[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 27, 2022.

Police Judge[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. ✗plicit 01:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Recently created with one incoming link; a piped link to the current target may be more appropriate instead of going through this redirect. Either add sourced mention to current target, retarget to where it is presently linked and delink there (though the cited reference does not mention the term either), or delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2022 (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.

SBS Mobile 24[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#SBS Mobile 24

The fair share sequence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#The fair share sequence

Fair share[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Fair share

Righteous revenge[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and target unclear. In addition, third party results primarily return results for book titles and a subject about a 1919 Korean film alternatively titled "Fight for Justice" that seems to not have an article on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2022 (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.

Final customer[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2022 (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.

Plates of meat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Plates of meat

הוהי[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#הוהי

אגוטיזם[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. ✗plicit 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE there is no special affinity between the Hebrew language and the concept of egotism. TartarTorte 19:32, 27 September 2022 (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.

Pc errors[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 Error message, and created the singular version Pc error as suggested below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one, Pc error, the singular version, doesn't exist and has never existed. For two, errors on PCs aren't exclusive to software; also, another error that may occur in a PC is a Bus error. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2022 (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.

Steps To Reproduce[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 Debugging#Debugging process. Jay 💬 19:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It seems that Steps To Reproduce was previously a stub article created in 2010 with an improperly capitalised title and no references before it blanked and redirected shortly later by an unregistered user (possibly the creator of the article). The content does not appear to have been merged. Although the "steps to reproduce [a bug]" constitutes a related subtopic, the capitalisation suggests a proper noun which isn't specified, and the properly formatted title of this subtopic, steps to reproduce, does not exist and has not previously existed. However, the phrase "steps to reproduce" is used in a relevant context at Game testing and Release notes. – Scyrme (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with all the other deletes, but this one is probably okay to keep. It's conceivable to me that this could later change to a redirect to a more appropriate target, or even become its own article again. Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "steps to reproduce" is a recipe or a procedure -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who refers to recipes as "steps to reproduce"? That seems like a massive stretch. I could see "step to reproduce" referring a procedure... but the procedure in question would be the procedure to reproduce a bug or error. Other procedures are typically referred by other terms.
    Literally every search result I get on Google for the first 10 pages relates to debugging and software development (in some cases, specifically web or game development). – Scyrme (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The least-bad target is probably Debugging#Debugging process, which begins Normally the first step in debugging is to attempt to reproduce the problem. Deletion isn't wrong either. I'd expect to see the phrase on a bug report form: an implied question seeking an answer such as "type '-1' in the Salary field then click Submit". Certes (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Debugging § Debugging process - The phrase "steps+to+reproduce" is well attested with over 10 million results on Google, and refers to a subtopic relevant to the debugging process. I've adjusted the wording of that section to explicitly include the exact phrase. I'd also support creating steps to reproduce and redirecting it to this section. – Scyrme (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Scyrme. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2022 (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.

Bug/Glitch[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 💬 19:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY: Software bug and Glitch are two separate subjects/articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2022 (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.

Where the term "Computer bug" originated from[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 💬 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather clunky phrase that is unlikely and possibly unhelpful due to WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of the term is covered in Software bug § History, but this redirect is formatted like a Google search, which I don't think is appropriate for the title of a redirect page. Perhaps there's a better phrase that could be turned into an appropriate redirect for the topic, but I can't think of one. Regardless, this one should be deleted; it's similar to redirecting Place where the King of England lives to Windsor Castle or Where jazz originated from to United States. – Scyrme (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (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 Mario jump & run games[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 💬 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only has one view with in the last 30 days. The only jump & run game I can think of is Super Mario Run. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also include:
List of Super Mario jump and run games
List of Super Mario jump & run games
Super Mario jump and run games
Super Mario jump & run games
List of Mario jump and run games
Mario jump and run games
and Mario jump & run games Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzaplayer219: Then you'll need to follow the RFD instructions to tag and officially nominate all of those; otherwise, the result of this discussion will not affect them. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 done. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzaplayer219: Not quite. I saw you tagged the redirects, but you didn't list them in this nomination using {{Rfd2}}. I took care of that issue in this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Someone really went overboard with these lol. Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2022 (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.

G-Wash[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, G5 by User:Ponyo Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely alias that I cannot find in use anywhere. In addition, the use of this term in third party search engines return results for cleaning products. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2022 (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.

