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 is similar to aprevious discussion about minor planet names with only the numeration, intsead of the complete name. In short, this redirect is unhelpful, ambigous, and unrelated to229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà. I believe that no one will be normally searching to 229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà by just typing the numeration. Although the minor planet's name is very difficult to type, there are still more plausible, natural and simple redirects, such as the provisional designatiom2007 UK126. InTheAstronomy32 (talk)22:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for numbers that large it is unlikely that someone would type the same number as a large/well-known minor planet and be looking for something else. Also, someone having only encountered the current designation 229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà will be most likely to search it by its number, as it can be typed on a standard keyboard and doesn't require additional knowledge of a former provisional designation.ChaotıċEnby (talk ·contribs)11:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep for sorta kinda the same reason as 177013 (check at your own risk, it's nsfw as hell). the number is a little too specific to be reasonably used anywhere else, so i don't see any harmcogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:29, 26 April 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.
Keep. My phone keyboard likes to insert spaces in such places (just tried it). So this is potentially useful, and I can't see any harm. Sad that the other (even more useful looking) MOS: redirects were deleted. —Kusma (talk)12:53, 26 April 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 correct pseudo-namespace is MOS. Throughout the years, there have been a number of "lazy prefix" versions of MOS redirects floating around mainspace, which don't capitalize the full prefix of "Manual of Style". The argument is that "Mos" is easier to type than "MOS", and people that don't capitalize the searches would otherwise be piping their pageviews through the lowercase variants. However, this nomination consists of all the pages that are otherwise doing "two things ineffectively". It's implausible to expect someone to type "Mos" in lowercase, before changing their mind and capitalizing the rest of the title, or parts of. There are only 11 of such cases across article-space. For the rest of the "Mos" titles, the vast majority of these pseudo-pseudonamespace redirects are constructed likeMos:bold, in all lowercase for "maximum laziness", which at least serves a unique purpose that the full-capital prefix does not. The swapping back and forth between capitalization is unnatural and already covered by the search box. In all of these situations, the correct version of "MOS:X" already exists, so typing this in yields no difference in results besides unnecessary name duplication among titles.Utopes(talk /cont)21:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not sure exactly how implausible it is... I know that the WP prefix is case insensitive but don't always know if all the case variations after it have been made, so I'm pretty sure I have typed "wp:DAB" before, which works since WP is an alias for the Wikipedia namespace. I could see that logic carrying over to the MOS/mos pseudo namespace; deletion could still make sense since they're meant to be internal and are part of the article space and the bar for keeping is higher.Skynxnex (talk)22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made this error despite being aware of the ongoing discussion. You also linkedMOs:DABSHORT inSpecial:Diff/1218386682. The reasoning for dropping the capitalization on the only letter that needs to be capitalized (i.e. the S in style) is unknown. Holding shift throughout is much simpler. More care should be taken when linking pages in edit summaries, to make sure the link works beforehand. (Mos:FOO is a wholly unreliable way of linking, and only affects 8 MOS pages total. The existence of one will never be assumable, as Wikipedia has never operated in lowercase shortcuts.)Utopes(talk /cont)22:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plausible redirects are useful and it is nice to have a few lying around, but these titles are all the opposite of efficient. Efficient would beMOS:DP orMos:dp, not swapping capitalization up and down multiple times. Pseudo-namespaces prefixes are not lowercase. The list of shortcuts is CAT, T, H, MOS, P, perWP:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces. Because PNRs exist in mainspace, yet point to technical/codified back-end MOS pages, a consistent structure is imperative for shortcuts. Because these titles are in violation of common-held shortcut practices, these types of titles arenot cheap, as there is no need for every capitalization alternation over the moon. Pages that start with "Mos" are already out of convention, but they see pageviews due to lowercase-only typing. If these aren't meant for lowercase-only typing (due to the capitals in the title part), they should be removed to minimize the instances of unnecessary PNRs in mainspace.Utopes(talk /cont)00:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom as an improper capitalization on a nonexistent namespace. (However, if any of these redirect