Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lunamann (talk | contribs) at 11:18, 19 April 2024 (→‎Heil mein Führer!: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2024.

Moira Sullivan (Smallville)

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While not directly mentioned with the surname, the character Moira is mentioned at Smallville season 6#ep128, though only appears in that one episode. The character's name in full is listed at Lynda Carter#Filmography and Superman (franchise)#Recurring cast, so I would suggest retarget to that episode description or to Lynda Carter's article, though leaning closer to the episode description as it does offer more details on this character and Carter's role than the other two sections do. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Trailblazer101, as the character is mentioned at the target. Given the disambiguator it makes more sense to target the TV season article than the other suggested targets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth discussion where the (currently salted due to someone else with the same name) Moira Sullivan should point, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Baldwin (Coronation Street)

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Linda Baldwin is an alternative name for Linda Sykes listed at the target article. While the name was updated at some point in the list (it used to say Baldwin), the redirect was not. Now updated. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, maybe refine target to the Linda Sykes section. This didn't need to be relisted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

When I nominated this title in 2015 (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Jeez), the result was "delete", even though I had suggested redirecting to the Wiktionary page, which existed when I created the discussion in 2015. Of course, this does not make this redirect eligible for WP:G4 since the redirect did not target Wiktionary back then, but no participants, besides myself, had voted for retargeting to Wiktionary. For this reason, I'm bringing this up for discussion to see if the redirect should be re-deleted, kept in its current form, or something else. (For consistency's sake, I support the previous consensus ... "delete".) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems harmless enough and gets you to the right target. I'm unsure why Wiktionary lists "Jeez" as an alternate spelling of "Geez", and then turns around and defines "Geez" as a minced oath for "Jesus"-- the minced oath part is correct, but I'd think that "Jeez" would be the primary spelling, given it's closer to the spelling of "Jesus". Maybe "Geez" is older or something?
Interestingly enough, Geez actually redirects to Ge'ez, aka Classical Ethiopian, with not a single mention of a minced oath (though it does hatnote to Geez (magazine).) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As long as Template talk:Wiktionary redirect is extant, I see no reason to delete this. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay

Salt evasion of Oncotype_DX. Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this was accepted through AfC in 2012 and BLAR'd in 2017, while Oncotype DX was salted at the same time in 2017, so not salt evasion. Unless there was something visible in the deleted histories that you saw, @Pppery:. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. That matches what I can see. Still not mentioned at the target, though, so should still be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't salt evasion then, it should be restored and sent to AfD if non-notable, as this is an article which made it through AfC by User:Graeme Bartlett and survived as a standalone topic for years, before being BLAR'd into a page without mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero landing

Page has no (non-tangentially) relevant content. If someone can find a page that talks about these then I'd support a retarget, but for now, I'm leaning delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm most familiar with the term from the Deadpool films but none of our series of related articles mentions this, and it's not specific enough to this franchise for a {{R without mention}}. The phrase appears in Carrot and Stick, an episode of Better Call Saul, but doesn't describe what it is at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrot and stick? I don't think reliable sources analyzed the title. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Carrot and Stick (capital S). The phrase is quoted in a description of a stunt performed on the TV show. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know, but I don't think reliable sources analyzed that part to be about the expression, and we have a link to the expression anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Juniors Marathi

No mention of any programming with this title at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jau Bai Gavat Unseen

This seems to be a piece of programming, although it is not mentioned or discussed at the target article, and creates the picture that we have something about this topic when we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basilan Unity Party

No mention of "Unity" or this party at the target page, people searching for this topic will not receive any information about this at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asenso Abrenio is another example of an undiscussed party that was recently deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I luv u

With multiple pages on the I Love You page that spell love as "luv", someone's anal tattoo is certainly not the primary topic for a shortened version of the most common phrase in the English language. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hornless unicorn

Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general WP:SYNTH explanation for horse. Unicorn, Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated horse with a horn (which points to unicorn). We also have horned horse and magic horse for consideration. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with Unicorn and Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.
  • Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
  • Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead
If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly[by whom?] "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn. Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as incorrect and unused. A hornless unicorn is not a horse. Maybe it's a unicorn whose horn has been cut off, or one which was [fictitiously] born without a horn (an anomaly). But it has nothing to do with a horse. Horse article doesn't mention unicorns. If you must keep the redirect, send it to Unicorn. Leaving it as a redirect to Horse is an uncited definition (WP:OR), which is also an incorrect meaning. If it was in Wiktionary, I'd say redirect it there, but it's not. There is no article in Wikipedia which uses this redirect. There is a single article which refers to a "hornless unicorn" (linked to Unicorn), and it is a creature on a tomb monument, which can be seen here. Delete.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this isn't ambiguous whatsoever. "Unicorns aren't real" is not a reason to delete this redirect; what matters is that people know what a unicorn is, and more importantly, know what a unicorn looks like and how that appearance relates to horses. My mind goes to the word games that non-fluent people sometimes resort to when they don't know the word for something-- the anecdote of someone in a grocery store, wanting chicken, not knowing the word for "chicken", picking some eggs up, heading to an employee, and asking, "Where's the mother?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:NN

