Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Godsy (talk | contribs) at 06:45, 20 March 2024 (→‎Human respect: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

March 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 18, 2024.

List of 2025 Indian Premier League personnel changes

WP:TOOSOON, not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geydar Ilkhamovich Aliyev

Was at this title for about a day. This is a Russianization of the name which as far as I can tell is not used anywhere; Google gives zero hits for this form. I have been able to find one instance of "Heydar Ilkhamovich", used by a commenter on a newspaper article. Rusalkii (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England Island

Not mentioned in page, Google results seem to be for a mix of New England Island and various other islands in England, not the island of Great Britain. Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps this could be redirected to List of islands of England which includes New England Island, though this reads more like a search term and likely can be handled as such (i.e. delete). ― Synpath 00:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of islands of England, which is the most helpful we can be to readers and far more helpful than search results. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think we should have redirects for random combinations of words. This kind of thing can be found in the search results and a redirect may cause confusion. We don't need redirects such as "Canada Cathedral" or "Russia Mountain". Kk.urban (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with Kk.urban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza 7 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes potentially useful but confusing so search would probably be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting the of the heads of state of German-speaking countries

Extra "the" in unlikely places. Rusalkii (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely redirects --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unlikely search terms or URL entries, and the article existed at each of these titles for less than an hour. Kk.urban (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Azorean regional election

Was at this title for a while, so I am somewhat reluctant to recommend deletion, but it'll be confusing as soon as the election takes place. There isn't an obvious umbrella/disambig page for Azorean elections. Rusalkii (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Legislative Assembly of the Azores has a redlink to 2028 Azorean regional election labelled as "Next election" in its info box and has a list of past elections there. It might be somewhat future-proof, but there's no guarantee it will be. Stats show that the link seems to have served its purpose, receiving almost no views since the 2024 election. It might be appropriate to delete in the interim and revived when appropriate, something like the spirit of WP:UFILM. ― Synpath 01:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Legislative Assembly of the Azores as that will inform people searching when the next election is planned as soon as we have information on it. Targeting next election redirects to articles about the relevant legislative body or elections in the relevant country/region is somewhat standard practice, and in this case we don't have an article about Elections in the Azores/Azorean elections that I can find, and Template:Azorean elections has no information about the next election. Elections in Portugal#Autonomous Regions elections has three sentences of prose covering elections in the Azores and Madeira, which makes no mention of the next election, and a link to the unhelpful template. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Brain Research Unit

The Cognitive Brain Research Unit is a unit at the University of Helsinki. The current target is the unit's founder, who also directed it from 1991-2006. Not much is said about the unit at the current target, so I'm not sure if it will be satisfactory for people looking for it. However, I don't see it mentioned on University of Helsinki, either. I'm curious what the best target for this could be. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, I haven't been able to find a mention anywhere else on Wikipedia and a sentence seems better than nothing. Rusalkii (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November (upcoming film)

The film is no longer upcoming, and nothing links here. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; was at this title for two years; despite that doesn't seem to be getting any hits at this point. Rusalkii (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was getting regular hits until mid-late December, but nothing since indicating that it's utility has now ended. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Type 1 machine gun

There seem to be several machine guns referred to this way (Type 1 heavy machine gun, Ho-103 machine gun) . I'd disambig the page, but the current redirect target was at this name since 2007 so there's a lot of history, and it gets hundreds of page views a month presumably all looking for the old name. Looking for opinions on whether to keep the current target or disambiguate, especially from someone familiar with this area. Rusalkii (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabification wouldn't delete the history the way deletion would. Just... edit the page, lol. Especially since the current target should logically show up as one of the DAB page's entries. It'd likely be a good idea, though, to look through the What Links Here page and edit anything specifically looking for the Type 98/Type 1 to point directly there instead of to what's going to be a DAB. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Lunamann propose, to first edit pages that links for the Type 1 aircraft MG to actually go to the Type 98/Type 1 and then turn the page into DAB. Jauhsekali (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format string

