December 16

Larne Harbour Police

Closing Act

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasno consensus. --BDD (talk)16:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing ActClosing Act →If It Were You, We'd Never Leave#Track listing (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous term; not exclusive to a song title in the album. See the search for"Closing Act".Jalen Folf(talk)02:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only other thing in English Wikipedia actually called Closing Act is a short film which was part ofQueer Boys and Girls on the Shinkansen. The other stuff in the search results are descriptive uses of the phrase (e.g. "Macnas performed as the closing act in the Land of Green Ginger programme") andWP:PTMs like the Welsh Sunday Closing Act and the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act which cannot just be called "Closing Act". We have an article for theopening act of a show but apparently nothing equivalent forclosing act. The closing act of a play is sort of covered atdramatic structure, though it doesn't use that specific term.61.239.39.90 (talk)02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate and put the PTMs in the See also as "in title" Add "Finale", "Closing (disambiguation)", "Opening Act (disambiguation)"AngusW🐶🐶F (bark •sniff)00:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: not seeing any plausible alternative targets or things to meaningfully disambiguate to. TheQueer Boys 11th act is an enormously unlikely search term (because it's not really called "Closing Act" so much as it is unnamed), while redirecting from a song to its album is at least a common use case for redirects. —Bilorv (talk)01:07, 17 December 2020 (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.

Wuhan Files

You.

Reward day

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reward day →Vyond#Grounded videos (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Reward days →Vyond#Grounded videos (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Reward day video →Vyond#Grounded videos (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Reward day videos →Vyond#Grounded videos (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target_signed,Rosguill^talk18:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, particularly as this is not likely to be the only thing that has bever been titled "Reward day". Anyone searching this would probably be confused by the result. —Bilorv (talk)01:12, 17 December 2020 (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.

Video Beyond

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Video Beyond →Vyond (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Video beyond →Vyond (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• VideoBeyond →Vyond (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Videobeyond →Vyond (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The assertion in the edit summary for this redirect thatVideo Beyond is an unportmanteaued version of the Vyond name is not supported by the target article, where this phrase is not mentioned. Delete unless evidence can be provided._signed,Rosguill^talk18:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can be restored if a mention is actually added. -2pou (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)2pou (talk)16:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless name origin can be referenced in the article. A quick visit to the "About" section of the company's website does not say anything about Video Beyond or the origin of their current name.Mdewman6 (talk)02:12, 22 December 2020 (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.

Grand Mufti of Pakistan

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasretarget toGrand Mufti#Grand Mufti of Pakistan._signed,Rosguill^talk19:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Grand Mufti of PakistanGrand Mufti of Pakistan →Muneeb-ur-Rehman (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Samee had created this as a redirect toMuhammad Shafi Deobandi on 13 March 2015 and Authordom changed the redirect toMuneeb-ur-Rehman on 21 March 2020. The change in redirect is firstly ambiguous because there is currently no official position of Grand Mufti in Pakistan. The likes ofMuhammad Rafi Usmani,Muhammad Taqi Usmani, andMuneeb-ur-Rehman as well are being referred as "Grand Muftis of Pakistan" in valid reliable sources but these titles are nothing but honorary. Where should this redirect be pointed to? ─The Aafī^(talk)19:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Either write an article about the title and/or a list of people referred to using this title.Thryduulf (talk)19:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to set-index, list, or dabpage; which can be converted to a title article later. (adding{{conceptdab}} could cover the dabpage conversion), an SIA can natively host a bit ore information, like redlinks to missing people (self-)proclaimed to be such, with refs; a list article would have some short info on the title. --67.70.26.89 (talk)18:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestions seem to be helpful. How is the following lede content, "Muhammad Shafi Usmani was the Grand Mufti of Pakistan. It may also mean:", followed with a list of people referred with this title as a mark of respect. Regards, ─The Aafī^(talk)15:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, go ahead (below the RFD generated content) --67.70.26.89 (talk)10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf and67.70.26.89, I add some content in the page. Please let me know if it is fine. May include other names on timely basis. Regards, ─The Aafī^(talk)15:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toGrand Mufti and@TheAafi: add content to the lists there.— Precedingunsigned comment added byShhhnotsoloud (talk •contribs)09:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @TheAafi: I think we have consensus here. Could you add this information toGrand Mufti, probably in a new row for one or more of the lists? --BDD (talk)16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: I do not think it is fine to add this information onGrand Mufti article because the article discusses some official positions? If others find it okay to have a "Grand Mufti of Pakistan" section in theGrand Mufti article and redirectGrand Mufti of Pakistan toGrand Mufti#Grand Mufti of Pakistan, I won't oppose that too, provided that there is provided some clarification that there is no state Mufti in Pakistan. Otherwise, let it be a list article as we have discussed it above. ─The Aafī^(talk)16:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We can say almost anything if supported by reliable sources. If I understand the situation correctly, it would be saying something like "Muhammad Shafi Usmani was the last acknowledged Grand Mufti of Pakistan. The title has also been applied to..." --BDD (talk)16:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with that. ─The Aafī^(talk)16:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It looks like editors are in agreement here, but none of the proposed changes toGrand Mufti have been made, and I'd feel more comfortable closing this after such changes are made. PingingTheAafi, who appears to be taking point on making changes to articles related to this._signed,Rosguill^talk19:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill:, Done. Please close and retarget toGrand Mufti#Grand Mufti of Pakistan. ─The Aafī^(talk)19:19, 25 December 2020 (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.