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Honestly, I have no idea how this WP:XNR survived RfD. "Cat:" is not a pseudo-namespace. Looking at WP:Shortcut#List of prefixes, "Cat:" appears nowhere. It is not widely accepted, it is nowhere accepted. CAT:NN has existed since 2006. This lowercase version was created in 2020. The RfD said "keep because it is used widely in links" which is simply entirely incorrect. The search result provided then, showed usage of EXCLUSIVELY the uppercase variant. From a quantitative perspective, CAT:NN has 500+ links. Cat:NN has zero, besides the deletion notifications. If someone wants to campaign for the existence of a new lowercase "Cat" namespace, that should be done before the existence of these redirects. (Which as per Pandora's WikiBox, the existence of one has since introduced two more also bundled). Utopes (talk / cont) 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misleading, found no kitties inside the namespace. More seriously, having lowerspace variants of pseudo-namespaces would be unmaintainable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only made this two because of the existence of Cat:NN and because using caps lock sucks on phones, you're more than welcome to speedy them under author requests deletion so we don't have to drag this out for a week. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment! I was kind of confused why those two came about. A discussion seems inevitable though at minimum for Cat:NN as that was kept a few months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cat:prod averages about 2 pageviews each day, since it's convenient to just keyboard type lowercase stuff. However the search thing "redirects" capitalization already anyways Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat:prod was created a month ago. I'm not surprised that it gets views because CAT:PROD also gets a substantial amount of views, and people type in lowercase expecting to autocorrect by the software (which it does). If redirects are meant to optimize view-numbers, we'd get rid of capitals entirely. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed adoodie

Gag name not mentioned at the target article. Additionally, I have not found any mention of it on this list (although it is user-generated and could be incomplete).

A variant of this gag name had been used in the Simpsons episode 24 Minutes according to the article, but spelt as 'Ahmed Adoudi'. Regardless, I am unsure that this joke name is notable enough to be a redirect to any articles involving this. Xeroctic (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Labour Party (historical)

A spelling variation of recently deleted Democratic Labor Party (historical). Likely not the same case as the Labor vs Labour spelling distinction has proven to represent different parties, but this disambiguation still might not be the most helpful as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heil mein Führer!

Already exists in a similar form at Heil, mein Fuhrer!, not sure if this iteration would be useful. Deauthorized. (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joever

Per WP:SSRT. Do we really need to include such 4-chan internet slang with no encyclopedic value, a "word" not used in any articles? Fram (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as creator per WP:CHEAP. Duckmather (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's not joever til it's joever, and that entry is goated with the sauce
...apologies for whatever that was, and for the somewhat hidden pun. keep as there are sources cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.3

Non-existent version of Windows, in fact, Windows 8.2 doesn't exist either. Not the first time this happens, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Draft:Windows 8.4 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Draft:Windows 8.25 for previous speedy deletes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 exist. There is an 8.3 filename page you could retarget this to if you really wanted to as it is from Windows but I don't think that would be helpful. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not a thing and therefore an extremely improbable search term. TarnishedPathtalk 06:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten News First Late

Inaccurate names inconsistent with current and former usage. Particularly the combination of "Ten Late News and Sports Tonight", in reality a branded sports segment within the main program. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

From previous discussions (in 2013 and 2016), three pages have come up as potential valid redirect targets for this page, List of lists of lists, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists, and Category:Lists.

The current target, List of lists of lists, is in the same namespace, but it's not a complete "list of lists" as not all lists on Wikipedia are listed in "Lists of X" articles, and it's a "list of lists of lists" rather than a direct "list of lists." Next, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists has an approachable format and it's a "list of lists" rather than a "list of lists of lists," but it is also incomplete. And finally, Category:Lists is a complete "list of lists," but it's a category.