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format specifiers

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder (Computing)

Placeholder#Mathematics and computer science includes four potential targets. It does not appear obvious to me that the target of this redirect is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nickps (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab section as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Placeholder (computing) without leaving a redirect as this is arguably an WP:RDAB situation as "computing" isn't a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab section as per Thryduulf, then create Placeholder (computing) as a second redirect that also targets to the same dab, both with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. I don't see how moving a redirect as per Crouch would be helpful, but if we have the incorrectly capitalized version, it only makes sense to also have the correctly capitalized version. Also, the bigger problem is still the target, not the name of the redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the lowercase disambiguator should just be created as well (and mark this one as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of it) per Lunamann and WP:MOVEREDIRECT (basically don't move a redirect unless it's necessary, and moving this one isn't). "(Computing)" and "(computing)" are equally plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Search takes care of capitalization, we don't need to keep incorrectly capitalized qualifier redirects without a good reason. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Search only takes care of capitalisation for a subset of the ways people navigate Wikipedia. The good reason to keep this redirect is to help people navigate to the target they are looking for, but what we actually need is a good reason to delete a redirect and incorrect but plausible capitalisation is never a good reason on its own to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • disamig per nom and Thryduulf -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Cameron (minister)

There is now another Lord Cameron who is a government minister (Lord Cameron of Lochiel). While the one who is Foreign Secretary remains the most likely search target, this redirect now seems less appropriate. I suggest we retarget it to Lord Cameron (disambiguation) or delete it altogether. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Montreux 1981

Mike Oldfield is not the only artist to have a release titled "Live at Montreux 1981". Numerous artists have the same titled release including James Brown , Stray Cats, David Sanborn, Maggie Bell and Midnight Flyer, Yellowjackets (band) and more. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format string

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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Nickps (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_17#%d scanf is also an appropriate target so the pagepages should be dabified. Nickps (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: disambiguating with scanf makes sense. I suppose String interpolation could also be a valid thing to mention in the disambiguation as well. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and add hatnotes or delete both (maybe per WP:REDYES to promote creation of an article for the topic of these redirects) since these two redirects are not title matches via punctuation or capitalization differences. In other words, it could be seen as misleading if a disambiguation page is created at one title, but not the other. (My stance will be different if these redirects are unbundled; in this nomination's current state, it presents a WP:TRAINWRECK of possibilities.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objections from me. I withdraw this nomination and I will renominate the pages separately as soon as someone closes this (I don't know if I'm allowed to do it myself). Nickps (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, in fact, allowed to close your own Withdraw nominations as {{nac}}. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I guess I'm learning as I go. Oh well... Nickps (talk) 18:49, 18 March 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).

Bay State Savings Bank

Not mentioned at target. This is a bank which could potentially be notable. I suggest deletion per WP:REDYES. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shewtambar

Unlikely typo. — kashmīrī TALK 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree this is an unlikely typo for the article name, however it is a plausible misspelling or typo of "Shwetambara" (one of the alternative spellings listed in the lead). It gets lots of google hits as an exact term, so it may even be a correct alternative spellin/transliteration itself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is trivial to find usage of this spelling: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Shewtambar%22&ia=web Why did you even think it is an unlikely typo, @Kashmiri:? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VOG-L04 11.0.0.170(C792E10R1P3)

This code is not mentioned at the target article. Apparently is only linked from commons, but its existence is entirely confusing as the only component in this redirect that is present on the page for the phone's model is "VOG" (No 11.0., no C792, etc). The subsequent address, missing space and all, does not seem to be a likely search term or helpful redirect, generally speaking. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's a technical redirect so that the automatically generated links from images taken with my phone on Commons under "software used" work properly. The links work properly for most other phones, but since I use a North American Huawei (pretty rare these days), I wanted the link to work properly as well. Félix An (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've tagged it as a {{R from file metadata link}}, which explains the benefit of redirects of this nature. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I didn't even know that template existed! Félix An (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnie board

