Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

October 22

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 22, 2022.

Viserys

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 and disambiguate.

Given the House of the Dragon airing, Dany's brother does not seem worthy of a primary redirect anymore, given how Viserys I is now coming into prominence. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 22 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.

Zypern

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) 08:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. According to Languages of Cyprus there is no particular affinity between German and Cyprus other than between 4.5 and 5% (depending on survey) of Cypriots speak it as a second langauge. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 22 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.

Name of Northern Cyprus

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 Northern Cyprus#1974–1983. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target section contains nothing about the name of Northern Cyprus, but there is nothing particularly about the name at Northern Cyprus either (beyond noting its official name) and the latter article has nothing about the name Cyprus. I'm leaning delete here for lack of anywhere with clearly relevant content, but this is a very weak preference. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 22 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.

Eleanor Butler (Q18528457)

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) 08:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Eleanor Butler (Q18528457). This was recreated by a different user, and can't be speedied since G7s don't created precedent, but is no more useful since it was last month. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per every previous time we've discussed these redirects, and fix the bot that suggests these are good titles. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I feel like that this entire œuvre of Topic (Wikidata ID) redirects are arguably a clearline enough case of not being helpful that they could have a WP:CSD category of their own, but I don't want to wikilawyer here, so I will say delete per precedent and the extreme unlikelihood of someone using the Wikidata ID as a disambiguator. TartarTorte 14:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You could make a case for a speedy criterion, but I think it would struggle on the frequency requirement - especially when fixing the bot would eliminate >99% of the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The frequency point is a good point. I feel like these come up maybe once a week at RfD, which isn't really frequent enough to make a strong case for a CSD criterion. TartarTorte 18:06, 23 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.

Ὀφίουσα

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Ὀφίουσα

Monster Thickburger

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Monster Thickburger

Тайфун Майсак

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 Typhoon Maysak (2020). While all agree that the current target is inappropriate, those favoring deletion did not refute the argument that this is a relevant RLOTE for the 2022 storm based on it hitting Russia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this will ever be a search, and seems to just be a way of a banned users getting their way. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to the 2020 storm or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:28, 22 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.

Huygens (chess piece)

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) 08:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This piece was originally created as an article, but its only sources were forums (and later a page on The Chess Variant Pages that had been created nine days after the Wikipedia page). The article was converted to a redirect, but its only sources in the page it was made to go to, the list of fairy chess pieces, still had few sources. Its only other mention on WP was in a variant mentioned in Infinite chess, which was likely original research. (Of note is that the user who was insistent on adding this has now been blocked for using socks to argue that its inclusion, and similar things, were notable.) I BOLDly (am I using that correctly?) deleted the likely OR from both Fairy chess piece and Infinite chess, making the redirect no longer useful. If I was too hasty, let me know, but looking at the discussion pages involved I doubt it has a chance of being decided notable. ChromaTK (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for the sake of convenience: huygens talk and original AfD ChromaTK (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified presumably based on my previous involvement with this page (I nominated it for deletion five years ago, which resulted in the redirect). I agree that, if the content on this made-up piece is removed from the target, then it also makes sense to delete the redirect. I also think removing the poorly supported content from the list was defensible. So I guess that means that I support deletion. (And yes, you are using BOLD correctly :).) --JBL (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. I've read a lot of policy, but this is my first time actually "applying" it, so to speak, so I want to avoid stepping on anyone's toes :P ChromaTK (talk) 19:09, 22 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.

Visiting student

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Visiting student

"Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino"

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) 08:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The quotation marks make this redirect less than useful. Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino already exists. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 22 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.

Titanic Republic

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Titanic Republic

Saint-Marin

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) 08:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED - there is no affinity between French and San Marino. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 22 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.

British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres

The fair share sequence

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 Thue–Morse sequence#Equitable sequencing. Nominally no consensus between deletion and redirection, defaulting to redirect in the absence of any support for the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term is neither used nor explained at target so I don't understand the connection and google results suggest that the term can refer to more than one sequence. There has never been any content at Fair share sequence. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term seems to come from this YouTube video. It seems likely that people who watched the YouTube video would search for this article using the redirect. 2601:647:5800:4D2:E0D3:FE68:779:9EE9 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by the anonymous user, the term was likely coined by Matt Parker, and it is used by people who have seen his YouTube video. See [1], [2], [3], etc. There is probably no need to mention this alternative name in the article itself, but as it is ij some use, having the redirect is useful. //Yuval Talya; My contributions; Let's talk// 05:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons I already voiced at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 23#Tinky Winkenic acid. YouTubers are not RSes and their made-up words and terms must be discarded when creating encyclopaedic content. If there are RSes, peer-reviewed academic papers using the term, we can (we must) include them here. Until then "no". Content on Wikipedia has real world effects, thinking of Alan MacMasters. We should, to the extent possible, avoid leading changes. Existence of this redirect would imply that it is yet another alternative name that has had some sort of academic consensus in the domain of mathematics, which it doesn't. Also, per WP:NEO. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete It's a bit too random of a neologism that hasn't caught on. Unless that YouTube video in particular could be mentioned in the article (perhaps by being mentioned in RS), I don't see why we should keep this. Ovinus (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt for a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 22 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.

