[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

October 27

edit

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

Lithium compound

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 Lithium#Chemistry. Jay 💬 02:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose refining to Lithium § Chemistry and moving the hatnote up from Inorganic compounds (since many lithium compounds are organic), analogous to § Lithium salt below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Touch of IAR, moved this to the 27th so it'd be on the same page as the related nomination, since I filed it just after midnght. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:06, 28 October 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.

Lithium salt

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 Lithium#Chemistry. Jay 💬 02:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all lithium salts are used as medications. I would suggest either a retarget to Category:Lithium salts with hatnote to current target or a retarget to Lithium § Chemistry with hatnote to Category:Lithium salts and current target, in either case without prejudice against later listifying to List of lithium salts (or a subsection of a List of lithium compounds). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:45, 27 October 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.

Be glorious, our city!

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Clyde!Franklin! 15:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, because if it doesnt meet WP:GNG, why not delete it? Just redirecting it to Tiraspol may not be the best idea... While yes it does redirect to Tiraspol, letting them know who the anthem belongs to, but there's no info ON the anthem so there's no point in it! Some could have even called it unrelated! Kxeon (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. GNG is not really a factor for redirects. The target seems to be the only city associated with this anthem, and I see that you have started a draft on the anthem. Either the content can be incoporated into the target, when it is ready, or it can be judged on standalone article status, at which time the redirect can be deleted to make way. Jay 💬 02:21, 4 November 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.

European discovery

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#European discovery

Renaissance exploration

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 Renaissance#Navigation and geography. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target subject refers to exploration that happened in the seas and oceans, but to my knowledge, exploration also occurred on the land (exclusive from any sea travel) as well during the renaissance era. In addition, there's no evidence that the redirect was an alternative name for the target subject. In other words, the redirect seems ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:21, 27 October 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.

Maritime discovery

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 4#Maritime discovery

Sergeant Garcia

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 4#Sergeant Garcia

Ten Capital News

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 CTC (TV station)#News and current affairs. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Capital News should redirect to CTC (TV station)#News and current affairs because Ten Capital News and former and current names of this news program is mentioned there. Also this redirect was a result of a merge. Bassie f (talk) 22:22, 27 October 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.

Mariana Mamonova

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 without prejudice against recreation as an article or a redirect to a target that mentions her. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or elsewhere on Wikipedia, internet searches establish that this is the name of a Ukrainian POW held by Russian forces and released in September. She appears to potentially be independently notable (although it would be a WP:PAGEDECIDE situation with respect to the various pages relating to the war), but unless a due mention is added to an existing article, the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 27 October 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.

Dürrüşehvar Hanım (figlia di Abdülhamid I)

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE case, no affinity between the subject and Italian/Italy. Deletion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Seems like a redirect left over from a move almost reverted by the mover 4 minutes later, in what I assume was a good faith mistake. With that being said, this isn't a needed remnant of said move. TartarTorte 15:38, 28 October 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.

Nintendo N5

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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned in article and no reliable sources to warrant a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we need this but it was kept about 4 and half years ago and some reliable sources did use the term at the time Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 22#Nintendo_N5. This was never an official name though and I believe it was used since it was a speculated name for Nintendo’s then unnamed 5th main console.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per 65.92.162.81. It is used in various media sources and it is unambiguous.
Roostery123 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 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.

DOL-001

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 really minor mentions in the article which doesn’t explain what this model is. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 27 October 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.