No mention of the word "burnie" at the target article. To that effect, there is only one mention of "burnie board" on Wikipedia, which is in the List of buildings designed by architect John Dalton, as the Burnie Board Residence and Administration Building. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the history of the camelcase redirect contains an external link [1] which explains the connection "A 1960s advert for Burnie Board – it appeared in an Australian magazine in 1963. [...] 'Burnie Board' is a type of hardboard or Masonite. The Burnie Paper Mill (1937–2010), Burnie, Tasmania, produced paper, high-grade sawn timber and sheet material like 'Burnie Board'" and multiple other web hits also back up that it was also a type of or similar to masonite, but everything seems to indicate it was a product only or primarily of the 1950s-60s so I would expect most reliable sources to be offline. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf's findings. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link.com

I wanted to test this, and it turns out that "link.com" is a separate website that is built by stripe. Stripe's own domain is "stripe.com" and already exists as a redirect. The target in question makes no mention of "Link" on its own, or "link.com" for that matter. The article does make a passing mention of Stripe's "Payment Link" portal, but having the url as a redirect when this portal is barely present at the article may be confusing. The citation in the Stripe article that discusses the payment link portal, does not mention link.com. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's now briefly mentioned in Stripe, Inc.#Other. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 18:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelovani (disambiguation)

This page was leftover after I merged its contents to House of Gelovani. I had nominated it for speedy deletion under G14 as a redirect ending in (disambiguation) that didn't redirect to a disambiguation or disambiguation-like page (which I guess it wasn't a redirect when I nominated it), and then a user removed it and redirected it to House of Gelovani. I still hold that it should be deleted, as the section Notable people with the surname is not large enough for the page to be considered as "performing a disambiguation-like function". AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as the section Notable people with the surname is not large enough for the page to be considered as "performing a disambiguation-like function" - well, you did copy over the contents of the disambiguation page (which performed the function of disambiguating) over to House of Gelovani, therefore making House of Gelovani the de-facto disambiguation - so this page redirecting to the de-facto disambiguation probably doesn't count as WP:G14. To be honest, I'd consider reverting Gelovani (disambiguation) back to being a disambiguation page, if House of Gelovani isn't supposed to be treated as a disambiguation page. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 03:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you make a point in the first half of that paragraph; I hadn't thought about that. My thought process was that Gelovani (disambiguation) shouldn't have been a DAB page, it should have been a surname page, so why not just merge it to a section of House of Gelovani since it already lists several people with the name, and since I have seen many examples like that before. Though now that I think about it, I'm not sure that every Gelovani listed is part of the family, so maybe it should be reverted back and changed to a name page. I'll let other editors weigh in. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's safe to assume that Prince Varlam Gelovani definitely was part of the noble house (being officially recognized with the princely title). Did some digging on some Georgian genealogy/nobility sites It appears that Mikheil Gelovani was a first cousin of Prince Varlam[2], and it also appears that Archil Gelovani might have been Varlam's third cousin once removed[3] (assuming ofc that David Kaikhosrovich Gelovani did in fact have a son called Almaskhan, who might have actually existed according to Geni[4]). However, I can't see anything linking Mirza Gelovani or Sopho Gelovani to the noble house. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demerge no evidence that half the people listed are from the noble house. This is conflating two different topics, a surname, and the princely house. If you have evidence all these people are of this house, then you should update all the biography articles with referenced facts that state that they are from this house, since the biographies of several of these with thi surname do not have any information about that. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjie the Bay State Beagle

No shred of a mention of this mascot anywhere at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp N' Holler

Not mentioned or alluded to at the target article in any capacity. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western physical culture

