This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2024.
- 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 to Wiktionary* Pppery *it has begun...22:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brain rot does not seem to be a common synonym for Alzheimer's disease. Most sources use the term to refer to internet content that reduces its consumer's mental faculties, like attention span. Even if brain rot is taken literally, that term would span much farther than just Alzheimer's.Based5290 (talk)23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: FYIBrainrot also redirects toAlzheimer's disease. I can't see any evidence of the literal term brain "rot" ever being used in the context of Alzheimer's. Seethis journal which explains it. I think the redirect should be deleted but a new article about the more modern term could probably be written.Clearfrienda💬23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I see two possible solutions to this.
- A "Did you mean?" ("Not to be confused with...") text box at the top of a new "Brain rot" (as used in modern internet culture) linking to the page for Alzheimer's disease.
- Alternatively, we could redirect either Brain rot or Brainrot to the other, and make that one a disambiguation page that would contain both a "Brain rot (internet slang" page and "Alzheimer's disease" on bullet points.RichardMcKee (talk)18:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bundling inBrainrot.—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh)00:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Brain rot is a term that casually refers to, quoting wiktionary, "The degradation of mental faculties, intelligence, common sense, or moral character." It does not refer to the literal rotting of the brain in a physical sense such as how meat rots if not refrigerated. Google shows a recent trend towards using this term to specifically refer to "brain fog or lethargy resulting in too much screen time", but the term brain rot has been in use for well over a century... prominently, for example, it was used to describe the effect of reading comic books. Given the meaning of the phrase, I can understand why someone would create the redirect, but it definitely isn't the best target... I feel likemoral panic is actually a better target than Alzheimer's, given how the term is actually used, but I'm expressly NOT saying we SHOULD retarget to moral panic since we don't actually discuss the term there (although I would not object to it being added there and THEN retargetting). I'm unsure where this could be best retargetted to, and if pressed, I'd lean towards either a crosswiki redirect to wiktionary or delete it outright, but again, I'm unsure, so I'll leave it as a comment for now. I expressly do !vote against the status quo however.Fieari (talk)01:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to wikt. It is commonly used enough term, but unless an article on the term is made, wikt provides an explanation. I oppose redirecting toDigital media use and mental health § Social media and mental health since the term appears to have a bigger scope than mental health.Catalk to me!01:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- lately, the term has been used as something along the lines of "internalizing behavior or vocabulary from media due to hyperfixation (or whatever else)"
- like accidentally telling your boss that you getting fired is"not optimal for any%", or reenacting entire monologues fromultrakill over the word "visitor"
- still, i don't think that's covered by sources yet, so i'd saydelete for now, or soft redirect if you think the entry on wiktionary is good enough (i'd say definition 3 is still a little undercooked, but eh)cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a disambiguation page containing both "Alzheimer's disease" and "Gen Alpha#Humor" would be a good solution to appease both "sides".RichardMcKee (talk)18:21, 24 May 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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia
[edit]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 28#Macra (rivers)
The Wall (specifically from Nostalgia Critic)
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasRetarget the second andKeep the first* Pppery *it has begun...22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
don't see why they should have different targets. inclined toretarget the former to nostalgia criticcogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- no, wait a minute
- i was looking at the wrong article
- disregard previous prompt,retarget thelatter todoug walker (masayoshi shido lookalike) as it's not mentioned in the nostalgia critic article (and as the reception section it supposedly anchors to no longer exists)
- my badcogsan(nag me)(stalk me)18:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget 2nd toDoug Walker (comedian)#Discography - It seems the "Reception" section of the Nostalgia Critic page has been removed, which presumably had information on the Wall previously but does not now. The only information we really have on it is now at Doug Walker's page under discography. A pity, because Dan Olson's brutal takedown of said work was legendary and would have made for a great critcal response section, but I guess it didn't get mainstream coverage the way his takedown of NFTs did, so it isn't considered aWP:RS. But I digress. Incidentally, Cogson, could you format your RfD entries to be a little more readible in the future? I passed this one by earlier because I couldn't easily figure out what you were talking about at first (especially with random line breaks and a joke pipe).Fieari (talk)23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- it's cogsan
- for the situation where you couldn't figure out what i said, was it brain rot a few entries above, or the entire evil mario discussion a few days ago? because i feel i might have been kind of unclear on both at the endcogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:01, 24 May 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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
'Umar ibn Sahlan as-Sawi
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#'Umar ibn Sahlan as-Sawi
Potassium heptafluoroniobate
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waswithdrawn due to conversion to its own viable article. Huge thanks toUser:Smokefoot who did so on short notice.DMacks (talk)16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Target does not mention this other chemical. It's been 8 years since redirect was created as a temp placeholder for an article. No prejudice against someone actually writing it at any time.DMacks (talk)15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are two different compounds. No reason for a redirect. The one in the title is quite obscure, so an article is unlikely, unless someone will be attracted by this discussion. --Викидим (talk)21:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Keep For a day or two. I hope to convert the redirect into a proper article. NbF72- is among the more important compounds of niobium. (Always amusing how nonchemists quickly weigh in on this kind of discussion) --Smokefoot (talk)22:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am always genuinely happy whenever my ignorance spurs some action. I am keeping my !vote since it does not matter in this case if the article will be built from scratch or out of an 8-year-old redirect, as the initial author will be the same, but can change it towait if this can make life simpler for anyone.Викидим (talk)23:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Smokefoot. I'll add an article outline to help you get started. --Lenticel(talk)00:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote tokeep (there is some nontrivial text now below the redirect, worth preserving). --Викидим (talk)00:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Articlify All the best:RichFarmbrough13:05, 22 May 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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Template:Edit-Protected
