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.
"Worm" is not mentioned in the prose. Neither is "turned". While the redirect may indeed be novel for Wikipedian usages, especiallyUser:Worm That Turned, this does not seem like a reasonable (or grammatical) way of searching for the subject of "Inversion" (specifically pertaining to evolutionary biology).Utopes(talk /cont)23:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is missing the "the" and it is in lowercase. I don't think it is sufficiently close enough to the destination for a non-notable subject that is just a paragraph in an article.Catalk to me!14:39, 31 October 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.
Neither the words "killer", nor "mountain" are mentioned at the target. The article is not about a logo. People who type all of this in, and then specify that they are looking for information about a "logo", will not find it at the target general article for Paramount Television.Utopes(talk /cont)22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a made-up name. My search for the Paramount logo shows it has no name, and search for "killer mountains" showed literal deadly mountains.Catalk to me!14:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and because it is highly unlikely that even if the term was in some way legitimate, someone would be searching it in Wikipedia to find, of all things, Paramount Television.Foxtrot620 (talk)21:08, 31 October 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.
No mention of "drippy" or "bruh" at the target article. Wikipedia is not a collection of unmentioned memes, and people looking for information on this meme quotation would be disappointed to find no mention of this meme at the target article. Delete to encourage the creation of content about this phrase, if that is something that is desired for this case. If no mention is added, still delete.Utopes(talk /cont)22:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per previous comments. Also, the sentenceI Like My Cheese Drippy Bruh may be the most disturbed thing I've read on this website, which is saying something.Foxtrot620 (talk)21:05, 31 October 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.
@Steel1943 do you have any evidence that the phraseis used for those things? I wasn't able to find anything, indeed my results were exclusively about Wikipedia or similar processes on much smaller wikis (Wookieepedia being the only one notable in Wikipedia terms, and it's good article process is not mentioned in its article). In practice there seems to be exactly one encyclopaedic use of the term, which is described in the mainspace atEnglish Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment.Thryduulf (talk)20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, but that's intentional. The problem with these redirects is that they are meta to Wikipedia; there's no evidence that these are the specific topics readers could be looking for when searching these phrases. These terms would be something a reader might be attempting to look up if they were intending to find one of the aforementioned subjects.Steel1943 (talk)17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The current mainspace target has no information about nominations, and I don't think GAN warrants a cross-namespace redirect.QuicoleJR (talk)18:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete both, at least for now. i don't think the average reader will want to dip their toes into gan territory. also, @Steel1943, what's that blockquote doing in the nom's rationale? was it put there by accident, or...?cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)19:41, 1 November 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.
Delete Started out as a duplicate article. Our article on "communism" is not an specific overview article, its just an article about communism.Catalk to me!14:37, 31 October 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.
There is no mention of the redirect on the NASA article and google doesn't show anything related to NASA either. Looking at its history, it appears to be some sort of failed article on a non-notable subject that doesn't even focus on NASA specifically as it hasESA andSoviet space program too.TeapotsOfDoom (talk)16:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change Redirect May be referring to the STEREO program, which was on it's own significant to recieve it's own Wikipedia article (STEREO). It is a reasonable redirect for that, so I would say the redirect should be changed from NASA toSTEREO.Foxtrot620 (talk)21:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't change the fact that there is no mention, nor offers no context. This used to be an article about a non-notable music album that doesn't even mentionSTEREO at all, not to mention the fact that the redirect would still be implausible at the proposed target.TeapotsOfDoom (talk)21:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per @TeapotsOfDoom, any connection between the topic phrase and NASA or the STEREO spacecraft program is tenuous and unsourced. A search engine and social media search returned zero uses inWP:SECONDARY sources, and although NASA and STEREO sporadically appear in the search results, most of the results have to do with sound engineering.Carguychris (talk)16:55, 1 November 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.