While it is true that this culture did exist in the west, it is not described as the "western physical culture" anywhere in the article, nor does the article have anything to do with this being a purely western phenomenon besides that it "originated in Germany, US and UK", while also covering the phenomena in Australia. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the countries you mentioned are considered Western countries. And calling something 'Western' doesn't mean that it has to only be found in the West, rather that its origin or character has some significant basis in the West. However, it is possible to retarget to Western sports if the current target is deemed unsatisfactory. I might also consider developing the redirect into a full article of its own. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the redirect 'Western physical culture' in place, but have created an article within that page. My primary vote would be to keep the article that I wrote within the page. GreekApple123 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article-ify as per GreekApple123. Let's see where they're going with this one! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know whether this should be a separate article (that's not a decision for RfD anyway), but I think such a redirect would be useful. Before clicking the link, I thought "physical culture" would mean archaeological culture (as it's the physical record of a past culture). Clarifying words like "western" may be helpful in a redirect. Kk.urban (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~( 8^(I)

Furthermore, it does not seem like strings of characters such as this would be useful or helpful for readers on Wikipedia. This is not a likely search term, and the only information we have at the target list, for this topic, is "yes" (it exists) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The emoticon has been removed from the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me & Mrs. C

A piece of programming not mentioned at the target, no mention of "me and" or "me &" although there is some loose mentions around Wikipedia of this programming. Not currently suitable as a redirect here though, and it doesn't look like there's any other substantial mentions that could draw a target, from what I'm seeing here. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law 1129

The number "1129" does not appear anywhere at the target article. Attaching this as a law number, without any context as to what the law that has the number #1129, is currently unhelpful to readers as a confusing redirect. Searching for "Law 1129" reveals many laws with this number, not related to conscription in Cuba. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenemos

This misspelling of Greek temenos, created as a duplicate article a few minutes before redirection and merger by its author, makes it difficult to find mentions of the Spanish word tenemos 'we have' using search. Such mentions include the Wiktionary page and those in Present tense#Portuguese and Spanish present indicative tense, Spanish conjugation#tener, 'to have (possession)' (and in the lead of that article), and Spanish grammar#Cleft sentences, as well as partial title matches, quotes, and citations in various other articles.

I think the Spanish conjugation article makes the most sense as a target, though {{Wiktionary redirect}} would also make sense. PleaseStand (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons you mention about difficulty in search. I don't see the need for this redirect. - Dyork (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should absolutely NOT go to a very common verb form in another language. Anyone trying "to find mentions of the Spanish word tenemos 'we have' using search" on Wikipedia is using the wrong website! Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, shouldn't you be voting "keep"? Because this type of spelling error should be fairly common, and readers might be baffled not to find anything when typing it. A temenos is a precinct, especially a sacred precinct, a fanum. It makes sense to have redirects from its likely misspellings, unlike various forms of Spanish verbs. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling of temenos. Conjugations of Spanish verbs should not preclude the creation of redirects for likely misspellings in English Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per editor P Aculeius. Just categorized the redirect and left a hatnote about the dicdef. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:53, 6 March 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) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per P Aculeius. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there cannot be an expectation that all readers understand that WP:FORRED is a thing, meaning readers could still attempt to look a word in their native language on the English Wikipedia and assume Wikipedia is a translation service, which it is not. In addition, since the redirect has been deemed ambiguous in a way, deletion would be the best. Let search results tell readers what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osborn Corners, Ohio

A location by the name of "Osborn Corners" does not seem to pop up at this page, nor any place at all (much less one in Ohio). Utopes (talk / cont) 05:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikidata item for Osborn Corners in this township, Osborn Corners (Q122546244). However, I'm not sure what you mean by "pop up"; that it's not mentioned on the Bath Township page, or something else. Kk.urban (talk) 06:37, 4 March 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) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kk.urban: The location of "Osborn Corners" does not appear anywhere at the target page, and "Osborn Corners" does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Meant to address this earlier. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. While it's true that Osborn Corners doesn't show up in Wikipedia except for said township, a few google searches do turn up Osborn Corners being a real location in Ohio-- including Google Maps, which notably has a pin for it as a 7 minute drive from its pin for Bath Township. I'd say that redirecting Osborn Corners to where Bath Township is tracks-- what we probably need is a reference to Osborn Corners added to the Bath Township page, not the redirect deleted. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should probably be mentioned at the target since as noted it does show up on Google Maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Americanas

