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.
Delete Combination of misspelling and extra word (all other mentions I could find call it "Treasure of Cortés"), and not mentioned in the article.Aprzn (talk)18:55, 19 February 2025 (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 as made up. Lightyear is considered a spinoff of Toy Story, and doesn't happen in the same universe, so giving it any designation in the Toy Story numbering system makes no sense.Steel1943 (talk)22:11, 19 February 2025 (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 was probably as a 'typo' for Sosyo, but it seems much more likely to me that this shorthand forsociology, as in "I'm off to Socio" said by a student off to their sociology class.
I would either retarget to sociology, or delete because reality it could be shorthand for a lot of other socio things, like sociopathy, sociolinguistics, socioeconomy....Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}08:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... somehow I missed that. Still, at this point, I'd retarget to a dab page. Socio as a drink is an extremely minority useage.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}10:12, 19 February 2025 (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.
If the target of the unpunctuated initialism is never referred to by a punctuated version of the initialism, then pointing to the disambiguation page would seem to be correct. Is theSocial Democratic Party of Germany ever referred to as "S.P.D." with periods?BD2412T19:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the grammatically pedantic form in English, so should exist and redirect to the disambiguation page. German seems to use fullstops differently? --65.92.246.77 (talk)00:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. Absent any evidence of a difference in meaning, an acronym with full stops and an acronym without them should go to the same place. This version gets far fewer hits than the other (13 and 1,130 in the last 30 days, respectively), so we should align this one to SPD, not the other way around.Nyttend (talk)01:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Social Democratic Party of Germanyonly if that target has a specific hatnote toS.P.D. (song) (in addition to the existing hatnote to the dab). We shouldn't make it harder for readers looking for the song. Jay 💬19:33, 5 March 2025 (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.
Retarget. The final dot is distinct in that it doesn't separate two letters in the acronym. While that's not "the point" orthographically, it's a more plausible typo than any other missing dot.Aprzn (talk)16:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhh - this isn't even anything to do with the final missing dot. There is no S.L.C. nor entry for it at the dab. Jay 💬17:13, 4 March 2025 (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.
Keep as{{r from misspelling}}, I tagged it accordingly. Gets a hit every 3 days or so. I don't know how often the "average reader" makes double mistakes, but we don't limit our support to "normal" readers, right? Deleting does nothing useful here.WP:R#K5 applies.Paradoctor (talk)21:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralWeak delete on this one, but wanted to comment that the pageviews here are way lower than described, 6 in the last 90 days, which includes one random spike of four.Utopes(talk /cont)02:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hasty generalization. You imply that this trend won't reverse again. All we know for sure is that usage fluctuates on a scale of years. That's why I always look at the full data set. Months mean little to this encyclopedia. ;)Paradoctor (talk)14:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment: a little late to note, but i found that this might not be a misspelling, but rather the term in a different language... though results are torn between it being romanian, german, and french, so that says effectively nothing. might even still be a misspelling in those languagesconsarn(speak evil)(see evil)17:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hanging around you Anglo-Saxon speaking jokers far too loong. xD As a native speaker, I really should've have caught that:w:de:Dihydrogenmonoxid. The other variant is a misspelling any language, French, Romanian and Hungarian included.Paradoctor (talk)19:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this context; updating now to a regulardelete now that this has reared its head as anWP:RLANG, which generally shouldn't be kept if there is no affinity for German. This page is about the dihydrogen monoxide parody, of which there is no affinity for German on the English Wikipedia. This specific spelling has multiple changes from the English version; anyone hitting BOTH of those alterations at the same time is highly likely to be seeking a deliberately German spelling, and this is not the German Wikipedia. (When I search "dihydrogenmonoxid" on Google, all of my results are German.)Utopes(talk /cont)07:58, 13 February 2025 (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.
Rename toGhostarchive, which appears at least 500 times in Wikipedia references. We should tell readers what Ghostarchive means.Comfr (talk)03:32, 20 February 2025 (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.
Meme coin. Musk changed his display handle to this at some point. Neither incident mentioned in target and I can't find evidence of it being used for him independently as opposed to "Musk changes twitter handle and memecoin prices soar!" type headlines.Rusalkii (talk)23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources connecting it doesn't make the person who searches for this and then ends up on the Musk page without context any less confused.Rusalkii (talk)00:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not mentioned at target nor in any of the sub-articles describing Elon Musk's activities. A passing mention of a passing fad does not justify keeping this.Rosbif73 (talk)07:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Being covered by reliable sources is not particularly important for redirects if they aren't explained or even mentioned at their target. —Anonymous02:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this redirect, people who search and want to read about this meme coin cannot do so, so the existence of a redirect is a false promise of content that people will be unable to find.Utopes(talk /cont)07:13, 11 February 2025 (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.