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waswithdrawn. Clearly the issue lies with the base templates and not with the redirects that point to them. Will refocus my efforts in that direction.Primefac (talk)15:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These templates were all created beforeother editing protections were anything other than semiprot was available, but are now vaguely titled and (as far as I can tell) no longer used to actually request edits to fully-protected pages (I have yet to see one after about 2015). I retargeted these redirects to the dab template{{request edit}} and was in the process of updating usage but the actionwas contested, which is why we're here. I will of course fix extant uses if this goes through.(pleaseping on reply)Primefac (talk)11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that I discovered this RfD throughusing one of these redirects to request an edit. I know what{{Edit fully-protected}} is though. I don't think these redirects being changed will confuse anybody, unless maybe they're so ancient that they don't know there's multiple protection levels yet.Retarget.Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos)11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no strong opinion on what should happen here, but the premise of this nom is slightly faulty; When "Editprotected (theoriginaltitle of the "Edit fully protected" template) wascreated in January 2006, semi-protection hadbeen introduced the previous month. The separate semi-protection template wascreated in July 2008.Graham87 (talk)13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mistake. Amended my statement.Primefac (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Primefac (talk)14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh probably keep all these -- edit requests are an important check on the protection system; unless there is something actually wrong leaving all these plausible typo's isn't something I'm worried about. —xaosfluxTalk13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Xaosflux, I'm not looking to delete them, I'm looking to replace and retarget them.Primefac (talk)14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit lost then - for exampleTemplate:Editrequest goes toTemplate:Edit fully-protected (and has since 2017); if someone uses it it will get the edit request open -- you want to change it toTemplate:Request edit which will not enqueue the edit for review, but put more work on the requester? I'm not sure that is going to help get the edit reviewed better. —xaosfluxTalk14:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone uses the wrong template, do we not encourage them to use the correct template? (alternately, if there is a "better" template, should we not tell them it exists?) When{{request edit}} was moved to{{edit COI}} there was a period of transition where folks were using the wrong template, but that has stopped and now the latter template is properly used by folks with a COI (most of the time). Someone asking for an "edit request" should be informed that there are multiple types of edit request; after all, we regularly change{{adminhelp}} into{{helpme}} when the request does not require and admin, and I have on multiple occasions changed a{{TPER}} into an{{EPER}} when the protection level was marked incorrectly. We should have names for templates that reflect what they do (that's why dabs existin the first place), and an "edit request" template doesn't reflect what it does.Primefac (talk)14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure the best in this case, I think these are often invoked by very new editors. Wonder if we have any workflows that are calling the wrong template for them? —xaosfluxTalk14:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "do we not encourage them" - depends what we mean by "correct" and "encourage". I was always in favour of replacing (most) template redirects with the target, whenever making other edits, so that the examples one sees in the corpus reflect the desired (hopefully readable) usage. This is without prejudice to typing shortcuts. All the best:RichFarmbrough09:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep all Since the target template autodetects the protection level which template used is really a distinction without a difference.* Pppery *it has begun...15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pppery, genuinely curious, if the target template autodetects the protection level... why do we evenhave five different templates?Primefac (talk)17:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice in weird cases where the autodetection doesn't work (of which raw HTML messages are the only one I can think of) to be able to use
|force=yes and say "I really mean this level". But I guess that would work with|force=interfaceadmin too. I think the real reason is that the protection-level detection postdates the creation of both{{Edit fully-protected}} and{{edit semi-protected}} by several years, and the other three were created to match the first two.* Pppery *it has begun...17:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all Per both xaosflux and Pppery. The templates already autodetect the proper protection level, and dumping the contents of a disambiguation page when someone transcludes the wrong thing is far less helpful. I'd go even further andchangeTemplate:Request edit to also auto-detect the proper level instead of dumping unclear disambiguation text into the talk page when transcluded.Anomie⚔12:29, 22 May 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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
- 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 wasClosed by nominator. Went for a disambiguation(non-admin closure)Викидим (talk)05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple potentially notable Mohamed ben Issa known, both ancient and modern, so the references to al-Hadi do not use this abbreviation. I did not find a single source that had refereed to the target in this abbreviated way. Delete to avoid confusion.Викидим (talk)05:05, 21 May 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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Shinichi Tanaka (rugby)
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 28#Windows 8.2