Year of Three Prime Ministers

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 setindexfy. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Truss' resignation, it seems like this redirect will very likely have multiple targets. I figured pre-empting any retarget and having a discussion about what to do with this redirect at RfD would be a good way to decide. TartarTorte 14:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I know it can generally take a while from resignation to new PM, it seems like Truss is saying the new PM will be known in around a week's time, which would still have this well within 2022.[1]TartarTorte 14:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ @trussliz (October 20, 2022). "There will be a leadership election to be completed in the next week. This will ensure we remain on a path to deliver our fiscal plans and maintain our country's economic stability and national security. I will remain as Prime Minister until a successor has been chosen" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there appears to be agreement that the current target is not suitable, it's not clear which entries would be appropriate to include, as it is not clear which years have actually been nicknamed "Year of Three Prime Ministers" by sources, regardless of which years could plausibly qualify
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it can be shown that this specific term is commonly used to refer to one (in which case, the title should be redirected) or more (in which case, disambiguate) specific years or events. This subject probably fails WP:NLIST as trivial. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above for samples of sources using the exact term for multiple specific years. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a few sources for the term, but this from the Wall Street Journal says For Britain, 2022 will be remembered as the year of three prime ministers. This is Paul (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify (drafted) with scope of years that have been called this, not just any year where it's happened. Australia 2013 and UK 2022 are supported by multiple reliable sources. UK 1868 and Croatia 2016 are a bit more tenuous, but I think fine to include if there's gonna be a list either way (and a list of 2 would be fine here, so). Ironically, cannot find any sources for the UK in 1827. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the sort of thing I was thinking about when suggesting a disambig above. I endorse the draft. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also added 1941 in Australia and 1999 in Russia with sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify as has been so fabulously drafted. J947 † edits 01:43, 31 October 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.

NickToons (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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect deleted because there was no official announcement about the Nicktoons film. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm almost positive the Nicktoons film was just a rumor that spread like wildfire, considering it got leaked back in 2017? 2018? and we haven't heard so much as a peep from Paramount or Nickelodeon about it. MightyArms (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect was not tagged for RfD. Done now. Also bundled Nicktoons (film) which is also an article-turned-redirect whose target also doesn't mention the movie. Jay 💬 15:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both This was all based on one article in the PMC publications back in 2016. Nothing has been heard since, Viacom has merged with CBS, there have been many executive shifts in six years, and any signs this film would actually hit a theater screen with the existence of Paramount+ have long disappeared. In the end, this was a desperate attempt at a spec script that was never fully-formed, and all additional details since have been the invention of people who need to go on a foliage drive. Nate • (chatter) 19:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in order to allow for a full 7 days with the tag on before closure, despite the current consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 27 October 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.

Roads and Highways

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 Road transport. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY: Highway is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try for a firmer consensus between the suggested retargeting solutions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 27 October 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.

Dictator of Belarus

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 💬 20:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Procedural nomination for a deletion request originally filed at AfD by Madame Necker. Personally, I suspect that this falls under WP:RNEUTRAL, but will leave it to others to discuss. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Reuters Staff (27 November 2012). "Interview with Belarus President Lukashenko". Reuters. Archived from the original on 8 November 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2021. "I am the last dictator in Europe," Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko has told Reuters in a rare interview. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects with disambiguators missing ")"