There are 41 different topics named Americana at the disambiguation page, which this retail chain does not happen to be located on. Lojas Americanas is the only title that includes the "plural" version in the title, but it seems to me as if many of the singular pages can also be interpreted as a plural, which could possibly warrant a target-pull. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's clear the nominator has not done a full BEFORE here as every single hit on the first seven pages of my google search (I didn't look further) is related to the current target, which is referred to as just "Americanas" in the article (although this could be more explicit). The article also notes that the brand's website is americanas.com.br and the operating company is "Americanas SA". Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, I DID search this before, and apparently got vastly different results than you. The Brazilian chain did come up, but "Lojas Americanas" was only the first/third/ninth result for me, and S.A. Americanas was the tenth. The second result was Google Maps, consisting of multiple "Americanas" locations that weren't Lojas. The fourth result was for "Americana Manhasset", the fifth result was "The Americana at Brand (in CA)", the sixth result was Wikipedia page for Americana (culture), the seventh result was for Palm City Americanas (with the s, a sports club), and the eighth result was for Merriam Webster's definition of "Americana".
Refining the search with just hits for the plural "(Americanas)" did make the results more Brazil-oriented, but not to the extent you described, as there were still other websites sprinkled in such as Palm City's. Wanted to bring it here because at the end of the day this was still the plural form of a disambiguation page with many entries, some of which can be referred to with this title, so it wouldn't hurt to bring it here to seek input. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf. I'll be honest, I was about to recommend deletion before I read Thryduulf's comment, went "There's no way, that has to be some sort of Google-grabbing-local-data thing" (despite Thryduulf, upon further investigation, being British according to his user page), before I searched myself and got the exact same result of the first few results being nothing but Lojas Americanas.
    That said, adding a hatnote to Americana to the target wouldn't be a bad idea. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote works. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm from, in Brazil, there are stores that are simply titled "Americanas". Brazilians have come to refer to these stores using the term "Americanas" as a shorthand. For example, when talking about where to go shopping, we tend to say, "Let's go to Americanas," without specifically mentioning "Lojas." Cathodography (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Focus Team

"Focus team" is never mentioned at the target page, and the sparing mentions of "focus" and "team" are not in context of any sort of Focus Team. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've also gone ahead and bundled "Liberal Alliance Focus Team", which has even less mentions of "focus" or "team", i.e. zero mentions in any capacity. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm gonna just comment since I'm the one who created them but the reason i created the redirects is because it is a distinct description used for dozens of candidates fielded by those parties in the 1970s and 80s TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bimrad metro station

"Bimrad" is not mentioned at the target article; Bimrad metro is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Unhelpful for people that search this term to end up at a page without relevant content. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sutorius junquilleus

A species name which used to be, but is no longer mentioned at the target article. Was changed without edit summaries in May 2020 to the title of this redirect; the editor that made these changes was later blocked after repeated warnings for a different situation. These silent changes were later reverted in 2023, due to no discussion of the change to begin with from 2020. The relationship to this name is still unclear, and unhelpful due to no mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Synonym of Neoboletus junquilleus ([5]), which doesn't have an article. As the target explains, junquilleus is similar to, and has been considered a synonym of pseudosulphureus, but is currently regarded as a distinct species. Plantdrew (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in agreement with Plantdrew. From what I see it has a number of synonyms, none of which are the target article. [6] [7] [8] Naming mushroom species and keeping track of those names seems very fraught. ― Synpath 21:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food street

As noted by the page mover, the term "food street" can be highly ambiguous and exist all over the globe, evidenced from searching "food streets" on Wikipedia. Street food looks like the most suitable term out there, which branches off into Street food of Mumbai, Street food of Chennai, etc, although perhaps there is a difference between this and the multiple food streets, such as Gawalmandi Food Street or VV Puram Food Street, etc. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Food Street to the nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Street food since the concept of "food streets" seem to be explained there, though the top/lead section is not too clear regarding explaining that both concepts (food sold on streets, and the streets which the food is found) are present in the article. (The article may need a bit of a rewrite or some splitting into another article, but it seems at the present time, the concept as defined by the redirects is present in Street food.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamics of nanostructures