This redirect is inappropriate because Joshua Sturm is a non-notable individual with no independent relevance to Wikipedia. He is only known for being the spouse ofLacey Sturm, which does not justify a standalone page or redirect.Egtj (talk)01:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the exception of alternative names, redirect topics are never notable. Subject is defined at the target, and there is no other place it could go to.
I would like this discussion to be closed, because I have done the article on the Austrian skier of the same name and this issue has been resolved.Egtj (talk)01:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: I think this can be closed now. There is no support for deletion of the redirect and Egtj has withdrawn the request. If another editor thinks the new Joshua Sturm article isn't notable, they can nominate it throughWP:AFD.TSventon (talk)15:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should the musician page with the rfd tag be moved during the discussion as opposed to after? Part of an rfd discussion, is deciding whether or not to create an article. --Jax 0677 (talk)16:04, 23 February 2025 (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.
Perthis previous deletion discussion. Recreating the page as a redirect is an end run around the deletion closure, since it categorizes tagged pages. The category is contrary toWP:USERCATNO, specifically "Categories that are all-inclusive" and "Categories that are jokes/nonsense". If the closure had been "convert to redirect", the page would have been converted to a redirect, but that was not the closure.
Strong delete: Pretty clearly an attempt to get around the consensus found to delete the category. The category, since its creation as a redirect, has been repopulated. Should be G4 eligible from my perspective and I found this RfD because I went to G4 tag the category myself.Hey man im josh (talk)01:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (if I weren't recused from admin actions regarding user categories per promises I made in my request for adminship) I would have declined the G4 - I don't think a pseudo-category of this sort is substantially identical to the original category that was deleted. But I can see the argument otherwise.* Pppery *it has begun...04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page has content. The page has category members. The name of the page appears on pages that list it as a Category. The only thing that makes it different from a non-redirect category is that when you click on it from a member page, you are sent to the redirect target, where the member page is not even listed, perhaps counter-intuitively. It's a category duck. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's have the will to do the right thing, and not pamper people insisting they are above the law. We got the target in the first place because people lacked that will, so here we are almost a decade later ...* Pppery *it has begun...02:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That should also be deleted. I only created that as a redirect many in April 2022 because I had myself tagged it for speedy deletion as empty in March 2021, and I figured that had I not done so that would have made me responsible for the fight that would have inevitably occurred when someone tried to empty it. So in short, I did the wrong thing because I lacked the will to do the right thing, and I acknowledged that in my edit summary. I've undeleted some of the deleted history to make what happened there clearer.And I still don't really have the will to do anything other than !vote in deletion discussions, because I've spent way too much of my time on enwiki lately picking fights with others.* Pppery *it has begun... 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC) (edited* Pppery *it has begun...04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
That's probably what comes next, but it's often a good idea to take the temperature of a situation by nominating a single entry prior to nominating a large batch.Hey man im josh (talk)13:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - I'm not really familiar with standards around categories or user categories at all, and I was surprised to see the standard that user categories are not allowed to exist purely for humerous purposes (what's the harm?).That said, the target here isexplicitly forexactly this kind of redirect... it is the sole purpose of the target page. So before deleting this redirect, I would STRONGLY prefer consensus to be gathered to delete the target, which would include a consensus to delete ALL the categories that redirect to it.Fieari (talk)05:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM refers expressly to articles, not redirects, and I'm not even arguing it (I was expressing surprise, not giving a reason to keep). As forWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... I feel that supports myprocedural keep option. I'm not even arguing that this category should exist! My argument is more akin to@Alalch E.:'s above...either this one should be kept, orall of them should be deleted, and I don't think this specific redirect is the venue to discuss ALL of them. I think the venue to discuss all of them is CfD.Fieari (talk)06:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep may be the wrong wording here, what's the procedural aspect? It's fine to vote keep, but I think you're arguing for keeping on different grounds than procedure. Additionally, the category isn't actually being treated as just a redirect, as it's being populated.Hey man im josh (talk)13:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theprocedure I'm talking about is filing an XfD (in this case, a CfD) for the category that this goes into, because this redirect is EXACTLY what the category was made for. The category is populated by many many users who use deleted categories that redirect to this one. That's the purpose of the category, is for deleted categories to redirect to it, specifically so that those deleted categories will not exist per consensus, and to allow users to customize their user pages to their preference. If we don't want to allow the latter, then we have to delete the category that allows them to do that. There is no deleting of this redirect under the rationale that it bypasses the consensus of CfD without deleting ALL the redirects to this category, because they ALL do exactly that same thing, and in fact, that is the entire and sole stated purpose of the category that this redirects to.Fieari (talk)23:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think that deleting is a fantastically productive outcome here, but I am registering my !vote asdelete as a token of moral support to deletes with whom I