have incoming links, replace them with their all-caps variants prior to deletion.)Steel1943 (talk)02:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects are cheap, and these are plausible as typos from people hitting or not hitting caps lock while typing shortcuts. They harm nothing and can just be ignored by those bothered by their inconsistency. That's a you problem, not a problem with the redirects.oknazevad (talk)13:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While these redirects are harmless, deleting them only disturbs linking – typing in the search box will give the same result whether they exist or not. Sostrong neutral I guess. —Kusma (talk)15:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Psuedo-namespaces aren't namespaces, and "Mos" isn't a pseudo-namespace (there is no area on Wikipedia where the "style" in Manual of Style is lowercase). People who use MOS titles are very well familiar of that, especially when they end up at a backroom title beginning with "Wikipedia" instead. Capitalization differences are automatically corrected in the search bar, so there is no need to have more than one capitalization change inside a term. Shortcuts arealways capitalized, and the existence of "all-lowercase"Mos:foo versions are already an out-of-standard compromise that exist in some situations. For the titles here, switching between capitals and lowercases is implausible, not necessary to permit, and is cumbersome to deal with every variation of capitalization among shortcuts. Pseudo-namespace redirects from mainspace titles are in direct conflict to user navigation, so effort should be taken to reduce the number that regular readers could be exposed to. Exponentially increasing the number of "Mos:XYZ" or "MoS:Xyz" titles just because we can, exponentiallydecreases the user experience for people that never wanted to end up in WP MOS titles, wherever they may come across links. And a copious amount of titles that start with "Mos" (not a pseudospace) and have implausible capitalization does not help anything and only creates confusion on why there are only 12 such instances across every single MOS page on Wikipedia.Utopes(talk /cont)21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would simply be impossible because all of these titles use capitalization on more than one occasion, so forgetting capitalization would have led you to a lowercase title instead.Utopes(talk /cont)21:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saying they're inefficient or untidy or whatever is silly: they're invisible unless you need them. So they're useful and have no significant cost. Proposer is creating work for the sake of a personal preference. ··gracefool💬12:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Pppery makes a good point. Whether this is a true namespace or not, users expect it to behave like one. Our goal is to help people find the target, not educate them on the finer points of namespace case-sensitivity.Owen×☎14:46, 19 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.
I feel like not too long ago, there was a case that came through RfD where an "S" was replaced by a dollar sign ($), and something was said about such a title being an unmentioned/disparaging nickname, or to that effect. In any case, the outcome I remember there ended up being deletion, and I concur regardless that this should bedeleted as well.Utopes(talk /cont)20:22, 25 April 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.
Keep perWP:CHEAP as a plausible search term (per Duckmather's link), and as an{{R from colloquial term}}. My understanding is that there isn't a policy/guideline that forbids unencylopedic redirects - and, though admittedly not a perfect match (asunencyclopedic does not necessarily equalnon-neutral),WP:RNEUTRAL states thatperceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. All the best,—a smart kitten[meow]13:03, 27 April 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.
not the only possible target for a 1.3 patch, not the only possible target for a fanmade 1.3 patch, and not the most likely target for a 1.3 patch (that seems to be cyberpunk 2077)cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel like Minecraft's 1.3 update would also be more likely as a target. This is way too ambiguous and would not make a good disambiguation page, so we should just delete it.QuicoleJR (talk)20:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically any game that has patches could use a 1.3 patch. I would even disagree on Cyberpunk 2077 being the most prominent, as I could think of like 5 others that were majorly influential, Terraria also up there along with Minecraft and a whole list.Utopes(talk /cont)21:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Daikatana is perhaps the best target we have right now but search results seem like it'll take care of it so delete since it's too ambiguous and not primary "enough" even if primary.Skynxnex (talk)21:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as someone who plays the farm sim Sun Haven (which doesn;t have an article yet), those updates are called patches (currently at patch 1.3) and it can refer to pretty much any game with those updates. A disambiguation page would be innapropriate for Wikipedia since there would be hundreds of video games.JuniperChill (talk)19:29, 29 April 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.