Christmas bingo[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 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Christmas" is nowhere in the target article, meaning the subject of this redirect is not identified in the target article. However, this redirect is a {{R from merge}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas bingo which took place in 2007 (15 years ago). Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not a likely search term, as seen by the average of zero views it racks up. I don't believe there's anything to say on it anyways, it seems like a run of the mill holiday themed version of something. If you understand Bingo and understand Christmas, that should just about cover it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 28 September 2022 (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.

History of Bingo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#History of Bingo

Ghantsala[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 Ghantasala. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a spelling mistake, and there are no incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's possible to have a misspelling be a primary redirect, but it generally shouldn't be. Surely some users of this misspelling would be seeking one of the other entries on the dab page, but currently cannot easily get there due to a lack of a hatnote to the dab page. A normal {{Other}} hatnote shouldn't be employed per WP:NOTAMBIG; a {{Redirect}} hatnote like: "[misspelling]" redirects here. For other uses, see [correct spelling (disambiguation)] would just be awkward and confusing and I'm unaware of such a setup elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 27 September 2022 (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.

2026 Formula One World Championship[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 Formula One#Future. signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a single mention (sort of) of 2026 (saying new fuel and engine regulations will begin in 2025 or 2026), it is deep in the article, and there is of course no actual discussion of the 2026 season in the article as that is simply too far away. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 27 September 2022 (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.

Elizabeth II (Cars)[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 doesn't appear to be a consensus to re-add content related to Elizabeth at the target, ergo the outcome is delete signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target page, plus the character in question is only referred to as "The Queen" anyway (it has been a while since I've seen the terrible movie known as Cars 2). In other words, it's technically OR. Requesting deletion. TNstingray (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Regarding the point above, the character has like two minutes of screen time and is not plot significant beyond basically one scene at the end. There is an ongoing effort to pare down the list based on WP:FANCRUFT, among others. There is really no information that can be added other than, "this character is based on a real-life person," in which case we would have to add back so many other incredibly minor characters per the same reasoning that the effort would be worthless. TNstingray (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is really no information that can be added other than, "this character is based on a real-life person," in which case we would have to add back so many other incredibly minor characters per the same reasoning that the effort would be worthless. You said yourself that she has some plot-significance; surely, this can be handled in a single bullet point, no? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 27 September 2022 (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.

Mannerbunde[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 Kóryos#Männerbund. Jay 💬 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to link to Kóryos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_14#M%C3%A4nnerbund This is just an artifact of a diacritic's removal, and was not accounted for. I would also like to note that Männerbünde is in the same situation Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the actual meaning of the German term, a Männerbund was historically often a secret society, but not necessarily. Kóryos is an overarching concept as well. We do not have an exact article equivalent on the German de:Männerbund, that's why I think a redirect Kóryos#Männerbund would be the best solution.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 27 September 2022 (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.

Prime Minister of Guatemala[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 Politics of Guatemala. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent title, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Prime Minister of the United States. Privybst (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or retarget to Politics of Guatemala. I lean towards delete because "Prime+Minister+of+Guatemala" yields only a handful of results (only 1 of which appears to be a genuine hit, the others being Wiki clones or Q&A bots which autofill answers to procedurally generated questions), suggesting this isn't actually a common mistake and that retargeting it is probably being too charitable in trying to make it work somehow. However, if everyone else favour retargeting, at least Politics of Guatemala avoids an inaccurate and misleading false equivalence between "prime minister" and "president".
Regarding the equivalent role to Head of State, a "prime minister" is not a head of state; that role is filled by a president or monarch in a parliamentary system. This is precisely why false equivalences are misleading. – Scyrme (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (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.

Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)[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 18:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The targeted section no longer exists; plus, the characters name is "Bron-Char" with one n. TNstingray (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (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.

Velaric[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Velaric

IPod idog[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 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE nonsense. No idea what this is intended to mean. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Steel1945. The iDog doesn't appear to be related to the iPod. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an "official" iPod product, but it is related in that the iDog is/was intended for use with an mp3 player, especially the iPod; the smooth white design of the standard iDog was meant to complement the design of the standard iPod. One of the references at iDog even explicitly describes the product as an "iPod speaker". Many companies produce peripherals for products that they don't produce, so this not being an Apple product doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant. – Scyrme (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, and the fact that it's been wrongly targeted for 13 years without anyone noticing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I think it's plausible that someone would search "iPod iDog" looking for the iDog, since the two products have an informal association, but I don't have a strong opinion on whether that's a good enough reason to justify this redirect. Leaning delete because the correctly capitalised version, iPod iDog, does not exist and there's no particular reason to make an exception for the miscapitalised version. – Scyrme (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending delete, but one more relist seems appropriate given the still-close !vote count
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the iDog isn't associated with the iPod, and while you could use an iDog with an iPod I don't think that's enough to justify the redirect. I can't see much usage of the term on Google either. Hut 8.5 18:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I get 347,000 results when searching for the terms together, many of which explicitly refer to it as an "iPod speaker", "iPod accessory", or "companion for [the/your] iPod". I don't know what you would call that if not "associated". It's not formally or legally associated, but that doesn't mean it's not associated in a broader sense. – Scyrme (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2022 (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.

