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.
it's likely that followingthe target's afd closing as redirect, its own redirects will eventually be automatically relinked, but until then, might as well check a few of them out again. for this one... same case asthe previous rfd, i guess. unmentioned, potentially unnotable meme, but might be a somewhat plausible mishearing (though i don't think it might be, considering that it comes from resident former touhou shitposter ciryes)consarn(prison phone)(crime record)18:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reason as last time: it's still a plausible misspelling or respelling. Technically speaking, the 'Raymoo' redirect was created in November 2012, while Ciryes didn't have a Tumblr or YouTube account until 2013, so I'm not exactly sure how you came to the conclusion that he came up with it? In fact, you can find 'Raymoo' being mentioned as far back as 2007–08 in the archives of 4chan's /a/ (old.sage.moe,desuarchive.org) and /jp/ (warosu.org) boards. I didn't bring this up last time since I know forum posts aren't reliable sources or anything, but here it is now. ┐(´ー｀)┌ —Nameless(?)03:58, 27 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.
Edit I don't need to create that redirect as it already exists, I guess I must have made a different typo when searching as I was definitely shown a red link.Thryduulf (talk)23:37, 13 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.
Comment This title has been deleted before. As best I can work out it was once the location of an article that was moved toOrder-State of Burgundy, that article was deleted almost exactly a year ago followingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order-State of Burgundy, which did not discuss merging or redirecting. The presently existing redirects were created independently some months after the AfD by editors who did not participate in the AfD or edit the article prior to the AfD, so the creations seem completely unrelated. Also apparently unrelated is 2016 page that was at disputedly at both this title andReichskommissariat Burgund before being deleted under G7. If that ever had any significant content I haven't found it.Thryduulf (talk)23:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The section at the targetwas removed with comment:the source for it is notoriously dubious, and the separate wiki page dealing with it has been deleted over the same reasoning. Jay 💬08:56, 21 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.
No one's going to plausibly search for this. If somehow you see it written and don't know what it means, you're going to search for it as written. And in speech, everyone says "59", whichis a completely reasonable redirect of course. This is like redirecting "Superbowl Ξ" to "Superbowl XI" because XI spells out the Greek letter Ξ...hold that thought...ok good, no one has actually done that.35.139.154.158 (talk)12:52, 14 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The suggested change has not been made at the proposed target ofAchievement. Notified of this discussion there. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬18:56, 13 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.
The result of the discussion wasProcedural Close. RFD is not the venue to do a move that has already been controversial in the past. Editors who want to carry out the moves suggested here should open aWP:RM. --Patar knight -chat/contributions02:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MoveTime machine (device) to Time machine I agree with TompaDompa.The disambiguation page is "Time Machine", evidently. "Time Machine (disambiguation)" points to "Time Machine". "Time machine" (lower case) pointing to "Time travel" is crazy confusing. My attempt to fix this was reverted by @Bkonrad.Redirecting "Time machine" (lower case) to "Time machine (device)" would be ok but inconsistent with "Time Machine" (upper case).Johnjbarton (talk)18:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be moving any pages based on discussion here without proper notification of a proposal to move at each of the affected pages.
Time Machine is a perfectly fine disambiguation page. It is named with title case because ALL of the entities on the page with the exception of thetime machine redirect are titles of works. This is not at all unusual for disambiguation.
Time machine (device) at present is a complete piece of crap as far as I'm concerned and in no way reflects the primary topic for this term. If anyone wants to make that the primary topic, please propose that as arequested move and gain consensus.
Back inMay-June 2019 there was a requested move discussion that initially resulted in moving the disambiguation page from "Time machine" to "Time machine (disambiguation)" and redirecting "Time machine" toTime travel. This despite a clear majority of participants stating the dab should be at "Time Machine". That move was very shortly thereafter reverted and subsequently moved to "Time Machine" as the consensus expressed in the RM discussion. This arrangement has been relatively stable since then apart from occasional vandalism and/or test edits. I don't see any good reasons presented here for changing the status quo.older ≠wiser20:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WhetherTime machine (device) will ever achieve satisfactory quality to endure remains to be seen. In its present state, I think readers are still better served with a redirect to the general topic of time travel. Regarding the location of the disambiguation, it is routine practice where ALL of the entries are titles and only the uncapitalized version is something else for the dab to be at the capitalized title. You can propose a move if you'd like to change that, but that is a completely separate discussion than about the fate of the redirect here.
The topic here is the redirect page "Time machine" given the new article "Time machine (device)".
The quality of an article does not, as far as I know, have any bearing on its role in the link system. If you don't think the article is notable, let's delete it. If it is notable someone can fix it. Looks like TompaDompa is well on the way to fixing that.Johnjbarton (talk)22:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there has been a discussion about the primary topic claim for "Time machine" in the past (I mean years ago), but I cannot find it at the moment.Steel1943 (talk)03:45, 15 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.
The current situation seems confusing. Even if these should not all be pointing at the same target, some targets should definitely be aligned with other redirects'.1234qwer1234qwer417:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the principle editor of our articles on the Makhnovist movement, I'd absolutelysupport redirecting all of these to Makhnovshchina (per Charles and Ros). --Grnrchst (talk)18:32, 13 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.