Very implausible redirect. Averages single-digit numbers of yearly pageviews and has less than 200 pageviews for its entire existence since it was created in 2015.QuicoleJR (talk)17:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: tag with{{R to section}} (maybe with{{R from misspelling}} can't remember if that or incorrect name would be better here). Doesn't seem implausible to remember the name as just two "D"s as opposed to three since both are somewhat unusual and seems harmless.Skynxnex (talk)17:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR since I don't think there's any risk of confusion or this redirect making it harder to find another article, having any actual page views (which this seems to) is evidence this redirect is at least somewhat useful.Skynxnex (talk)20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a useful redirect to chop off letters from the name, which ends up being closer in composition and pronunciation toKing Dead. In any case, the correct version of "Dedede" is already autofilling after the just first three characters of "ded" anyway, so this redirect is functionless and otherwise confusing.Utopes(talk /cont)20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...And I'm still convinced that this target is appropriate regardless of the "delete" vote I edit conflicted as the redirect is a partial title match for the intended subject, rather than having to transpose letters and replace an "e" with an "a".Steel1943 (talk)20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dede and Dead can both be said in one syllable, and are each similar as 4 letters words. One can be formed by removing the vowel "E" and adding the vowel "A".King Dead,King Ded,King Dede are all super close. Whereas Dedede isn't just a letter swap, but a new-letter ADD... and then YET ANOTHER added letter, forming a three-syllable word instead of one. Also "Dedede" is insanely easy to spell and I would not expect any other spellings to hit there apart fromKing DDD. I'd vote to deleteKing DD were it real.Utopes(talk /cont)21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that still ... people can forget or not care about the amount of "de"s. And here, I'd believe the spelling rather than the pronunciation makes the difference here, meaning the likelihood of someone looking up this redirect to locate "King Dead" or "King Ded" is highly unlikely.Steel1943 (talk)00:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not an implausible typo in my opinion - it's also worth noting thatDedede is listed in the 'see also' ofDede. I found this typo used in several locations online (e.g.[1][2][3]), which - in my view - show that it is a plausible mistake that can be made. I'm unconvinced by arguments of ambugity, as I couldn't find evidence that the phraseking dede could be used with reference to adede (religious figure) - and in any event, if this redirect could be ambiguous with another article, I'd support dabification or hatnoting over deletion. All the best,—a smart kitten[meow]14:13, 30 April 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.
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.
Macko is not listed at the page for this shooting. What I will note, is that looking up "Nikolas Macko", the shooting almost didn't come up on the first page (was the very last result for me)" This might make sense as it took place in 2007, and as time progresses, older results are less likely to be promoted higher. But in any event, we have no content on this individual. In 2007, they attempted to fend off the shooting from taking place. But, these efforts are not described anywhere on the page or on Wikipedia, to my understanding. I don't think that this is a particularly useful redirect, in the article's current state. Just as Google displays a wide assortment of topics related to different "Nikolas Macko"s, if he isn't discussed in the article any longer, I don't think this redirect is necessary either.Utopes(talk /cont)05:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it should be worth noting, this redirect was fully protected almost IMMEDIATELY after creation in 2007, and remained fully protected for another 17 years up until just a month ago.Utopes(talk /cont)05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I mean, it used to be a part of a pretty hefty section a long time back, during the revisions I checked in 2007. The shooting article was getting what looks like 1-2k edits every day during the timeline and immediate aftermath of the shooting (the article now has nearly 14k revisions). I have to imagine that Macko's segment was removed for a reason. The article was mainly talking about his eye-witness reporting. I don't really see a need to mention Macko, especially when looking at recent Google search results, the shooting is now really low. I don't want to force in his name into the article if it doesn't need to be.Utopes(talk /cont)05:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: don't need to associate a living person who's only connection seems to be an eyewitness. If he gets more, sustained coverage, then of course that could be added to the article and the redirect recreated (or what have you).Skynxnex (talk)21:40, 25 April 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 wasdelete. There was an opinion regarding the RfD deletion of the corresponding "Labor" redirect. It may be taken up at an appropriate forum as it pertains to an RfD close. Jay 💬08:12, 2 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.
Gag name not mentioned at the target article. Additionally, I have not found any mention of it onthis list (although it is user-generated and could be incomplete).
A variant of this gag name had been used in the Simpsons episode24 Minutes according to the article, but spelt as 'Ahmed Adoudi'. Regardless, I don't think that this joke name is notable enough to be a redirect to any articles involving this.Xeroctic (talk)18:29, 17 April 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 "Unity" or this party at the target page, people searching for this topic will not receive any information about this at the target page.Utopes(talk /cont)22:55, 17 April 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 seems to be a piece of programming, although it is not mentioned or discussed at the target article, and creates the picture that we have something about this topic when we do not.Utopes(talk /cont)22:57, 17 April 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.