William H. Brooks[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 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this redirect is useful given the incredible obscurity of the subject and the commonness of the name "William H. Brooks" - I'm finding a Confederate colonel with a minor role at the Battle of Helena, a photographer with four works held by the National Gallery of Canada, a mayor of Norfolk, Virginia, and a corporate officer for Noranda Aluminum. I think just sending readers to the search results is much more useful in this case. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I regret making too many redirects in the past and when I initially saw this notification, was going to just G7 it. However, it appears to make sense in terms of the article it leads to. I can't decide either way so will lead it up to the community here. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he is the only William Brooks we have an article on with the middle initial H. If that changes at some point in the future a hatnote can be added to the other person and/or dab page. There is a William Henry Brooke who might be worth adding a hatnote to from the footballer's article (and if so, vice versa), but that's far enough away that retargetting there would not be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (along with William H Brooks) to reveal search results. The footballer is never referred to (AFAICT) by the name "William H. Brooks" so someone searching this is most assuredly looking for a different person. The Confederate and the horse trainer are particularly prominent. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 27 September 2022 (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.

Adventure Cradles[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 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what this means. I’ve look it up on google and nothing comes up. Nothing with the word “Adventure Cradles” come up on Wikipedia either. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:39, 27 September 2022 (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.

Fistfight[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 17:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page Fist Fight does not deal specifically with "fistfight". I think a soft redirect to wikt:fistfight might be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (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.

Deathsquad network[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 💬 18:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reason provided by the nominator. I'm not very familiar with guidelines surrounding the deletion of redirects, but it seems that criteria number eight of WP:R#DELETE would apply to the above rationale in that it "is not mentioned in the target". It's also worth noting that Duncan Trussell, Bert Kreischer, Joey Diaz, and Tom Segura are all part of the network as well. It also appears that the founder of the network is Brian Redban, but he stopped producing the Joe Rogan Experience in 2012. Considering there are multiple notable subjects associated with the network and the founder is no longer a part of the JRE, I would argue that WP:R#DELETE criteria number two or five also apply. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2022 (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.

Wikipedia:LTU[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Wikipedia:LTU

List of Paper Mario series characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#List of Paper Mario series characters

Paper Mario (Series) Characters[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 💬 17:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No specific list for all the characters in the paper Mario series. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:17, 27 September 2022 (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 Super Paper Mario[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 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such list anywhere. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:13, 27 September 2022 (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.

Pungry[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 💬 17:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this character in Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:10, 27 September 2022 (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.

Puni Elder[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 💬 17:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again no mention of this character in Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:09, 27 September 2022 (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.

Punio[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 18:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the character anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:06, 27 September 2022 (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.

Petuni[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 💬 17:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the character anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:05, 27 September 2022 (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.

Puniper[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 💬 17:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the species anywhere on Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:03, 27 September 2022 (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.

Ian Dingman (Disambiguation)[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. ✗plicit 13:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target not a disambiguation page, and the respective disambiguation page does not exist. (See Ian Dingman (disambiguation).) Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2022 (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.

Invest 98L[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 Invest (meteorology). ✗plicit 13:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequently reused term, it is too vague to be of use as a redirect. Drdpw (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case disambigs are called for. kencf0618 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either redirect, having linked Invest-98L in Hurricane Ian. kencf0618 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Invest 91-L and Invest 99-L redirect to that article, redirecting 98L there might work, except that the way the title is constructed, 98L could also be an airport runway designation. Drdpw (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could (and very likely am) incorrect, but I believe the highest number for an airport runway could be 36. TartarTorte 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - Runway#Naming begins Runways are named by a number between 01 and 36. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, runways only go up to 36: it's the heading in tens of degrees. [1] Certes (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (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.

Postback (Disambiguation)[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. ✗plicit 13:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target not a disambiguation page, and doesn't seem like the respective disambiguation page exists. (Postback (disambiguation) doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (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.

