really enough to justify deletion. BugGhost🦗👻 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per previous comments. Redirects are cheap, and despite being an implausible spelling, it's not in mainspace and doesn't do much harm staying as it is. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless {{R from misspelling}}. C F A 💬 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as two separate errors -> implausible. Being in project-space makes this even more unlikely to be typed because 99.5% of everyone types "WP:ARBCOM" or "WP:AC" into the search-bar anyway. This might've been harmless before, and I myself wouldn't have nominated it... but we're here now at RfD so lets seal the deal: its existence is a bad precedent that opens the door to an infinite potential redirect mess.
If every page on Wikipedia had 5-10 typo redirects that generally seen as implausible, but aren't technically hurting anything because redirects are technically cheap, Wikipedia as a whole would be 5x-10x harder to maintain on the backend / pagecount side, because for each of the millions of pages that exist (across all namespaces), there's tens of millions of implausible typo redirects to scroll through. This is an example of one, so delete to save us the headache of having this same conversation over this exact redirect in another 5-10 years. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to resolve WP:PEIS errors on the main WP:RFD page. This discussion may be closed anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=1141812774"