No mention of MediaImpression at the target page. Neither this, nor "ArcSoft MediaImpression" are useful redirects in the article's current state, as we have no information at the stub for this subtopic.Utopes(talk /cont)06:21, 18 April 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 wasno consensus. No participation despite a relist. Retargeting to Aphantasia from the nomination. Jay 💬14:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of imagination isn't an "argument from ignorance". It's not being able to imagine and doesn't have to do with arguments. If anything, it'sAphantasia. However, this has been a redirect here for the last 21 years.Utopes(talk /cont)04:56, 18 April 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.
Lots of things involve swinging sticks, not just pendulums. The word "swing" nor the word "stick" appear ever at the target page, and can refer to basically anything frombaseball tohockey toswordplay and beyond. I'd be hardpressed to think this would be a likely search term forthis topic only. Sure, the pendulum may look like "sticks that swing", but the inference of it being apendulum I believe is the most noteworthy aspect. This is one of the few technical topics that is prominent for its recognizable name and functionality, not just being "sticks that swing".Utopes(talk /cont)05:17, 25 April 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 "strike" nor "force" is listed at the target article, giving this title insufficient context as a redirect to the target article. There is no dedicated information on Wikipedia to this sub label.Utopes(talk /cont)05:04, 25 April 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.
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.
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.
Was created as a non-notable slang term that was instantly BLAR'd, same-day reverted, and reverted back to a redirect yet again. Seems to have no business targeting the pieces of paper left behind after you hole-punch something. I never knew that these had a name, so there you go! Learn something new every day I guess, Wikipedia for you. There wasChav andChad (slang) that were all in the mix around here, but as this is suitably short and not mentioned there or anywhere in this realm, it doesn't seem of use to keep this redirect around.Utopes(talk /cont)04:47, 25 April 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 the term "shman" at the target article. Pertaining to more pronounceable versions,sheman has a different target, while all external search engines were pointing me to topics related toshaman.Utopes(talk /cont)04:32, 25 April 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.
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.
Vague term not mentioned at the target. While passengers might "load themselves onto an airplane", from a literal perspective anything that can move by itself is self-moving freight, and will not always be a passenger. Someone searching this term is very likely looking for something particularly specific, and if they really wanted to see the article for "passenger", they'd just look up "passenger" instead. Seems like keeping this as a blue link would be a disservice towards potential article creation for a transportation operator lingo.Utopes(talk /cont)04:23, 25 April 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 this passenger at the target article, and is not a useful redirect on its lonesome without context as to who this person is.Utopes(talk /cont)03:53, 25 April 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 list of characters from Fair City not mentioned at the target in any form. In these cases for Fair City redirects, my interpretation a "mention" is generous; this is just a list of names on a table that are only said once, but nevertheless at least they exist, and sometimes the boxes might make allusions to characters that didn't evenMAKE a table entry. But for the titles included in this nomination, they cannot say the same re: having even a bare bones namedrop. They either appear nowhere on this list, or are an alternative name mentioned nowhere on this list.Utopes(talk /cont)02:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, for navigation purposes, the titles in this nomination are sorted from oldest at the top and newest at the bottom. Some of the older titlesdo have a light history, but none of the newer ones do (i.e. nothing after the year 2008 has any history). And for those that do have history, a good chunk have either been through an AfD, are so minor that they were redirected in various short periods of time, or both.Utopes(talk /cont)03:01, 25 April 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.
No mention at the target, and could not find evidence of this spelling missing a vowel, and including an extra e. Seems implausible to me, although perhaps content at the page or a translation could clear this up.Utopes(talk /cont)01:49, 25 April 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.
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.
No mention of a song called Roses at the target article, not a helpful redirect and indicates that we have content when we don't.Utopes(talk /cont)01:13, 25 April 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 this song, "Romantic", or "Homicide" at the target article. The existence of a redirect indicates content that we don't have on Wikipedia.Utopes(talk /cont)01:12, 25 April 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 ROM hack is not discussed at the target. No mention of "Minus", "infinity", "ROM", or "Hack" at the target page. The existence of a redirect indicates content at the target that we don't have and is never addressed, making this not a very useful redirect.Utopes(talk /cont)01:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this redirect: I was planning on adding content about the ROM hack to the article when I had time, but it slipped my mind. I do think it is notable enough for at least a brief mention, with several articles about it on the internet.[4],[5][6] Also, as a well-known hack, it is a plausible search term, and it's mentioned in multiple other pages on WP, which makes it a useful redirect to have.