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 crux of the discussion was whether or not this type of redirect provides value to our readers. Those suggesting they be kept point to specific examples where they are used as part of external links. Those suggesting they be deleted note there are ways the software currently helps those who might arrive at a URL without a closing ) and that this practice done on a large scale would create issues. Ultimately there are no policies or guidelines which suggest one side or the other deserves extra weight and so it comes down to whether there is a consensus among participating editors. Given the number of editors who participated we have (barely) reached a consensus that these should be deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to missing the right parentheses. None of these redirects have incoming links in the article space, and their properly disambiguated titles exist. Also, please see User:Gurch/Reports/Missing ")" for what seems to be precedence per the sea of deleted titles. Also, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 20#More missing brackets. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's to discuss? I'm confused; what's the issue with the redirect? Leaving off the closing parenthesis is a fairly common typo but we all know what someone who typed that was searching for. Rogue 9 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment refers to Heaven's Gate (religious group unless otherwise specified. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzaplayer219, Vchimpanzee, and Rogue 9: Ping current participants now that the respective discussions have been merged. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to deletion. From my notes when creating the redirect for Lost, I believe the problem was 2009's MSN Messenger automatic URL parsing algorithm would interpret the closing bracket/parenthesis as a punctuation part of the message instead of part of the URL. So if you were to send a non percent encoded URL e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(TV_series) as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(TV_series) and the link would not work. MSN Messenger is long dead, however I expected despite the popularity of Wikipedia, some software still does that since ultimately interpreting punctuation characters at the end of a URL always has some imprecision. For example, you probably don't want your software interpret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(TV_series), as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(TV_series),, even the Wikimedia algorithm does not. You could do more sophisticated URL parsing e.g. looking for opening brackets in the URL or in the text at the cost of more complexity so not all software is going to do that. But I accept it doesn't really make much sense to have a bunch of redirects for when someone happened to create one and there's no realistic chance we're going to get consensus to mass create them nor to handle it in software, so just deleting them probably makes sense. Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as WP:Redirects are cheap and some can be easily made misspellings where someone fails to close the parentheses. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The negligable value of a handful of redirects having an alternative "no closing parenthesis" edition, compared to the zillions that do not have this convenience feature, is more than countered by having a second search result for these redirects confusingly show up in an autocomplete search. Just because Wikipedia can have spinach in its teeth doesn't mean it should have spinach in its teeth, no matter how cheap that spinach is. --NapoliRoma (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But more... R. S. Shaw notes below that this is, in at least some cases, not just a simple typo, but an accommodation of a misfeature in some Markdown parsers. I'd still argue that making Wikipedia ugly to accommodate what is essentially an unfixed bug in someone else's software is bad precedent. And as Steel1943 notes, this was the cpnclusion of an identical previous discussion.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all to avoid setting a precedent that would allow for millions of new minimally-useful redirects. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and all "delete" !voters above. These just seem like search bar clutter-why have these when the correctly formatted versions exist? Also, I haven't checked through all of these; but it seems a bunch were made many years earlier after their respective articles for reasons like alternative spellings, how the subjects were written in newspapers in ways that may or may not warrant a mention, to make way for moves, and for technical reasons that were since resolved; and plus I need to go to bed tonight before I do any more investigation! Regards, SONIC678 05:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most that would be useful. Britannia (board game for example is directly linked to by important urls on board game websites. To remove the redirect would be to remove the link. The other dubious ones could go. Would be important to determine "what links there", though, I imagine. Page views, for example. KingAntenor (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. There's a reason this form of redirect exists. I looked at the one I created and the edit summary brought it all back: redir broken url usage. There is a widely used markup language called Markdown. It's a bit like wikitext but much simpler, and various versions of it are used on zillions of sites, including on Reddit and StackOverflow/StackExchange. The relevant thing here is that the way one specifies a link (display text & URL) is [an example](http://example.com) (the wikitext near equivalent being [http://example.com an example]). There's a common problem for people posting on such sites when they want to link to some Wikipedia articles, like It (novel). The user normally simply pastes in the URL, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(novel) , which ends up like: [see about It](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(novel)). Note the last two characters. Many Markdown parsers are relatively simple and will take the first parenthesis after the start of the URL as the Markdown closing character of the URL of the link. Hence there are many URL references to WP articles out there which are missing the trailing parenthesis like all the ones listed above. Note that this not a typical typo: the user typed the correct characters of the syntax and pasted the correct URL, but didn't know or didn't remember to "correct" the last character of the URL to be "%29" instead of ")". --R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 20#More missing brackets, which resulted in a "delete" consensus, the main argument there for deletion was essentially that Wikipedia should not accommodate linking mistakes that occur on third party web sites at the expense of having plausible titles, which I agree with. If Wikipedia accommodated every linking mistake that occurs on third party web sites, there would be figurative tons of nonsensically titled redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That RfD discussion did have have all 4 of its votes for delete, but the reasons given varied; I only saw one that said we shouldn't "accommodate other websites' every shortcoming". Another indicated they'd keep such redirects if, on a case-by-case basis, "it can be shown that they are genuinely useful". --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Stats: I looked at usage stats for maybe half of the proposed deletion redirects, and found that all of those had some usage in the past year. Some had a bit surprising amount of usage. Here are the top 7 of the ones I looked at:
Redirect Hits in past year
Brian Cox (physicist 478
Georgia (U.S. state 433
Heaven's Gate (religious group 1495
Join (SQL 921
Lost (TV series 593
Ray tracing (graphics 614
Shocker (hand gesture 10,383
Removing redirects like these will inconvenience thousands of readers each year, dissuading some of them from reading a Wikipedia article. In return, what does WP get?, a tiny bit of space saved and a slightly tidier set of namespace entries. That might be nice (a few editors wouldn't have to think about or investigate cleaning them up, for instance), but I don't feel that warrants doing such a disservice to would-be Wikipedia readers. I'm not saying that no such redirect should be deleted, but I think deleting one should not be done without balancing it against actual service to users. However, I very much would be in a favor of a policy to prevent mass creations of such redirects; there are occasional editors who get bad ideas like that into their heads. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's a legitimate problem, and this is a legitimate workaround, if the result is "keep", I propose (in all seriousness) introducing a new redir template along the lines of "R to support incoming links (from a Markdown site" to make it clearer what's being addressed.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from external link}} was created for this very purpose. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. NapoliRoma (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Template:R from external link. I don't think that RCAT template should exist now that I know it does. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Two-way communiation

