Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 185: Line 185:
*'''Retarget all''' to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery]]. There's already a hatnote for disambiguation. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 08:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Retarget all''' to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery]]. There's already a hatnote for disambiguation. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 08:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Retarget all''' per above. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Retarget all''' per above. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Retarget''' per {{ping|Largoplazo|p=}} above. — <span style="font: bold 125% Garamond;">[[User:SpikeToronto|<span style="color:#DC143C">Spike</span>]][[User talk:SpikeToronto|<span style="color:#000000">Toronto</span>]]</span> 08:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:28, 26 February 2024

February 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2024.

McGar

same case as skarmbliss two entries below, minus the "there are sources" part. i found nothing cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flemi

i actually have no idea what pokémon this is supposed to be for. results seem torn between flaaffy and torchic, but... nothing suggests that that might be a possible name for either of them. not even bulbapedia gave me anything concrete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skarmbliss

technically not an implausible search (good god the gen 2 and 3 metas are Extra Wacky™), but not mentioned at any of its possible targets. initially started as an article for the strategy in question, but was turned into a redirect for having no sources. currently, i've seen the strategy mentioned in one (1) source. would it be better off deleted, redirected to a note in the competitive pokémon article (assuming the source is even remotely reliable), or just kept as is? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the source, by the way. i'm not sure if linking works with twinkle cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit cup

The move discussion at Talk:Fruit cup (cocktail) stated that many people consider a "fruit cup" as a form of fruit salad. However, the redirect fruit cup still goes to fruit cup (cocktail), effectively negating the purpose of the move discussion. Retarget to fruit salad if it can't be reverted to the article about the cocktail. JIP | Talk 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The hatnote at the top of Fruit cup (cocktail) serves to redirect anyone looking for the personal-sized prepackaged fruit salad. That said, I can also see us reversing this situation-- Weak retarget to Fruit salad with a hatnote to Fruit cup (cocktail) instead. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fruit salad: There was consensus for a page move, and the clear intent was to have Fruit cup redirect to Fruit salad as a result of that move; otherwise, the (cocktail) disambiguator would be completely unnecessary. RfD is not the proper forum to override the consensus established at RM. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irikku..M.D Akathundu

Unlikely to be used as it’s a rare misspelling and the search system should pick up such a misspelling. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiimmfi

The article for GameSpy currently links to Wiimmfi, which then links to Mario Kart Wii#Legacy, a subsection that doesn't exist. Nowhere in the current Mario Kart Wii article does Wiimmfi ever get mentioned. Either a proper article for Wiimmfi should be made, or this redirect should be deleted and the link to it from GameSpy should be removed. 2601:CE:C17E:6520:E812:3891:4146:75D (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is what became of the Wiimmfi mention (which had already been merged with another section before that). It is currently the last sentence of the #Reception section and no longer mentions Wiimmfi directly. *this is not a vote* – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means that the GameSpy link is now less than useless, given that's exactly the amount of information that can be gleaned from the GameSpy article itself. (Also, I'm the user up there who put Wiimmfi up for discussion in the first place) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator again, after actually reading through stuff, what I should've recommended is that the link from GameSpy be kept, but the redirect removed, as per WP:REDLINK. Other than that, what I said as 2601 up there mostly stands.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 16:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viennoise

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect redirect and the target clear unclear. The article formerly at the target title, Vienne (department), does not mention the redirect either. The closest title match I could find, and the most common match via third-party search engines, is Viennoiserie, but I'm not sure if that is correct. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To Vienne (department) or Vienne, Isère?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 16:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Surikiña

I don't think Taypi Chaka Quta and Lake Surikiña are the same thing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep. Plug "Lake Surikiña" into Google Maps, and you get Taypi Chaka Quta. (Noteably, if you instead plug Surikiña River in-- which is a redlink 'See Also' on the Taypi Chaka Quta page-- you get Rio Surikiña, a river less than 20 miles away from the lake.) Seems to me like a 'two names, one location' thing- which is exactly what a redirect is for. (Although the alternate name should really be discussed in the article. Perhaps if someone can track down where it came from and why?) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti S

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a fairly normal way for people to refer to the symbol, and is a plausible-enough search term for it. No harm in keeping this redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reliable source for your claim? Veverve (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - clearly a name used to refer to this (see for example, [1]), but it may be ambiguous with generic "graffiti" style Ss. But I think someone searching this is more than likely looking for the current target. A7V2 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unhelpful and potentially ambiguous as stated by A7V2. CycloneYoris talk! 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle School S