Comment: Decided to do a history dive. -This is a remnant of a2015-era article on the game, that was linked to from bothFurry fandom#Role-playing (circa September 2015) andTinyMUCK -On October 6, 2015, this article was listed for deletion at AfD. The result, on October 11, wasRedirect to what was, at the time, its mention in Furry fandom#Role-playing (see above). However, I'd like to point out that while the nominator,did advocate for redirection, the !votes were instead a vote for redirect/merge and a vote for merge, so I'm not entirely certain why the closer did a simple redirect instead. -ONE DAY after the AfD closed,user:Chaos5023-- who I'd like to point out, participated in the discussion-- saw that the link toTapestries MUCK on the Furry fandom page was now a circular redirect, and that the statement itself was unsourced, and decided the best course of action was to remove the entire statement. On its own, I'd agree with Chaos5023, but it does kinda render the AfD discussion moot... -...because now we're here, 9 years laterI'm actually uncertain what to do here. My first instinct is to retarget toTinyMUCK, but that has the same issue thatFurry fandom#Role-playing had-- remove the now-circular redirect, and there's no reason left to mention Tapestries MUCK, the existing mention is completely unsourced.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking for sources that mentioned Tapestries, as I felt that might be the easiest way to unravel this knot, but had no joy in my (admittedly somewhat cursory) efforts. Short of redirecting to TinyMUCK, perhaps it's time to delete this redirect.DonIago (talk)13:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, AfD result was to redirect, & not mentioned at the furry fandom article, and should not be mentioned at Tiny MUCK either in its unsourced statement. It's generally not a good idea to have a redirectto a location to "just be an example" and do nothing else; people looking for this particular topic would be disappointed by the content (i.e. lack thereof) at the TinyMUCK general article.Utopes(talk /cont)13:57, 29 October 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.
From what I can see online, thisWP:RLOTE appears to be a niche term forCommunism, though it isn't mentioned at the target and might meet WP:RFD#DELETE 8 as an obscure term, or it might be a redirect from a common word or concept that might be inappropriate as per the essayWP:RLOTE#Examples.Fathoms Below(talk)12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LOTE. My research agrees with Mx. Granger's that this is Chinese slang. It failed English Wiktionary's request for verification process in 2021 so there is no entry there, but comments elsewhere suggest that it would pass today. Regardless it doesn't seem to be used in English, nor is usage restricted to something likeCommunism in China,Communism with Chinese characteristics orChinese Communist Party which have affinity with the Chinese language.Thryduulf (talk)13:46, 30 October 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 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).
Steve Lambert - Emma Goldman Institute For Anarchist Studies
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 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.
I agree that this name (with correct parens) does not seem to follow a fully systematic style (would be tetrakis(ligand form)rhodium..." or "...rhodium tetra(anionic form)"). Is it listed in any databases this way?DMacks (talk)05:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's a plausible alt name for the compound; regardless, it definitely should not be deleted per X3, as the parenthetical is not for disambiguation, but is part of the compound name.Mdewman6 (talk)05:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with your "definitely...", and the absence of a space is typographically correct to the extent this name is reasonable.DMacks (talk)05:52, 30 October 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 target dish is detailed as vegetarian, and has no information aboutmurgh,murg or chicken.Delete, as I see no other article on enwiki with this specificmurgh dish. Jay 💬08:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to get to this one, probably tomorrow or in the next couple days (whenever I got back around to the Murgh topic). No mention of "murgh cholay" at the target article, thereby making this a misleading redirect as we do not discuss this subject or any mentioned variations of murgh there.Retarget toPakistani cuisine#Punjab where the dish is discussed with the most depth I've found. Readers can then scroll down two sections as it is also discussed in the #Saraiki section. It is also mentioned atLahori cuisine, but with little depth. As long as it doesn't stay pointed at a page where it is never mentioned on.Utopes(talk /cont)08:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not do a good job of searching. I have struck off that part from the nomination. Added acitation needed at Pakistani cuisine#Punjab since that section seems to be a summary ofPunjabi cuisine which does not have mention. Jay 💬11:04, 29 October 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.
Neither of the words "joke", nor "stress" are listed at the target article. As it happens, this is the subject's username at Wikipedia (i.e.User:Jokestress). While it may be an "alternate name for Wikipedians", currently this exists without any context in its current form, and does not explain to uninformed readers why this combination of real word "joke" and real word "stress" go to the location ofAndrea James. We don't generally created redirects for unmentioned online aliases that people might have on their social medias, so I don't see why we would have a Wikipedia redirect for a Wikipedia user name in this case, especially so if such username is never mentioned or alluded to in this article.Utopes(talk /cont)07:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless mentioned. I don't have an opinion about whether itshould be mentioned, but unless it is the redirect is confusing and hinders people searching for the username.Thryduulf (talk)14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's mentioned and apparently notable that she edits wikipedia. Inclusion may be warranted in that case, which would imply keeping the redirect. I'd add it myself, except... quite frankly, I'm not sure how to word it, as adding it to the end of the sentence would imply that she contributes to the entire list of various places under the name Jokestress, when it might only be here that she uses that name.Fieari (talk)02:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need, I think, a reliable independent source that considers her username to be worthy of mention to justify adding to the article I think.Thryduulf (talk)12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As another note, it is possible to discuss her Wikipedia editing activities, without needing to redirect her own Wikipedia username there. It is currently mentioned in the prose that she contributes to Wikipedia, which seems to be enough at this time.Utopes(talk /cont)09:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she's interested.[1] Either that, or she did not understand that this was about her personally, rather than one of the usual notifications that she usually archives as deletionism.[2][3][4] Anyway,delete per Thryduulf and Queen of Hearts.Renerpho (talk)03:45, 6 November 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.