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 shortcut was created to point to an ArbCom principle. It was then used by people to point to that principle. LaterRitchie333 made an essay with the same name and decided to usurp the shortcut for his user essay. I reverted this change, with an explanation in the edit summary including the suggestion he come here if he didn't like the revert, and then Ritchie reverted me with the claim I did not explain. So here we are. I believe this should be retargeted back to theprinciple that was the status quo for about 2 years. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)14:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it looks like I created this a couple of years ago, although I honestly don't remember doing so. I do agree with the general principle that changing a redirect which is already in substantial use (as this one is) needs some discussion. I am a bit puzzled aboutRitchie333's edit commentunexplained change, given thatthe change he was reverting had the explanationrestoring link to arbcom principle; the essay came after. would need an rfd to change because there are exisitng uses to the arbcase that would need to be handled. I don't think having this point to Ritchie's essay would be a bad idea, but it does need consensus to usurp the redirect.RoySmith(talk)14:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the essay expands on the ArbCom principle and is a dedicated place for it (rather than a subheading in a larger page), but agree that this should have been nominated rather than boldly retargeted given how the redirect was in high use prior to that.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)14:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that if we're not going to keep it to the original principle, I think it should be targeted to the civility policy (what is currentlyWP:CIVBRIE) which is an actual policy endorsed by the community rather than an essay. The essay offers meaningful changes to both the original principle and the guideline, such that I don't really fully agree with it. Which is fine, it's an essay it need not have consensus. But we have places with more community endorsement as viable alternatives and so redirect, which again has been used for a couple years now with an agreed upon meaning, should reflect that usage. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)15:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I simply started coming across references to "WP:BRIE" atANI and elsewhere, and wondered why it was pointing to the middle of one specific Arbcom case (and only one of several mentioning in it). Having written the essay, I decided people visiting those ANI threads, and future ones, probably would want to see the essay rather than the middle of some old case, per theprinciple of least astonishment). (also cf:WP:BOOMERANG,WP:SPADE,WP:ICANTHEARYOU etc etc) Saying "no, no, no, usethis redirect instead" just isn't going to work with the masses of editors who pop along to ANI every now and then, who will probably just use WP:BRIE regardless - indeed, afrequent complaint about ANI is people just type the links without thinking about where they're pointing to.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of all of those shortcuts are meaningfully different - they all essentially have pointed to the same place since creation - and not for nothing one of them (ICANTHEARYOU) points to a section of a guideline rather than entire essay. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)15:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit the presence ofWP:BRIE makes me think if I can write an essay entitled "Editing decisions aren't mandatory", or "Getting obligatory understanding doesn't apply", or at least gettingEEng to write them....Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There already is aCited examples section on the essay linking to a number arbcom cases, and we could certainly add others that have been missed.RoySmith(talk)20:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support the idea of this shortcut going to an explanatory essay instead of a single instance of an old ArbCom case... and I definitely approve of the essay containing links to all the ArbCom cases that use the principle... but I think the essay needs to include the text that was previously linked to in order to make sense. Namely, "Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute."Fieari (talk)06:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Well, "we can just add those links to the essay" argument sounded like a good compromise to me, but then I looked at the essay. It's not that I think the essay is trash. It's just... it turns out Ido actually mean the text thatWP:BRIE links to right now in the arbcom case. Fieari's solution might work. Or redirecting to the same place asWP:CIVBRINE. We could add a link to the essay in that footnote? Or does that make the essay seem too much like Approved Policy? --asilvering (talk)09:16, 14 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.
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).
Redirects to Template:Translation and Template:Transliteration
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 - I'm not a chemist, nor have I taken any chemistry classes since... early high school? Long time ago. Anyway, this looks like a plausible way to depict a purely linear chemical formula? It certainly doesn't seem to be an ambiguous target. I can easily imagine a chemistry student typing it into the search bar. If a SME comes along and explains that this formulation is, in fact, ambiguous somehow, then I will change my !vote, but barring that situation, this looks fine to me.Fieari (talk)06:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you know enough about the structure of a compound to be able to type it like this (let's not even get into the silliness of using an equals sign to mean a double bond, or worse, congruence for a triple, or why the OH group doesn't have a bond displayed), then you already know more than enough to search for something more appropriate. This isn't helpful.35.139.154.158 (talk)18:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty implausible that you'd have access to it written like this with no other reference, like a regular formula, or its name. And even under such an unlikely scenario, why would you really be searching Wikipedia for this string of symbols that just so happens to be written in a line? This isn't useful.35.139.154.158 (talk)03:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming it is correct. I guess it's plausible enough that you might just have this jotted down in notes instead of writing a presumably much longer full IUPAC name and resort to searching for it to figure out what it is. --Patar knight -chat/contributions04:36, 20 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.
This redirect was created back in 2016, but it's not clear whether the target article is actually the most notable of any of the other entries listed onOsho (disambiguation). Not sure whether that means the redirect should be deleted or just retargeted. For reference, there have been several RM attempts to moveRajneesh toOsho, but it seems like none of them ended in a consensus to move the page. --Marchjuly (talk)02:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is barring any strong reason not to. I wasn't involved in any actual argument but I did assess consensus for at least one MRV. Look atTalk:Rajneesh in the "previous move nominations" box and you will see there is an almost overwhelming amount of debate about the title being Rajneesh versus Osho, which has perdured through decades. That says to me that both titles are definitelyabout this subject and also that it is an extremely contentious subject area where I would be wary of making any changes to the status quo without avery strong reason to and overwhelming consensus.Ben · Salvidrim!✉03:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other people at the DAB weren't had this as a surname and didn't use "Osho" as a mononym. The Japanese stuff properly has diacritics and the remaining are derivative of the current target, which has a hatnote to guide readers. ----Patar knight -chat/contributions04:40, 20 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 1#Recreational hypnosis