Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DMacks (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 22 May 2024 (→‎Potassium heptafluoroniobate: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

May 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2024.

Brain rot

Brain rot does not seem to be a common synonym for Alzheimer's disease. Most sources use the term to refer to internet content that reduces its consumer's mental faculties, like attention span. Even if brain rot is taken literally, that term would span much farther than just Alzheimer's. Based5290 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: FYI Brainrot also redirects to Alzheimer's disease. I can't see any evidence of the literal term brain "rot" ever being used in the context of Alzheimer's. See this journal which explains it. I think the redirect should be deleted but a new article about the more modern term could probably be written. Clearfrienda 💬 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundling in Brainrot. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Brain rot is a term that casually refers to, quoting wiktionary, "The degradation of mental faculties, intelligence, common sense, or moral character." It does not refer to the literal rotting of the brain in a physical sense such as how meat rots if not refrigerated. Google shows a recent trend towards using this term to specifically refer to "brain fog or lethargy resulting in too much screen time", but the term brain rot has been in use for well over a century... prominently, for example, it was used to describe the effect of reading comic books. Given the meaning of the phrase, I can understand why someone would create the redirect, but it definitely isn't the best target... I feel like moral panic is actually a better target than Alzheimer's, given how the term is actually used, but I'm expressly NOT saying we SHOULD retarget to moral panic since we don't actually discuss the term there (although I would not object to it being added there and THEN retargetting). I'm unsure where this could be best retargetted to, and if pressed, I'd lean towards either a crosswiki redirect to wiktionary or delete it outright, but again, I'm unsure, so I'll leave it as a comment for now. I expressly do !vote against the status quo however. Fieari (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt. It is commonly used enough term, but unless an article on the term is made, wikt provides an explanation. I oppose redirecting to Digital media use and mental health § Social media and mental health since the term appears to have a bigger scope than mental health. Ca talk to me! 01:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per above. This seems to be a more generic term than specifically Alzheimer's disease, but I'm not sure what there is to say (apart from a dictdef) in an encyclopedic context. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia

Editor-coined term for a since-merged series of events. Not in usage anywhere outside of Wikipedia mirrors. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is not a named event nor are the events that the former article referred to independently notable. No good reason to keep this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use EMR

"EMR" is a dab page so this can refer to anything, and the destination is not primary. Not a likely search term for readers. Searching this redirect term comes up with multiple different "EMRs" being used while the East Midlands Railway article does not refer to this term. So delete. DankJae 21:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this sounds like it could be a tagline from an ad campaign, but it isn't in the article and doesn't show up on Google search. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macra (rivers)

As far as I can see, there's only one river known (in Roman times) as Macra, and that's Magra (and even that claim is unsourced). I've removed a claim at the translated page Maira (river) because it isn't present in the source of the translation [[1]]. And anyway Macra (river) is red, so delete both these redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall (specifically from Nostalgia Critic)

don't see why they should have different targets. inclined to retarget the former to nostalgia critic cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, wait a minute
i was looking at the wrong article
disregard previous prompt, retarget the latter to doug walker (masayoshi shido lookalike) as it's not mentioned in the nostalgia critic article (and as the reception section it supposedly anchors to no longer exists)
my bad cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Umar ibn Sahlan as-Sawi

I am not good at Islamic naming or there about but I can find any clue with this particular redirect. It is also a near close and unlikely when searched on web browsers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potassium heptafluoroniobate

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 due to conversion to its own viable article. Huge thanks to User:Smokefoot who did so on short notice. DMacks (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not mention this other chemical. It's been 8 years since redirect was created as a temp placeholder for an article. No prejudice against someone actually writing it at any time. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These are two different compounds. No reason for a redirect. The one in the title is quite obscure, so an article is unlikely, unless someone will be attracted by this discussion. --Викидим (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a day or two. I hope to convert the redirect into a proper article. NbF72- is among the more important compounds of niobium. (Always amusing how nonchemists quickly weigh in on this kind of discussion) --Smokefoot (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am always genuinely happy whenever my ignorance spurs some action. I am keeping my !vote since it does not matter in this case if the article will be built from scratch or out of an 8-year-old redirect, as the initial author will be the same, but can change it to wait if this can make life simpler for anyone. Викидим (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smokefoot. I'll add an article outline to help you get started. --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to keep (there is some nontrivial text now below the redirect, worth preserving). --Викидим (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlify All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:05, 22 May 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).