There is no mention of "Joe" or "Hill" at the target article. Was previously tagged forWP:BLPPROD in 2012 because it did not have any sources. In fact, it has been 4,494 days that this page has not received a source. (Even if the page happens to be a redirect at this time, BUT I digress on that front). In any case, the BLP PROD timer was cut short by then-adminUser:Selket, with the edit summary "this is better and won't get deleted". However, this solution was NOT "better", and "won't get deleted" is a bold claim for a BLPPROD, even back then in 2012. In any case, this has been a misleading redirect over the last 12 years, which all-the-while promised incoming searchers that "this is the location where you can read about Joe Hill the journalist", but no such information has ever existed here, as it seems.Utopes(talk /cont)07:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention. My very cusrsory search on DDG did not find anything mentioning a journalist by the name of Joe Hill. If sources are found, it is trivial to recreate.Catalk to me!14:43, 31 October 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.
There are multiple uses of "Joaquin Salamanca" on Wikipedia. However, "Joaquin" does not appear at the target article, so any person navigating to this redirect would be misled by the promise of content that we aren't able to deliver on. Especially with Joaquin's existence within the text of other pages, this is currently misleading, and should be deleted (or retargeted, if appropriate) perWP:REDYES to encourage the creation of content about this character, as such content does not exist here at this time.Utopes(talk /cont)07:39, 29 October 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.
This has always been a redirect since 2009. No mention of "jank" or "fraction" at the target article. No mention of "jank fraction" anywhere on Wikipedia. No relation to the subject upon searching for this phrase in external search engines.
As much as it pains me to say it, but after 15 years, it seems to me the only reason this redirect exists is because it is the backward pronunciation of swapping the "fr" and the "j" from Frank Jackson, i.e., you get Jank Frac(ti)on. Unless I'm missing something.Utopes(talk /cont)07:36, 29 October 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.
This page has always been a redirect. No mention of "Condra" or "Bogan" at the target article for Washington Nationals minor league players. At the time in 2018, this redirect was created to a dedication section, presumably discussing this presumable player. However, such a section is long gone.Utopes(talk /cont)07:32, 29 October 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.
No mention of "hydrocal" at the target article. There is a dedicated section atGlossary of sculpting#Hydrocal which seems like a great alternative. In this case, I intended toWP:Boldly go through with this, forgoing an RfD (a speedy retarget may be suitable imo). However, it seems that there is also HydroCal atHydroponics#Software, which caused me to doubt the idea of targeting this to a glossary, when perhaps it can be incorporated back onPlaster or disambiguated (although with only two options, disambiguation seems unlikely to be necessary). Nevertheless, wanted to ask here just in case.Utopes(talk /cont)07:18, 29 October 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.
There is no mention of "Hot Chips" or implication of a Hot Chips conference at the target article. Unclear why such a hatnote is needed. This should be pointed to the same target asHot chips, in the absence of a need to specifyWP:DIFFCAPS at this title, as it currently seems.Utopes(talk /cont)07:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could potentially be pointed atIEEE Micro as well (and I think that would be a better target forHot Interconnects), but to be honest I'm not sure there will be many people looking for the conference even if they specify the caps. Sosupport as proposed, I guess.Alpha3031 (t •c)13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Google tells me that IEEE does run a conference named "Hot Chips", and in fact, has been doing so long enough that google is giving me 35th anniversary pages for the thing, but we currently have no information on said conference anywhere on wikipedia that I can find, and as such this redirect is not helpful. To the closer: make certain to remove the hatnote when changing the target.Fieari (talk)03:56, 30 October 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.
There is no mention of the phrase "herd morality" at the target article. However, the term IS mentioned and discussed onHerd behavior, accredited toFriedrich Nietzche. However, someone looking for this term I feel would prefer to end up at a location that gives evidence and merit to this exact phrase, andHerd behavior wikilinks toFriedrich Nietzche.Herd mentality is also a similar redirect that exists and may be able to be employed in some manner, possibly, if hatnotes are considered in this case.Utopes(talk /cont)07:06, 29 October 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 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.