Zciweisakul notation

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful alias name, nor a misspelling or a misnomer. The only use I have ever seen was like "Reverse Polish notation, also known as Lukasiewicz notation, sometimes called Zciweisakul notation" – it's always 'also' or 'sometimes'. As such it's just a joke on the name and not an actual alternative name. Hence not probable target of any search. CiaPan (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm usually not impressed by arguments in the form "no one is going to search for this" (tacitly, "and if they do they shouldn't"). In my view they are based on a fallacy, or at least an overestimation of what anyone can know about what anyone else or code they write might be looking for. I don't approve of WP promoting neologisms, but this mathematical joke isn't new and is funny (especially the Polish grammar point about the -a genitive inflection which I didn't know). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirects for this neologism/proposed name are premature. "Zciweisakuł+notation" has only 3 results on Google; the first is Wikipedia, the second explicitly says aren't you glad it's not called Zciweisakuł Notation (emphasis mine), and the third is Quora. There are two pages of results for the term without the "ł", and they are similar in nature; some are Wikipedia and its clones/mirrors, and the others are people noting that it's not called that (with varied opinions; some expressing relief or opining that it's for the best because they wouldn't know how to pronounce it, others saying it "should" be called that, again implying it's not already called that). That Quora link given above by Charles Matthews says but it probably should be called “Zciweisakul notation“, which also affirms that it's not actually already known by that term (yet).
According to the Polish-langauge Wikipedia, Jan Łukasiewicz apparently did suggest the name "notacja azciweisakuł" (the latter being Łukasiewicza backwards), and the Polish-language Wikipedia renders that as "Azciweisakul notation" in English, but these redirects lack the "a". This information on the Polish-language Wikipedia is unreferenced. Azciweisakuł notation and Azciweisakul notation don't exist; the former gets 2 Google results and the latter gets 43. I assume some people have taken Łukasiewicz's suggestion and combined it with the English term "Łukasiewicz notation" to derive the terms without the a-; however, it's conceivable that they also came up with it independently. Regardless, the target of these redirects does not mention this term in any form (a/z, ł/l). – Scyrme (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Serbian-language Wikipedia linked above by Charles Matthews, it's similar to the Polish-language article in that the information given is unreferenced, except it only mentions "Zciweisakul нотација" as a proposed name with mentioning who proposed it. Looking back through the history, I think it actually originated on the English-language Wikipedia back in March 2006, and was copied in translation; this would explain the unusual mixed script name. The term hasn't been on the English-language article for over a decade, but remains as a vestige in the translated article. – Scyrme (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a known misnomer used by some people. Therefore we have the redirect to direct users entering this string into the search box to the relevant contents in our encyclopedia as is our normal procedure for such misnomers. It is perfectly in line with the purposes for why we have redirects per our relevant guideline WP:REDIR. None of the valid deletion reasons stated there apply, but two of the reasons to keep apply per WP:R#KEEP. Therefore, obvious keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue point 8 of WP:R#DELETE applies (and have effectively already done so above). Regarding used by some people, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it is used by anyone. The closest thing to evidence are statements by a handful of people who think it should be used, but those same people also acknowledge that it is not already used (as I noted above). – Scyrme (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you, please, cite any example of actual use of the phrase as a separate name by itself, not just in a comment to the most widely used 'Reverse Polish notation' or 'Lukasiewicz notation'? --CiaPan (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying Matthiaspaul. --CiaPan (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not a misnomer. I cannot find a mention of this that does not in the very same place mention RPN, including the quora posts. TartarTorte 20:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 22 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.

War never changes

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#War never changes

Aeromatics

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 Aromatic compound. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was PRODed with This redirect does not seem to make sense., but was declined as ineligible for redirect pages. There is no such word or term as Aeromatics. Searching Google gives "Aero Matics" which we don't have on enwiki. This may be a plausible misspelling for Aromatics. Retarget or Delete. Jay 💬 10:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Aromatic compound and tag it as a {{r from incorrect spelling}} and {{r avoided double redirect}} for Aromatics. Searching on Google Scholar, I found a couple sources ([4], [5]) that apparently use "aeromatics" where "aromatics" is intended (assuming I didn't misunderstand them myself), so I agree that it's a plausible misspelling. – Scyrme (talk) 22:50, 22 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.

The Hitchers (band from Teesside)

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 Hitchers (Irish band) is also being moved to The Hitchers (band). -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a band called "The Hitchers" other that The Hitchers (Irish band) mentioned in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 22 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.