The redirect should be deleted. The name of the page was an error, it appears that an editor thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics which it is not. The page has been changed to the more appropriate title Thermal transport in nanostructures. The redirect is incorrect, as it is not on thermodynamics, so would take readers in the wrong direction. I cannot find an actual page on thermodynamics in nanostructures, so it should be removed for the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now as an {{R from move}}, unless the phrase clashes with another topic. The article has used the former title for almost ten years and may become hard to find without the redirect. ― Synpath 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the old name is misleading -- that should matter most. The science clashes. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 10 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    N.B., the redirect is comparable to having a redirect from "Star" "Satellite" to "Milky Way" -- misleading without rationale. Please check the article content. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how misleading the redirect really is. As far as I understand, the physics of thermal transport would be a subset of thermodynamics. If I'm hopelessly wrong there, then sure, it might be harmful enough to delete. Even then, I don't think that this is wholly unreasonable thing to be mistaken about (hence a useful redirect).
    Regardless, deleting the redirect would break several internal links, which are easy to fix, but one should do that ahead of deletion. External links might exist as well, but that's more difficult to assess. I'd say that the redirect should be left alone for a month or three to see if it becomes unused. If that is established then it may make sense to revisit deleting this, but it still seems WP:CHEAP to keep around. ― Synpath 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but yup, you are very wrong. Thermal transport is exactly what it says, how heat via vibrations (phonons) or electrons is transmitted from one place to another, for instance compare copper to an insulator such as glass wool. The topic is relevant as it changes at the nanoscale.
    Thermodynamics is all about what phase you have and how it varies with composition, temperature, pressure, gas environment etc. For instance why you can melt ice by adding salt to it, the solution freezes at a much lower temperature. Thermodynamics at the nanoscale is important, but has nothing to do with heat transfer. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security & Privacy

Refers to the wrong journal (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/24756725) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've combined these two nominations that had identical rationales. Thryduulf (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DhK

Seemingly unlikely for DhK to be more associated with Dhaka than with the DHK disambiguation. As far as I can tell, none of the pages there have a need to capitalize the K at the end. Granted, Dhk is a redirect to Dhaka, and DHk was created at the same time and seems more fine as a double capital in a three letter acronym. But going "capital lowercase capital" feels too specific to warrant one target, and is probably better pointed at the disambig page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as it turns out, the same person made all three so it's not like a long-term consensus, so I'm going to bundle them all here. DHK has a few other options for targeting, even if Dhaka is the biggest article on the page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater War

Is never called the "Greater War" at the target article. All uses of the word "greater" (all two of them) are not (neither) in the context of wars. Without context, this redirect could be seen as subjective and/or confusing. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reliable sources all seem to use this term to describe either WWI or conflicts (including WWI) in the first quarter of the 20th century, e.g. 1908-24 [9], 1914-24 [10], 1914-18 [11], 1914-18 [12], 1911-23 [13]. The first of those links is to a series of books (none cover the entire period) that might be notable, but even if it isn't there isn't a single article we have that would be the correct target for all of these meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have personally never seen or heard it called this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entire reason we stopped referring to WW1 as the Great War was because WW2 matched it- not exceeded it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sa'idAban ibn Taghlib ibn Rubah al-Kindi

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 page. Typo has been fixed. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target's full name is Abu Sa'id Aban ibn Taghlib ibn Rubah al-Kindi, note the additional space. Rusalkii (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii:, it could be worth moving this without a redirect to that title, is that what you were preferring? I agree with that outcome ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't have the right or I'd have just done it myself. Rusalkii (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just do that here then, should be fine 👌 Utopes (talk / cont) 04:42, 18 March 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).