There is no mention of "Hahn" or "Mahlay" at the target article. There is no mention of "Hahn Mahlay" anywhere on Wikipedia. This page has always been a redirect, and previously targeted a list of characters, which has been long since removed.Utopes(talk /cont)06:44, 29 October 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.
There is no mention of "Gomberg radical" or "radical reaction" at the target article. However, there are mentions of "Gomberg", "radical", and "reaction", intermittently, but never that close to each other (Gomberg is mentioned twice in the prose, for theGomberg dimer and use of his full name.)
Per the edit summary, this was created to "sync with other wordings (this one matches de.wp)", which syncing seems to be good. That said, somebody looking for this radical reaction on the ENwiki, would not receive information for this full search term at the target article. It seems that it may be a good ideato have these be synced, but this should only be the case if there is some sort of content that can substantiate this redirect, and provide information for people who use this term, at the target article. Such mainspace context or content does not seem to exist at this time.Utopes(talk /cont)06:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added multiply-cited content identifying this chemical (or its class) as the "Gomberg radical". There is another reaction known as theGomberg reaction that is not about triarylmethyl radicals. So having this redirect for this type of reaction of his vs that other reaction at an alternative formal name (Gomberg–Bachmann reaction) solves the DAB. There are a bunch of lit hits for "Gomberg reaction" meaning the method he used to generate triarylmethyl radicals, which is part of this article's content.DMacks (talk)11:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the inclusion! The mention of "Gomberg radical" looks good, and at that point, the notion that this would be a reaction is implied from the surrounding article content. If no other qualms, I'll refine this redirect to point toTriphenylmethyl radical#History where the Gomberg radical is discussed, unless you feel differently?Utopes(talk /cont)13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. I could see it being either the history or the chemistry section. I suspect there will never be enough to say about the reaction itself to merit an own section.DMacks (talk)14:58, 29 October 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 only characters named "Gleeson" whom have a dedicated entry at the target list for, are Jack Gleeson and Mike Gleeson. I am not convinced that these are useful redirects to this target, as we don't have an entry for any of these four so there is hardly anything to read or learn about, besides a one-off mention of one's first name (but no mention of "Gleeson" attached to it).Utopes(talk /cont)06:34, 29 October 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 page in question does not mention "game", and has no affinity for gaming. The data files mentioned at the target article are either text or binary; nothing beyond this. A concept of "game data" seems to be a plausible search term, but the current target is not giving readers any of the information that they're after, lacking the crucial "game" aspect.Utopes(talk /cont)06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Game data is just a data file used by a video game. It doesn't need a mention at the target to be useful, literally everything at the target tells you what you would need or want to know about game data, both text and binary. It all applies. As the user is well served by the current target, I have to support keeping the redirect, even without a direct mention. This is very nearly a synonym... not all data files are game data, but all game data consists of nothing but data files.Fieari (talk)04:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for completeness, the statement"Game data is just a data file used by a video game." is incorrect on its face -- much game data will exist in system memory dynamically and never be stored as a file. Older consoles didn't evenhave files, merely a ROM chip (or chips) of contiguous data.35.139.154.158 (talk)12:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, while we're here, the current target,Data file probably shouldn't even exist (all files are data files, and there's nothing of consequence that isn't covered more generally), and I plan toWP:BLAR that toComputer file once this RFD is over, unless anyone happens to object.35.139.154.158 (talk)12:58, 30 October 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 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.
A misspelling or foreign-language spelling of Wikipedia. The hatnote on theLojban article notes that it's the Japanese name for Wikipedia, but the article for Lojban doesn't mention "Uikipedia" anywhere (and googling "Uikipedia" shows mostly foreign-language Wikipedias, nothing to do with Lojban). Furthermore, the article has no "The Internet" section. I suggest retargeting to eitherWikipedia, or theList of Wikipedias (which includes a list of non-English Wikipedias - the Japanese one isn't the only one starting with U). 🦬Beefaloe 🦬05:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delfu as perWP:RLANG; while thisis also the Lojban term for Wikipedia, the concept of Wikipedia and the concept of Lojban do not have anything to do with each other (they do not have affinity). If Wikipedia were first written in Lojban-- or for that matter, Kazakh, or Japanese-- I'd support retargeting there. As it stands, my vote is to delete.For the record, Lojban DOES have its own Wikipedia locatedhere; however, it doesn't have an article for it on the English Wikipedia, the closest thing being an entry onList of Wikipedias.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)08:35, 29 October 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.