I propose that a disambiguation page be created containing these three pages as they all have their pros and cons, making none of them suitable as the sole redirect target. – BrandonXLF (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death is a preferable alternative to communism

This isn't mentioned in the slightest in the target article. I assume it's a game quote but given the total lack of sourcing, a redirect such as this is confusing and should be deleted. Try Wikiquote instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's a quote in the game, popular among people who think it "goes hard" and love missing the point and context of lines like this. plenty of hits, though, i won't deny
my opinion mirrors that of the gorbino's quest rfd a few days ago. keep if a mention can be made, weak delete otherwise
for possible sources, i uhhhh
found this? not gonna comment on its reliability because i'm not a fallout nerd (yet) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indeed a quote from Liberty Prime, a giant robot who throws full-size nuclear bombs like footballs while spouting off anti-communist propaganda slogans. Given Liberty Prime is afforded all of one sentence in this article (merely attesting to its existence and role in the story), it's probably safe to delete this. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ductal

Ductal is a product of Lafarge but isn't mentioned on the article at all. The redirect exists due to a 2015 deletion discussion of the article [1], I believe a redirect to duct would be better given ductal is the adjectivial form of duct. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer)

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct World

I noticed several redirects at RfD disambiguated with Extinct World - The Lich, BMO, Ice King, Gunter, etc., and wanted to know what this is. However, this too turned out to be a redirect which led to an episode which had no information about the term.

The episode plot has a link to Finn the Human and Jake the Dog which has a mention of extinction of all life, but this too is insufficient to justify a redirect like Extinct World which is a generic term (not considering the caps). Delete. Jay 💬 05:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jay. The name "Extinct World" is fan-dubbed and is not ever mentioned in the show; even if it was, I doubt the notability and necessity of the supposed redirect and it may too trivial. I believe the name is too general and it is totally possible that it can refer to something more notable. Delete. - George6VI (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Animals in Media

XNR to non-template. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National culture

"National culture" is mentioned on the target page, but it isn't a subhead, and this seems to me to be a strange article to redirect this to. I'm not sure someone who searches for "national culture" will understand why they're on this page. I'm not excited about any of the alternatives I considered (Nationalism?), maybe someone here has a better idea? asilvering (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Cultural nationalism? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze, everybody clap your hands!

The addition of "Freeze" means that it can't be confused with Live at Tokyo Dome, but despite that, without a mention of this lyric, we don't have anything for readers that search the specific lyric of "everybody clap your hands" instead of the song itself. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fil d'Ecosse

Created with the edit summary of "red". Might've been a solution to a red link at the time? No pages link to this title, and neither "fil" nor "ecosse" appear at the target article. Apparently an alternate language, the only mention of "fil d'ecosse" on Wikipedia is as a cotton variation, i.e. Cotton lisle, or "fil d'ecosse cotton". Utopes (talk / cont) 23:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the term is written in French, so if borrowed back into English, that would make sense if it originated in the French city of Lille (Lisle). This cotton thread is mercerised (gone through mercerisation),[2][3] a process invented by John Mercer, someone of Scottish heritage [4] . This "Fil d'Ecosse" == Scottish thread. Also seems to be used in Scottish cotton goods. So, the correct target would seem to be Cotton lisle. Cotton lisle needs updating to mention mercization [5] -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cotton lisle, where the term is at least mentioned, though that article could indeed do with being expanded. Also note that there is another redirect Fil d'Écosse (with correct French capitalisation of the diacritic) created at the same time as this one and that should be kept in sync with it. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factor through

Neither "factor" nor "through" are mentioned at the target article. Hypothetically this seems to be much more plausible as a redirect to Factoring or Factorization, but even then this may not be incredibly necessary for either... Utopes (talk / cont) 21:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Factoring through" is a mathematical English idiom for situations in which the Fundamental theorem on homomorphisms applies. See, e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (one site but many users); it likely also appears in standard abstract algebra texts, e.g. Dummit and Foote, or Lang; and some quick Ctrl+F's show that Pete Clark's expositions use the term, although never with a clear definition. It is certainly unfortunate that this usage does not appear on the current target, although I think this is a flaw in that page and not the redirect.
I do not think Factoring or Factorization are appropriate retargets. Those appear to mainly discuss decompositions as some sort of explicit product, which cannot in general be done for quotient objects (unless you count a short exact sequence as a "product"). Moreover, they focus on integers and polynomials. If I have ever heard the phrase "factor through" applied to numbers, I do not remember it. On the other hand, I may have heard distribution in polynomial arithmetic described that way.
A less surprising target might be Glossary of mathematical jargon § factor through, although I personally find that target less useful (for one thing, the phrase is hardly restricted to "category theory"; for another, the definition fails to make the connection to the Fundamental Theorem explicit). Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Hodge

Not discussed at target with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Larissa Hodge, we have information on this person and it's found at this target. It doesn't matter that it's very little information - this is what we have and that's where it is. Delete the others as they are unsourced alternates and nicknames and also not described at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_17&oldid=1219711998"