Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Adic: Reply
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Disambiguation links added Reply
Line 12: Line 12:


This page has a long history of pointing at various targets. Right now [[Arity]] has a link to [[p-adic number]], one of the previous targets of this redirect, in the "see also" section (which I would consider misuse, as hatnotes should be used for this purpose). Incidentally, until 2018, this was redirecting to the article on the more general concept of [[Completion of a ring]] (which currently does not explicitly introduce the term "I-adic completion" but does so for the [[I-adic topology]], while linking to the main article on that topic). It also briefly was some sort of disambiguation page, as the title (modulo capitalisation) can also be an abbreviation of [[Advanced Digital Information Corporation]]. The question is whether arity is the primary topic here (and the ambiguity should be resolved by hatnotes or a separate DAB page), or whether this title itself should be disambiguated. [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[Special:Contribs/1234qwer1234qwer4|4]] 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This page has a long history of pointing at various targets. Right now [[Arity]] has a link to [[p-adic number]], one of the previous targets of this redirect, in the "see also" section (which I would consider misuse, as hatnotes should be used for this purpose). Incidentally, until 2018, this was redirecting to the article on the more general concept of [[Completion of a ring]] (which currently does not explicitly introduce the term "I-adic completion" but does so for the [[I-adic topology]], while linking to the main article on that topic). It also briefly was some sort of disambiguation page, as the title (modulo capitalisation) can also be an abbreviation of [[Advanced Digital Information Corporation]]. The question is whether arity is the primary topic here (and the ambiguity should be resolved by hatnotes or a separate DAB page), or whether this title itself should be disambiguated. [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[Special:Contribs/1234qwer1234qwer4|4]] 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:This was a '''disambiguation''' page in 2006 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adic&oldid=80404232 link]), and it should be one again. The math section there can be expanded to include the other meanings besides the [[p-adic numbers]]. Redirecting to [[Arity]] makes little sense when the numbers are more common, and the people who keep trying to put [[ADIC]] back in suggest that it's needed for that as well. (Perhaps the two disambiguation pages should be combined, but then it should capitalized as here, not there.) —[[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] ([[User talk:Toby Bartels|talk]]) 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


====Roxy (character)====
====Roxy (character)====

Revision as of 13:27, 12 March 2024

March 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 12, 2024.

Adic

This page has a long history of pointing at various targets. Right now Arity has a link to p-adic number, one of the previous targets of this redirect, in the "see also" section (which I would consider misuse, as hatnotes should be used for this purpose). Incidentally, until 2018, this was redirecting to the article on the more general concept of Completion of a ring (which currently does not explicitly introduce the term "I-adic completion" but does so for the I-adic topology, while linking to the main article on that topic). It also briefly was some sort of disambiguation page, as the title (modulo capitalisation) can also be an abbreviation of Advanced Digital Information Corporation. The question is whether arity is the primary topic here (and the ambiguity should be resolved by hatnotes or a separate DAB page), or whether this title itself should be disambiguated. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a disambiguation page in 2006 (link), and it should be one again. The math section there can be expanded to include the other meanings besides the p-adic numbers. Redirecting to Arity makes little sense when the numbers are more common, and the people who keep trying to put ADIC back in suggest that it's needed for that as well. (Perhaps the two disambiguation pages should be combined, but then it should capitalized as here, not there.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy (character)

Not mentioned, and that's not Roxy. So, I suggest a retarget to Roxy (given name), due to no primary topic. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Roxy (given name)#Fictional characters, a refinement of the proposed retarget. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brookville Police Department

no mention on target page, plausibly notable. asilvering (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeletE as per nom. WP:REDLINK. I uh, think you put this new RfD nomination right in the middle of an existing nomination, which means you stole the original version of this comment from Master of the TreboN Altarpiece ^^; That said, no harm no foul, as my vote for this one is mostly the same anyways! Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: What happened was the first non-bot edit of the day broke the top text that Twinkle uses to detect where to put new RfD nominations. But ... this is odd since apparently, per other nominations on this page, XFDcloser ... knew where to put the relisted nominations, even with the top matter looking abnormal. Maybe Twinkle could take a bit of code from XFDcloser to utilize for new RfD nominations in the same manner that XFDcloser determines where to place a relisted discussion? (Eh, might as well ping Novem Linguae so they are aware of this as they seem to be one of the most active editors at monitoring both tools these days.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, weird! I didn't realize that's what happened and was wondering why your initial comment didn't seem to make sense. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can add a mention of the department on the target page a little later today. I thought I did so already but I guess I am mistaken. My apologies. Infrastorian (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note, for the record, that this proposed edit would change my vote from Delete (er, DeletE) to Keep (or perhaps, Refine.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to Brookville, New York#Government, which now has a mention. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023 Terrorist Encounter in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