Delete per nom. This would be an acceptable redirect if there were coverage of this dam on the article, but it just gets a passing mention.Thryduulf (talk)
Keep -@Thryduulf,A7V2, andTavantius: Mollejon Dam is a tiny secondary dam in a small developing country. It will never meet Wikipedia notability standards. Nevertheless, it is possible that someone on Wikipedia might search for it. In that case, sending them to the article onChalillo Dam (the larger upstream dam) at least tells them some basic information about Mollejon Dam (what river it is located on, what country, and that it's a small dam downstream from the Chalillo). Isn't that better than offering them nothing?Nosferattus (talk)04:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect as it stands is just confusing for someone who doesn't know anything about the dam, they arrive at a page about a different dam to the one they looked for that only has a passing mention of the subject they are interested in that they have to hunt for. If the target were aList of dams in Belize or an article that included a significant mention of the Mollejon Dam this would be different, but the content needs to come before the redirect.Thryduulf (talk)09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf.List of dams in Belize is a sensible article to be created (and a good target for both small dams discussed here), so the argument that there will never be a Wikipedia article doesn't really work.Renerpho (talk)23:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus: Hmm, I'm not sure... Changing my vote from delete toweak keep (vote changed to "keep", see below.Renerpho (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)), at least for the moment. I'd like to hear input from someone who has experience with lists!Renerpho (talk)11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit andLiz: The related discussionWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Vaca Dam has resulted in deletion (deleted by Explicit). I didn't bother to discuss the topic there, because it's the exact same discussion for both dams, and there's a link to this discussion in the nomination for Vaca Dam. Would it have made a difference if I and others had repeated the arguments? Deleting one but keeping the other makes no sense.Renerpho (talk)19:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I supportkeeping this redirect.Vaca Dam can be recreated as a redirect pointed to the same place. The previous (now closed) RfD was correct in its consensus to delete at that time, but that doesn't mean consensus can't change, which it seems to now be leaning that way. All three should go here.Utopes(talk /cont)09:43, 31 October 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.
But so what? Just because a word is used in an essay doesn't mean we should redirect that word to our article on that essay. There's no mention of it at the target. This would be unhelpful to anyone who knows where it's mentioned, confusing to those who don't, and misleading to everyone looking for information about this, whatever it even is.35.139.154.158 (talk)21:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toThe Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and a mention added. Searching for the word/name, I did find a number of people referring to this written work, specifically about this name. The following academic paper (a reliable source)[6] even discusses, briefly but specifically, what the name means in Marx's writing. I think that merits a mention.Fieari (talk)07:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a mention would be highlyWP:UNDUE -- it's only even a footnote in your source. And the only reason you're talking about adding it is because this RFD is here. Redirects should follow content, not the other way around.35.139.154.158 (talk)12:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no mention of this phrase at the target article. Contains no valuable history so no context will be lost on deletion. There IS value in deleting this though, as we will no longer be misleading readers with the promise of "crapulinsky" content that does not exist not only at the target article, but "crapulinsky" does not exist anywhere onall of Wikipedia.Utopes(talk /cont)09:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"crapulinsky" does not exist anywhere onall of Wikipedia -- Let's redirect it to this RfD discussion then.[Humor]
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.
Weak Keep - Recently made redirect won't cause problems or disruption anywhere with link rot if deleted, but it does appear to be useful to someone (above), and I do not have an objection to redirects from notable lyrics as a search aid, even when those lyrics do not appear in the article. It would be nice to leave the redirect be for a while to see if it starts collecting regular steady hits.WP:CHEAP applies.Fieari (talk)01:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no good target so it's better to let readers figure out what they want for themselves in this situation, given that the lyric does not receive any coverage at any of the listed pages.Utopes(talk /cont)02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have no objection to redirects from notable lyrics in principle, but – while the lyric in question is probably themost notable individual lyric from this song – I don't find myself convinced that it's recognizable enough for the redirect to be useful.ModernDayTrilobite (talk •contribs)13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the "how many of us have them" line is sampled not just in the Bone Thugs song mentioned in the nom, but also in MF Doom's song "Deep Fried Frenz" (on the albumMm..Food). The existence of this sample didn't really affect my own !vote, but I figured it might be helpful to mention as additional context on the usage of the line.ModernDayTrilobite (talk •contribs)13:42, 18 October 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)