Eomys orientalis

A particular species that is not mentioned at the stub of the genus it points to. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator Lenticel, it is not customary for articles to created for individual species of extinct animals, only entire genera. Anonymous 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info. However, I did see some potential references during my GSearch so I thought one can make a stub out of it. --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at target. It is not customary to have articles for fossil species, but it also isn't customary to create redirects for them. It would be better to make sure that the list of species in the genus article is up-to-date than to create redirects for species that aren't mentioned in the genus article. Eomys quercyi has some incoming links; Eomys orientalis does not. No other Eomys species have redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idealwise separated

Not actually defined at target (but mentioned at Local criterion for flatness). 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget: As redirecting to a different criterion where this notion happens to be used seems a little odd to me, I created an entry for the term at Glossary of commutative algebra. It probably makes sense to retarget there. Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yar Chally

Neither "Yar" nor "Chally" are mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Yar Chally" is the romanization of the city's Tatar name, Яр Чаллы, which is mentioned in the article. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 03:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, interesting. @WeaponizingArchitecture: It could be worthwhile to put the romanization somewhere next to such name to add context for people that click on/use this term, and why it targets the place that it does? If a mention is added I'd be good to withdraw this. ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 04:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one added to the article a while ago next to the IPA transliteration, dunno what happened to it. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 04:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelfia (roman noble)

Incorrect spelling, capitalization, and grammar. Was at this page for a few minutes until moved. And come to think of it the page should probably be merged to Sarcophagus of Adelphia, since she's only known from that... Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as the capitalization is wrong and improbable to be searched for; but the spelling is correct—the Latin inscription is the source of the spelling, and if it's misspelled, then people might be expected to search under that spelling. I don't see any issue with the grammar, except insofar as "Roman" should be capitalized; but that's not a separate problem. I haven't looked into merging, but the argument seems reasonable, if the sarcophagus is her source of notability. This isn't the right place to discuss a merger, but you could just be bold and merge them if there's no obvious objection. That should only affect the target of a redirect, but the redirect should be properly capitalized if we're to take it as a plausible search term. P Aculeius (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Bridge of Words

This is a book anthology that does not appear, nor is it ever alluded to at the target translator's article. It's currently linked via a hatnote on the Bridge of Words article as the only incoming link to this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Höfler

I don't believe this person's name is ever spelled with the "ö", and they're American so this doesn't seem like a likely mistake from a language that does have it. Rusalkii (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, my search also confirms this conclusion. The redirect has zero lifetime pageviews as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human respect

For such a broad concept, it seems as if this search term would be for people looking for respect (with respect to humans), i.e. just the contents of Respect. Human respect does not seem more particularly associated with a non-profit in Sacramento than it would be with just, respect in the general sense. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment, since the redirect/page did not previously exist, and given WP:CHEAP, i did not think there was much of a problem here. I created a new redirect though that uses the exact phrase that is associated with this particular group, "philosophy of human respect" as a new redirect. If that full phrase, which seems predominantly to be used by this group, is preferred, then I suppose we could delete "human respect" by itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the WP:CHEAP aspect; a useful redirect that exists is always more preferred than a useful redirect that does not exist. Once a useful redirect exists, it'd be a waste to delete it per WP:CHEAP. However, as long as it exists, it's most beneficial to ensure that it leads to the most likely target for that title. "Human respect", in my eyes, seems to be a likely search term. Now that we have it, I feel like the most expectable location for this title would be the page for Respect as a general page for a general term, rather than at the Sacramento non-profit. If "human respect" is strongly correlated with the non-profit as opposed to "respect", a hatnote could be warranted then. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White International

The word "International" is not mentioned at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we tripped over each other nominating this one. My original deletion rationale: I don't believe the Russian emigres are commonly referred to in this way. Google gives mostly a couple different similarly named trucking companies which I don't believe we have pages for. This is linked twice, both in the context of a early 20th century political movement which I don't think is closely tied to Russian emigres and would need context on the target page in any case. Rusalkii (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Utopes and Rusalkii. Has this 'page gets simultaneously nominated by two editors' thing happened before? lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_18&oldid=1214642548"