Template:Fo[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. ✗plicit 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came across only two instances where this template had been used, both times in error, e.g. mistyping {{For}}. No error message was displayed to draw attention to the failed edit. It would be better to have nothing here, so that such an error would display Template:Fo. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 27 September 2022 (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.

Wool Hat[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. ✗plicit 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely miscapitalization of the generic term "wool hat", which returns too many diverse search results to redirect to a specific article. No incoming links. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2022 (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.

Reality shift[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 18:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same place (and I note the term is mentioned in neither target so am leaning toward deleting both) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't know if it would help, but if it does, both were attempts at articles that got redirected: Reality shift and Reality shifts. BOZ (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article content at Reality shift was a gloasary entry for the terms use in role playing games, that at Reality shifts was actually a half-decent stub about a completely different concept - however there is a previously deleted, much longer article about that at Reality shift (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality shift). After skim-reading I'm not certain I agree with those who argued for deletion, but it was closed in accordance with the consensus of the discussion and the content at the plural title is at least arguably eligible for G4 deletion because of that. The content at the singular title (about the RPG term) was nominated for speedy deletion for failing to establish notability (correct), as a neologism (incorrect) and for being a potential recreation (it wasn't), it was then redirected to Reality shifts as a duplicate of that (also incorrect). Complicating matters further there are mentions of the term in several articles that are different to both. The term "reality shift" is used for multiple different concepts all of which are vaguely related to and/or partially overlap with at least one other use, and at least some of those are definitely notable. There is definitely scope for content here, but writing an article (or maybe multiple articles would better) about a messy bunch of overlapping concepts using the same terminology that brings enough clarity that it can survive an AfD nomination is going to be hard and I strongly advise anyone attempting that to avoid mainspace until it's already well developed. TL;DR: we don't currently have any content that would be a good redirect target and/or survive speedy deletion, and there is no Wiktionary entry to soft redirect to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to False memory#Mandela Effect which literally mentions the paranormal idea of a "reality shift" as the cause of collective false memories. If that would be too specific, it could at the very least be made into a disambiguation page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Change both redirects into a disambiguation page. I can't inspect the originally deleted article at Reality shift to assess its notability, but I nevertheless mostly agree with Thryduulf's argument above. However, as a consequence, I would opt to change both redirects into a disambiguation page rather than to delete them (because deleting a redirect implicitly raises the threshold for (re-)creation, so most once deleted entries will never be recreated even if the term "as is" is notable and would warrant an article or redirect at a later stage). At present the disambiguation page would have two entries, but as we find other aspects or even types of "reality shift" discussed in other articles (like various kinds of schizophernic or psychotic conditions resulting in the distortion, shift or loss of reality) we can easily add links to these locations as well. Over time, one or the other sub-topic may evolve into fully fleshed-out sections or even actual articles (and if someone feels motivated to write an overarching concept article on Reality shifts s/he can always switch the disambiguation page into an article). So, keeping the topic as a disambiguation page would not interfere with any kind of further content creation while having the necessary infrastructure in place already for easier information structuring as well as for navigation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting realities is a fringe idea based on quantum pseudoscience, and that's clearly what these redirects are going for. It's associated with the idea that you can literally shift realities through positive thinking, in the manner of New Thought, based on a misunderstanding of the role of consciousness and the observer in quantum mechanics.
As noted by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, it's also associated with the belief that the Mandela effect is a paranormal phenomenon caused by people having remembering an alternate past which they experienced prior to shifting into a new reality where those events occurred differently or not at all. However, although False memory § Mandela Effect mentions "parallel realities" it does not explicitly refer to "reality shifts". While it could be incorporated, I doubt there are many if any reliable secondary sources which could provide an appropriate reference, and it might be an undue inclusion to section which is mainly focused on the sociology/psychology of shared false memories.
In-fact, unless I've missed one, every explicit use of the phrase on Wikipedia that I've found actually uses it in a sci-fi/fantasy context. However, they're all far too specific to be disambiguated between or to work as new non-fringe targets. The only use of these redirects in article space seems to be a questionably relevant "see also" link, so that doesn't help either.
tl;dr - Delete, fringe topic and there are no good targets to retarget to or disambiguate between. Best to leave them as red links.
– Scyrme (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2022 (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.

Charles Osbourne[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 11:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to Charles Osborne, but none of the people on that page use this spelling, and I have just encountered one person who does (who is not notable enough for a wiki article, but there may be others in the future). Don't see the point of this redirect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2022 (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.

Narrowing (computer science)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Narrowing (computer science)

K16DO[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#K16DO

Catholic law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Catholic law

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_27&oldid=1114141815"