Griechenland

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Griechenland

Demons of zor

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 for lack of mention anywhere. (Seems like if a mention were to be added somewhere, it would be The Vision and the Scarlet Witch.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic isn't mentioned anywhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 22 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.

French redirects to Greece

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#French redirects to Greece

List of video game video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms

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 deleted. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was left over from a move to a better in March last year, sixteen days after the article was created. Plus, it's only gotten 27 pageviews during its lifetime compared to over 25,000 for its target. Not sure why this is still necessary. Regards, SONIC678 06:13, 22 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.

MENAFN

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 restored article. Without prejudice to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be distinct services that actually are competitors (see [6], which contrasts Al Bawaba's then-newly launched "MENA report" with competitor regional news portal MENAFN). Even Al-Bawaba makes distinction between "MENA Report" and MENAFN. I'm not exactly sure how we got to redirecting the page focused on one website to an article on its competitor, but I don't think this is a worthwhile redirect to keep given that it is clearly erroneous. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:58, 22 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.

Saturn digital gamepad

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 for lack of mention, without prejudice against recreation if relevant content is added somewhere. For anyone looking to add such content in the future, to save you the time of asking an admin if there was anything useful in the BLAR'd stub, here it is in its entirety (English by ScarredSun, Portuguese(?) by Felipett~enwiki):

Sega Saturn's control pad has 8 buttons — that's 6 action buttons and 2 shift (left and right) buttons. Plus, it's ergonomically correct: The advantage is at your fingertips with easy eight-button play for killer combo moves.

Ele é ralmente muito bom. Foi baseado no controle do Mega Drive, mas tem grandes melhorias.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned in Sega Saturn. Seems this redirect was formerly an article stub that was WP:BLARed after existing for about 6 months in 2004–05. Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Sega Saturn, halfway through its lifecycle, had an upgraded game controller - one with an analogue stick. This may have an attempt to colloquially come up with a name the old version, which only has a digital d-pad for input. (Kind of like how, after the DS Lite was released, people called the old model DS Phat.) I'm not entirely decided on if the redirect is warranted, but just giving some background while I think further. It's not nonsense at least. Sergecross73 msg me 11:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd add a section to the Saturn article about the controller, if reliable sources can confirm that this name was used. MightyArms (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That stance is dependent on there being content added to the target article which currently doesn't exist. Without such content, readers will either not find what they are looking for and/or wonder why they were redirect to this article (or any article really if this term is mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been no updates at Sega Saturn about the controller.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another chance to add info on the digital gamepad to the Sega Saturn article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:10, 22 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.

"##:00" redirects

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The slight numerical advantage here was strengthened by a trendline toward deletion, the strength of the counterarguments against retargeting, and a past consensus against redirecting any of these to Time, in which the 12-hour clock suggestion was rejected. This outcome should be taken as a reïteration of the consensus against targeting these terms to any broad article, but neither consensus against nor for targeting them to specific articles like 11 O'Clock and 4 O'Clock. (Cf. 7:00, targeted to Anniversary (Bryson Tiller album) since the last RfD.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having these redirects target "AM" versions when these could also refer to "PM" versions is misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not entirely clear if these should be retargeted to 12-hour clock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all Leaning more towards the o'clock route discussed by Steel1943 as it eliminates the possibility of going to the AM time when you may have been searching for the PM one. Johnson524 (Talk!) 01:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These redirects are far too ambiguous to be helpful. Additionally, the only incoming links to them are this RfD discussion, and the talk pages of the disambiguation articles they redirect to. They are not likely to be useful, and redirecting them elsewhere is more trouble than it is worth. They will not do much of anything except interfere with searches, and are better off deleted before they amass more incoming links and therefore become a bigger problem. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. They could be Hours:seconds as well. Too ambiguous. MB 01:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to 12-hour clock or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Hours that redirect to Time. All of these redirects were deleted before, but they used to target Time. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 22 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.

Malien

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#Malien

Secret Art

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 01:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; another split off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points with the same caveats. Any past article history does not need to be restored because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Worlds Cycle found the entire series non-notable so individual plot points can't possibly be notable. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 22 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.

Mariem

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; another split off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points with the same caveats. Any past article history does not need to be restored because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Worlds Cycle found the entire series non-notable so individual plot points can't possibly be notable. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 22 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.

Lyrinx

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 01:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; another split off from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Three Worlds cycle plot points with the same caveats. Any past article history does not need to be restored because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Worlds Cycle found the entire series non-notable so individual plot points can't possibly be notable. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:18, 22 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.

Pokémon: Tenth Anniversary

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 send to AfD. Legoktm (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article with only small mentions in other articles. No reliable sources to be found at least on google. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on two of the entries as possible search terms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards restoring and sending to AfD, but it's still slightly unclear what should be done with the rest of these redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:03, 22 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_22&oldid=1120152968"