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unlikely misspelling, or retarget to Two-way communication. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:32, 27 October 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.

Dolphin OS

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Dolphin OS

Foreign language redirects to Hungary

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 7#Foreign language redirects to Hungary

Thomas Louis Green

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 Close - converted into article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles about Tom/Thomas/Tommy Green/Greene mention "Louis", so if this a person then Enwiki has nothing about him under this name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 27 October 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.

Unnmentioned examples of greetings

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Unnmentioned examples of greetings

Who is a Hindu: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Who is a Hindu: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism

HUngary

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. BD2412 T 06:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no particular reason why this typo is any more plausible or likely as a search term than any other. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 27 October 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.

Vengria

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. Legoktm (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created with the comment that it was a "rare exonym for Hungary", but it's not mentioned at the target. All the results in the article namespace are for the now-dead vengria.ru and used to verify settlements in Russia and Hungary being twinned with one another. There is one relevant hit in talk space - an unsourced comment from 2010 by Tamfang reading Vengria (Russian; related form in Polish) [what's the etymology?]. I can find no uses in reliable sources on Google either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, where was that? —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:List of alternative country names#not bad. I meant to link that in my nomination, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Tamfang again, as the author of the only mention of the term in enwiki. Jay 💬 18:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging me for what, my opinion on deletion? I imagine that few will go looking for Vengria in English, so weak delete. If the question is source, apparently I transliterated ru:Венгрия from the article – anglicizing latinizing slightly from the stricter Vengrija, by analogy with many other –ia = –ия names, because I'm not interested in divergent spellings of obvious cognates. (On lists of exonyms, I am deletionist.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 3 November 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'mornin

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 Good morning. Jay 💬 18:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target page. Bringing it here since I was considering retargeting it to Good morning, but that page is a disambiguation page with no title matches for "G'morning", so it could be considered unhelpful if the redirect targeted that page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 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 words for hello

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#List of words for hello

Kiss hello

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Kiss hello

Esposimi/WXRK

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. WP:CSD G6: clearly created in error. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This odd redirect seems like a remnant of a page move that went awry, and is unlikely to be of any actual use. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:10, 27 October 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.

Guo Ping

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 💬 03:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The person's name was incorrect and I moved the article to the correct name. The redirect should be deleted. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 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.

June Offensive

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! 00:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target article, Kerensky offensive, occurred mainly in July 1917, not June. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There have been tons of military offensives in June, humans being quite violent and disputatious, and no one in particular sticks out. Certainly not one in July. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Keep per TartarTorte. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While this took place in July on the Gregorian calendar, Russia was still using the Old Style dates until 1918, which means in Russia this offensive largely did take place in June. Many Russian language sources for this conflict refer to it by the name Июньское наступление of which the first word means June (see the declensions at wikt:июньский) and it essentially translated to "June Conflict". The Russian term used for July Conflict is used for a variety of different conflicts. I can't find a good citation that uses the Russian term in the article for the conflict. TartarTorte 13:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TartarTorte. "June Offensive" is actually the article title on ru-wiki. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tartar and Presidentman. A Google search for that exact term indicates that term is still used for the revolution, regardless of which calendar one's using as their template. Seed of コスモ (alternative account of Sonic678) 21:12, 27 October 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.

Great Anabyng

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 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 27 October 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.

Eiryn Muss

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 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 27 October 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.

Faelamor

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 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 27 October 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.

Yalkara

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 00:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another split-off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points that is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 27 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_27&oldid=1125954970"