entirely agree on a philosophical level. —Alalch E.09:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I plan to nominate more of the categories after this, since they're clear efforts to evade the outcomes of CfD discussions that resulted in deletion.Hey man im josh (talk)13:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: The category was deleted at CfD, and if this is "what the category is made for", then it's meant to be G4 deleted. There's no procedural keep in this instance because the only procedural process that would be involved would be a procedural G4 deletion in this context. I'm really unsure what you're arguing except to ignore all rules because some folkslike it and don't like the outcome of the consensus building process.Hey man im josh (talk)13:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is, as mentioned, a case of "we can have this anyway even though it was deleted". In some cases, creating a redirect after an article is AfD'd is fine. In some cases creating acategory redirect after an category is CfD'd can be acceptable. This is not one of them. There is no encyclopedic use for this category, andthere is no community need for this category. It's disruptive, pure and simple. -The BushrangerOne ping only06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete For reasons of consistency of application of rules, though I'm mildly concerned that only a few Wikipedians have working digestive systems. Also a bit concerned I'm not in this category, meaning I need to investigate just what I've been doing in the bathroom for several decades.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)09:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to express an opinion one way or the other here — in an indirect way I'm sort ofresponsible for it, as the recreation came out of the slapfight that ensued when I tried to remove the redlinked category from the userpages that are in it.I will say that there arelots of ways to add some humor to your userpage without needing to fill thecategory system with jokes, so the common argument about the need to allow editors some leeway to express themselves in humorous ways on their userpages isn't a compelling one given the wealth of alternative ways to do that. And I will also say that the argument that the reverter tried to rub in my face after I removed the redlink was that because their userpage wastheirs and notmine, anything they wanted to put on it is automatically sacrosanct and I have no right to touch it at all. Now, the lifers know that's not how things work — administrators and other cleanup gnomesdon't need the user's personalizedpermission to clean up or remove content on user pages that's actually disrupting the encyclopedia, like redlinked categories, mainspace categories that violateWP:USERNOCAT or content that's obviously trying to misuse the userpage as an advertorialized alternative to a mainspace article about themselves — but the mindset is still out there, among more editors than it should be, that their userpage is hallowed ground for them to do anything they want to and nobody else is allowed to touch it at all. So some user education may be needed on that point. I don't have a strong opinion either way as to whether this should exist as a redirect or not — but what it absolutely cannot do is get deleted but stay populated as a redlink anyway. Again, not that I think theregulars are confused about that, but some more casual users (and the editors whose pages are in the "category" right now) might be, which is why I'm stating it for the record.Bearcat (talk)15:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a recreation of a category deleted via consensus. Gaming the system by either leaving it as a populated red-link or as a populated redirect is circumventing a community decision, which leads to this completely pointless CfD as one was already had on this specific category. Nothing has changed since.Gonnym (talk)18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There never was any such right. All that has happened is that some people (including myself) have chosen to turn a blind eye to it in the interest of avoiding this sprawling mess.* Pppery *it has begun...18:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're badly misreading BrownHairedGirl. Inher own words:The deliberate disruption by a few editors is a selfish and self-indulgent action which should, as the nominator notes, be dealt with by removing it from their userpages. (I would not have used such personal-attack-ridden language). And your ping to Tryptofish was inappropriate canvassing.* Pppery *it has begun...19:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So I've been inappropriately canvassed, have I?Facepalm I still hold to the opinions I expressed a long time ago, that basically amount to saying that editors who want to have humorous or silly userspace categories on their userpages should be able to do so, except when it creates problems that spill over into mainspace. Or, equivalently,WP:MALVOLIO. The long-ago discussion involving BHG and me was over redlinked categories, because those spill over into requested categories, and we agreed that the aforementioned humorous categories should be kept blue. But I'm saying delete in the present case, because this is the wrong way to make them blue. If there has been a consensus that a category should really be deleted, then leave it deleted, don't redirect it to a nonsensical category of, in effect, deleted categories. --Tryptofish (talk)00:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea as to who these "people who think that anything they wanted to put on it is automatically sacrosanct and I have no right to touch it at all" @Bearcat mentioned are, I simply found the whole controversy surrounding this category absolutely hilarious.
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/2025 February 27#Abandon Ship or Abandon All Hope
Facepalm I still hold to the opinions I expressed a long time ago, that basically amount to saying that editors who want to have humorous or silly userspace categories on their userpages should be able to do so, except when it creates problems that spill over into mainspace. Or, equivalently,WP:MALVOLIO. The long-ago discussion involving BHG and me was over redlinked categories, because those spill over into requested categories, and we agreed that the aforementioned humorous categories should be kept blue. But I'm saying delete in the present case, because this is the wrong way to make them blue. If there has been a consensus that a category should really be deleted, then leave it deleted, don't redirect it to a nonsensical category of, in effect, deleted categories. --Tryptofish (talk)00:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]