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a fairly normal way for people to refer to the symbol, and is a plausible-enough search term for it. No harm in keeping this redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reliable source for your claim? Veverve (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a pretty common nickname for it and used to be on the article. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a pretty common nickname for it: can you provide a source for this claim?
    used to be on the article: yes, but now it has been remove because this name was not sourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned at the current target. Delete unless a sourced mention is added. CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCFL inverter

Used to point at "Piezoelectric Transformer" after a page move, which was BLAR'd a few days later. Neither that nor this title are mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the CCFL inverter was an article since 2004 possibly? The title changed after a RM/TR, so all the history is now at Piezoelectric Transformer which seems to be deep. Nevertheless, not a mentioned variant at the current target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history? (Most of it is at the title Piezoelectric Transformer now.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allied angles

"Allied angles" seems like a vague phrase (for me, it conjures up images of the Allies in WWII for some reason). However, googling it suggests that two angles (in the geometric sense) can be considered "allied angles" if their sum or difference is 90 or 180 degrees for the purpose of doing trigonometry. This is definitely a useful mathematical concept, but I don't know where we've really discussed this in detail (List of trigonometric identities#Reflections, shifts, and periodicity sort of does so but doesn't use this exact phrase). Any thoughts? Duckmather (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a term nowadays only used in India (e.g. Bharadwaj 1989). It can be found in some older English sources though (e.g. Hall & Knight 1893, Bowley 1913, Briggs & Bryan 1928). Looks like any pair of angles whose sum or difference is a multiple of 90° (π/2 radians) are considered "allied". –jacobolus (t) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conceivably we could make a new article entitled Allied angles and redirect Supplementary angle, Complementary angle, etc. to there. I have long thought those should be their own article instead of a redirect to Angle. –jacobolus (t) 21:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, there's a apparently a second meaning of "allied angles", which is consecutive interior angles ("co-interior angles") of a transversal; if the two lines transversed are parallel, two such angles are supplementary. (Example sources: Durell 1939, Hislop 1960). –jacobolus (t) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy S

Way too vague, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a fairly normal way for people to refer to the symbol, and is a plausible-enough search term for it. No harm in keeping this redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reliable source for your claim? Veverve (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too vague and not specific enough. CycloneYoris talk! 23:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LIGAS

Relisting "weak delete" nominations from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#ILYM. Still not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quoting my comment from the original nomination: Weak delete LIGAS. "Ligas" gets lots of hits as the plural of "Liga", mainly in relation to Peruvian football, but everything is a partial title match and not rendered in all caps. The Liga dab page does offer a link to search results for "Ligas" but none of the main entries have the S, and doesn't offer the Peruvian or Spanish leagues so while I wouldn't object to retargetting there deletion is my slight preference. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts from anyone other than Thryduulf?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAR

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 procedural close. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Tár (depicted in upper case in the poster as TÁR) is the primary topic for "TAR". I suggest redirect to Tar (disambiguation) which lists several uses of "TAR" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud we don't need a formal discussion to simply revert the last bad unexplained edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TAR&diff=prev&oldid=1126322732&title=TAR&diffonly=1 --Joy (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the revert. If anyone still thinks we need to discuss this, please let me know. --Joy (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Not real

Can be used in many contexts, and the current target never says "not real" at any point. Unreality disambiguation discusses several options which are infinitely more suitable from my perspective, i.e. derealization, an r from antonym to the reality, or just going to the disambig page if it has to, if anywhere at all. It's impossible to pin down a target I'd think.

Also fiction is still... real. Fiction, exists. (at least its REAL to ME 🥺). Anyway, this baffles. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There doesn't appear to be a good redirect here and the current redirect is more confusing than helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peppa Pig TM

Totally unlikely and unnecessary, page discusses nothing about the trademark or "TM". Created last week. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long film

Films that are long are not automatically feature films, these are by no means synonymous. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PUFF

I'm bringing this here mainly because there seems to be a pretty big can of worms regarding WP:Puff, WP:Puff phrases, WP:Puffery and several similar "peacock" titles having different targets. At the moment, even if some are used as shortcuts and others are used as stand-ins for MOS redirects, it does not feel super clear exactly which should go where, as without the prefix of "wiki"-puffery, to me these all appear to be basically interchangeable. At the very least, the discrepancy between "Puffery" and "PUFFERY" was what initially prompted this nomination, and I don't think "PUFF" is a great shortcut due to it being just the word puff, which is what what the MOS-words-to-watch do. My initial reaction would be to retarget all of these to the MOS/Words-to-watch page, which is the more important target between this and the WP essay. If anything, WP:WIKIPUFF can be used as a shortcut to the essay in its stead.. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_25&oldid=1210372608"