Template:Edit-Protected

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. Clearly the issue lies with the base templates and not with the redirects that point to them. Will refocus my efforts in that direction. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were all created before other editing protections were anything other than semiprot was available, but are now vaguely titled and (as far as I can tell) no longer used to actually request edits to fully-protected pages (I have yet to see one after about 2015). I retargeted these redirects to the dab template {{request edit}} and was in the process of updating usage but the action was contested, which is why we're here. I will of course fix extant uses if this goes through. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that I discovered this RfD through using one of these redirects to request an edit. I know what {{Edit fully-protected}} is though. I don't think these redirects being changed will confuse anybody, unless maybe they're so ancient that they don't know there's multiple protection levels yet. Retarget. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no strong opinion on what should happen here, but the premise of this nom is slightly faulty; When "Editprotected (the original title of the "Edit fully protected" template) was created in January 2006, semi-protection had been introduced the previous month. The separate semi-protection template was created in July 2008. Graham87 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my mistake. Amended my statement. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh probably keep all these -- edit requests are an important check on the protection system; unless there is something actually wrong leaving all these plausible typo's isn't something I'm worried about. — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, I'm not looking to delete them, I'm looking to replace and retarget them. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit lost then - for example Template:Editrequest goes to Template:Edit fully-protected (and has since 2017); if someone uses it it will get the edit request open -- you want to change it to Template:Request edit which will not enqueue the edit for review, but put more work on the requester? I'm not sure that is going to help get the edit reviewed better. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone uses the wrong template, do we not encourage them to use the correct template? (alternately, if there is a "better" template, should we not tell them it exists?) When {{request edit}} was moved to {{edit COI}} there was a period of transition where folks were using the wrong template, but that has stopped and now the latter template is properly used by folks with a COI (most of the time). Someone asking for an "edit request" should be informed that there are multiple types of edit request; after all, we regularly change {{adminhelp}} into {{helpme}} when the request does not require and admin, and I have on multiple occasions changed a {{TPER}} into an {{EPER}} when the protection level was marked incorrectly. We should have names for templates that reflect what they do (that's why dabs existin the first place), and an "edit request" template doesn't reflect what it does. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the best in this case, I think these are often invoked by very new editors. Wonder if we have any workflows that are calling the wrong template for them? — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "do we not encourage them" - depends what we mean by "correct" and "encourage". I was always in favour of replacing (most) template redirects with the target, whenever making other edits, so that the examples one sees in the corpus reflect the desired (hopefully readable) usage. This is without prejudice to typing shortcuts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep all Since the target template autodetects the protection level which template used is really a distinction without a difference. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, genuinely curious, if the target template autodetects the protection level... why do we even have five different templates? Primefac (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nice in weird cases where the autodetection doesn't work (of which raw HTML messages are the only one I can think of) to be able to use |force=yes and say "I really mean this level". But I guess that would work with |force=interfaceadmin too. I think the real reason is that the protection-level detection postdates the creation of both {{Edit fully-protected}} and {{edit semi-protected}} by several years, and the other three were created to match the first two. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per both xaosflux and Pppery. The templates already autodetect the proper protection level, and dumping the contents of a disambiguation page when someone transcludes the wrong thing is far less helpful. I'd go even further and change Template:Request edit to also auto-detect the proper level instead of dumping unclear disambiguation text into the talk page when transcluded. Anomie⚔ 12:29, 22 May 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).

Mohamed ben Issa

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 Closed by nominator. Went for a disambiguation (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple potentially notable Mohamed ben Issa known, both ancient and modern, so the references to al-Hadi do not use this abbreviation. I did not find a single source that had refereed to the target in this abbreviated way. Delete to avoid confusion. Викидим (talk) 05:05, 21 May 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).

Shinichi Tanaka (rugby)

Suggest deleting per WP:RETURNTORED. Only linked to from its own target. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.2

Windows 8.2 does not exist, and does not refer to Windows 10. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous RfD. I know it was 9 years ago and Wikipedia:Consensus can change, but the arguments made back then are still convincing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_21&oldid=1225139405"