Susie Kroencke

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Susie Kroencke →American Airlines Flight 1420 (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to an article with no mention of this person....William, is the complaint department really onthe roof?12:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Based on internet sources I can verify that this person was a survivor of the crash but essentially nothing else and I can find no evidence that she has ever been mentioned in the article.Wikipedia:Victim lists (an essay, I thought there was a guideline) discourages lists of non-notable victims, and I think the same applies to lists of non-notable survivors too (but I can't immediately find anything specifically mentioning it). There also does not seem to be a different notable person with this name.Thryduulf (talk)13:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirects such as this for people who gained some fleeting notability for the incident are reasonable, but in this case it doesn't even really appear there was any significant mention when it was news. In the absence of a mention, this is not helping anyone. ~mazca^talk15:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirects to articles such as this without a mention are confusing, if only because there is an inference (in this case not true) that the subject was a victim.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Useless redirect unless the person in question is mentioned in the article, and it sounds like a mention would be unwarranted. --Deeday-UK (talk)13:13, 19 December 2020 (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.

TMS (nuclear physics)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TMS (nuclear physics) →Nuclear physics (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• TNN (nuclear physics) →Nuclear physics (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Supposedly abbreviates to "Trends from theMassSurface". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)08:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this type of parenthetical redirect is reasonable in plenty of circumstances but an acronym as obscure as this that isn't mentioned in the target is definitely not one of those. ~mazca^talk22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Background: Was created (by me) to serve as future explainer for TMS, as used in the table footnote likehere. I recently asked about this atwt:elements, the reply byUser:ComplexRational says it:[1]. Will be unlinked from that footnote.

Same forTNN (nuclear physics). -DePiep (talk)09:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as obscure jargon not mentioned in the target and difficult to explain elsewhere. I added the second redirect to this nomination.ComplexRational (talk)12:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per DePiep and CR.Double sharp (talk)12:41, 20 December 2020 (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.

0.999

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep perWP:SNOW. This has been discussed many times, and while consensus can change, absolutely no new arguments have been offered here and initial response demonstrates that. ~mazca^talk22:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 0.9990.999 →0.999... (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect mathematical statement.${\displaystyle 0.999\ne \mathrm{0.999...}}$. Because there is currently no article on the number 0.999, I woule suggest deletion.122.60.185.29 (talk)05:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perprevious discussion.Jalen Folf(talk)07:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given the previous discussion 0.999 is obviously not the same as 0.999... but users could be looking for .999 and 0.999 is not notable in itself. The redirect template indicates this is a short name/different spelling, if there is a more appropriate mathematics template for redirects then that should be used.Polyamorph (talk)10:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nothing has changed since the previous three discussions.Thryduulf (talk)10:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous three discussions, all resulted as "keep" with no changes.CruzRamiss2002 (talk)12:07, 16 December 2020 (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.