"Terrorist Encounter"? Was at this title for under a day. Rusalkii (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since both keep !votes are weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury home

After the merging of Luxury real estate into the general article, the redirect of "luxury home" does not appear to be super useful as it does not bear a mention at any location. Additionally, while the plural version may indicate "multiple homes" being sought, it doesn't seem specific enough to target something besides what the singular version does. Looking at these two options side by side in the search bar, it's a shot-in-the-dark for readers to figure out where each'll go. Perhaps there's a better alternative, because neither status quo seems necessary currently. (I'll mention that "luxury homes" was repointed to the category in 2020 by a user later blocked for NOTHERE). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT liberal

A story of two redirects created for the same circumstance, but resulted in vastly different outcomes. Both of these were created by a sockpuppet as an antonym redirect to LGBT conservatism. However, these two received target changes before they could be G5'ed. LGBT liberal went to Category:LGBT liberalism, which such a redirect-to-category-space I don't think is helpful nor necessary for this term. The title match to the category however, LGBT liberalism, ended up getting retargeted to Liberalism, where this terminology never gets mentioned. While the difference in targets is certainly a problem, I believe that between the "borderline-parallel category" and "page without mention", NEITHER of the existing solutions are a great fit for the terms. The only mainspace page that discusses these topics in tandem is LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, which might work, but even then it begs the question whether these sockpuppet terms are even needed to begin with, as none of the possibilities are stellar. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While permitted, redirecting to a category is not the most ideal outcome for readers, and existing targets in article space should be prioritized where possible. Was BLAR'd in 2022 and converted into a redirect to a particular category, but I feel Abuse#Legal abuse might be more appropriate and helpful for readers on a wider scale. While not much content exists at the page currently, it has the category handily linked right there. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per nom. Perhaps the redirects pointing there could spur some editors to flesh it out, hm~? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insect pest of grape

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

In the grand scheme of redirects into category space, this title does not seem to have an apparent need as it stands. It currently exists as an unlikely search term for the subject, pointing at a title that just contains a handful of insect articles. Grape pest insects does not exist. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, this is some EXTREMELY strange and rather unlikely phrasing. On the other, I don't think there's really any better place for it to point, if kept. Delete as per nom, failing that, oppose any retarget effort until further notice. (Further notice being myself going 'Hey wait, that IS a good retarget' and changing my vote.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas–Permian Basin Falcons football players

Not particularly useful or conventional to target this cross-namespace redirect to a category of football players. Evidenced from [1], these types of redirects are mainly used for journals and not just any category that exists. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uk public

R3 declined due to not recent (February vs November), this is an otherwise vague search term which doesn't exclusively apply to constitutional law, from my understanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asenso Abrenio

External sources have led me to believe this is a song/dance. No mention at the target, unclear relationship to a politician. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny book

Not mentioned in the target article. Without a specify code mention tying the redirect as an alternative name of the target page, the redirect is ambiguous since the only type of book which may be funny is not exclusive to Comic book. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing I can think of as to why this exists is this definition for 'funnies' on Wiktionary. The issue (ha) is, the adjective "funny" is thought of a lot more than the noun. Not only are comic books not inherently funny, there are plenty of comedy books out there that aren't comic books. This sort of ambiguity kills the redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not all comics are funny, but “funny book” used to be a standard term for comic books, a la “the funnies”. I would never expect this term to lead anywhere but to comic book… but I say “weak” keep because I CAN imagine a different person less familiar with historical comics terminology who expected to end up at something like comic fiction or some existing pages about novels that are funny. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
very very weak retarget to comic novel or all star "the goddamn" batman & robin, the boy wonder, or delete as vague. if i read super mario 64's manual and get a laugh out of it, that would make it a "funny book"
i don't think whether or not it had some niche use before matters because that use is very much gone cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grounded videos

The section ‘Grounded videos’ was removed. Delete this redirect.

Note: The Grounded videos is originally nominated for deletion by User:Aitraintheeditorandgamer in this edit, and the template was mistakenly added to the wrong page. Therefore, I am correcting this entry here. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_12&oldid=1213342828"