I do agree that it's awkward that it's not mentioned at the target page - would it help if I just used these sources to add a brief summary of what the hack is to the article? I'm not super familiar with the exact policies here, so if I'm misunderstanding something, I apologize.HappyWith (talk)06:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just to let you know, I've also made a redirect atR4MI to the same location. If this discussion gets closed as delete, that one should also probably get deleted.HappyWith (talk)13:44, 27 April 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.
No mention or context as to what "redwop" is at the target article. Seems to be a company based on external searches, but such a company is not discussed at the article.Utopes(talk /cont)00:58, 25 April 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 "recursive", "x-y" or "cut" at the target article. Used to be its own article, but this seems to be a topic that isn't discussed at the overarching topic of "bitmaps".Utopes(talk /cont)00:55, 25 April 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.
We have nothing to say about rail transport at the target article. Anyone that types in "rail transport in socotra" but doesn't click on the article or glosses over the unrelated info about minibuses (on a hunt to find information on rail transport) will get the faulty impression that rail transport is discussed at the target. We don't have redirects for topics that DON'T exist on an island,and aren't mentioned as not existing. We wouldn't haveHorse transport in Socotra,Plane transport in Socotra, orSpaceship transport in Socotra just because "the article says minibus transport, so therefore it's helpful to know that these don't exist." Alternatively, a red link ismore explicit that a topic doesn't exist, as it doesn't make people question the topic's existence, and think "Why does this redirect exist if rail transport doesn't, is the article wrong? Surely there must be something to explain this discrepancy..."Utopes(talk /cont)00:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rail transport in X is one of those topics we have myriad links for for historical (cultural?) reasons, unlike horse plane and spaceships. Suspect this is one of those. I lean towards delete, but not strongly.CMD (talk)01:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments in the previous discussion. This is misleading due to the target not discussing this topic. --Tavix(talk)01:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I find it a bit funny for such a redirect to exist, especially because this island has literally no infrastructureAbo Yemen✉03:36, 25 April 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 Inns at the target article. Used to exist standalone, before being redirected into the list where it was presumably mentioned, but no longer.Utopes(talk /cont)00:31, 25 April 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 "raygold" or "r@ygold" at the target article. Seems to be a tagline or username, maybe, although I haven't looked too far into how incorporable this topic might be into the article.Utopes(talk /cont)00:29, 25 April 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.
Support per Johnjbarton. As a professionalQCD physicist, I can affirm that physicists are not keen on the wordrealm, tending to describe areas in real or abstract spaces asregions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)09:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm also a physicist, specialized in quantum information. The expression "quantum realm" is exceedingly rare. Let Marvel have it.Tercer (talk)13:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget: hatnote might be tricky since it's a paragraph in the middle of a section but something makes sense or even just a mention and link of quantum mechanics in the prose.Skynxnex (talk)13:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the correspondingClassical realm is missing. Quantum realm meaning the realm of quantum physics, and classical realm meaning the realm of classical physics (ie. the circumstanced under which each apply) --65.92.247.66 (talk)06:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retargetwithout hatnote "Quantum realm" is not an idiom. Its meaning is clear from its component terms, so there is no need to disambiguate. Cf.green leaf.Paradoctor (talk)23:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC); edified 12:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the large number of RSes that use "quantum realm" to refer to something that is not Marvel Comics[9][10] ; thus if this is retargetted, it will need a hatnote. --65.92.247.66 (talk)03:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any of them make idiomatic use of the term? That is, does any of them define it in a way that is not "somewhere where the quantums rule"? Because if not, then these uses refer to aWP:DICDEF meaning, and therefore do not concern us.Paradoctor (talk)04:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We havequantum scale as an incoming redirect, so we should direct people searching for quantum realm with a hatnote, as circumstance where quantum physics apply is covered in the article. It is a viable search term for someone looking for this, thus should carry a hatnote --65.92.247.66 (talk)03:22, 29 April 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 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.