This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2021.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Wikipedia:GRAPE
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 25#Wikipedia:MANDARINS
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was retarget to
Wikipedia#Access to content.
(non-admin closure)
CycloneYoris
talk!
07:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Odd cross-namespace redirect which doesn't currently have any inbound links. The target page is only a subset of "accessing Wikipedia" too: although the page does briefly mention desktop access, it is primarily focused on mobile as the name implies.
the wub
"?!"
22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Honesty matters....The page actually gives info on how to access Wikipedia online and offline on many platforms and many ways....as the lead sentence states. Best just say its a mainspace redirect thats not needed because why would we want to help people Access Wikipedia. --
Moxy-
00:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Great!
Moxy-
23:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 25#Zombotiny
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator as redirect is now mentioned at target.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
22:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target. I can't find any indication as to what this may be an initialism for or how it is related to the target page. Delete redirect and associated hatnote at target article unless this can be justified.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Now mentioned at target, I withdraw this nomination.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
01:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
I cannot find any connection between "Brilliant brown" and orange, all the search results I get are related to the colour brown, unsurprisingly. Is this some kind of colour nomenclature that I'm just not familiar with?
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- That article says that brilliant isn't a valid modifier for brown in the ISCC–NBS_system and that brilliant brown doesn't exist as a colour? I'm still not seeing how you get from there to orange, but that may just be my attempts at searching, everything is drowned out by make-up results. Even if it is correct I'm not seeing that searching for a non-existent classification is a plausible way of looking for for orange, I think most readers would expect to end up at brown.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Retarget
Halo game &
Halo video game to
Halo (franchise); no consensus on
Halo (game) &
Halo (video game). There was consensus to retarget the two without parenthetical disambiguation (albeit with some !votes to delete them), but consensus was not reached to either retarget or delete the others.
(non-admin closure)
Tol |
Talk |
Contribs
20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
These are ambiguous in my opinion, and do not exclusively refer to Halo: Combat Evolved. Back in 2005/2006 when these redirects were made there were only 2 games in the series, but I think there are now 16 video games in the halo franchise, plus some spin off board games and the like. A google search for these terms turns up a complete mix of results covering every game in the series, so I'm not convinced by the argument in the previous RfD that combat evolved is the primary topic of these phrases. I propose retargeting all of these to the article on the franchise (
Halo (franchise)).
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- I listed them here because these redirects are ancient and some have been at their current target for over a decade, two of these have already been discussed at RFD and I shouldn't be unilaterally overriding the previous consensus and there have been numerous attempts to retarget them in the page history, so clearly there's been some disagreement over where they should target.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Halo (video game) Delete the rest The last one is pointing to the right place IMO. The others are unnecessary permutations of the disambiguation, and the search function can handle it fine. (Typing "Halo video game" into search immediately brings up the franchise).
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
09:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- In the last month these got 57, 12, 11 and 85 page views, so these are plausible search terms and shouldn't be deleted in my opinion. I'm not seeing any evidence that the last one is pointing to the right place, anywhere I search (e.g
google) turns up a complete mix of results covering all kinds of games from the franchise.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
10:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep those with parenthetical disambiguation that indicates they're looking for the first game and retarget the others to the franchise page. They get a decent amount of views and aren't unreasonable search terms.----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
05:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget all to
Halo (franchise). I think this refers to whichever entry in the franchise someone happens to be talking about, with the primary probably being either the most newly released, or a soon-to-be released game if applicable. Either way, the franchise article has all games listed. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#Parity Amendment
Party rights (Philippines)
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
01:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mention of "party rights" at the target, not clearly associated with the target based on a Scholar and internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Category:Wikipedians who participate in the WikiProject Old Norse
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
No such grouping of Wikipedians exists at the target.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
16:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24#The Sea Capital
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
13:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Extremeley confusing shortcut redirect, there is no connection between the letter "A" and the word "Pagetype". The pagetype template is basically never used in a page directly, it's always part of another template, so I don't see the need for a single letter shortcut redirect which are in extremeley short supply as there are only 26. Newly created, so no backlinks at the moment.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
JsfasdF252: You do not need to try to reduce the number of characters of text in pages by creating weird redirects or any other method. It is not helpful and just makes them harder to read. See also
TfD of Template:IN. The edit summary for this page's creation is "Save 7 characters".
User:GKFX
talk
12:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- And by "any other method", do you mean creating "hybrid" template "shortcuts", splitting articles into "subpages", etc?
JsfasdF252 (
talk)
18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
JsfasdF252: I'd assume so - you definitely should not do that.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
19:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Indeed, and you should have realized that when your edits were repeatedly reverted, the "hybrid" templates you created were repeatedly brought to TfD and de-hybridized or deleted, the article subpages you created were repeatedly deleted as A10 or converted to redirects, et cetera without Elli and GKFX having to explicitly tell you.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
14:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete bad template shortcut.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
19:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, using this would just make wikitext more confusing.
the wub
"?!"
22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Do you have an idea of how much disk space we could have saved if we used {{
a}} as a shortcut to {{
pagetype}}?
JsfasdF252 (
talk)
05:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Not much, and it doesn't matter. —
J947 ‡
message ⁓
edits
06:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
JsfasdF252 None whatsoever, because every time you edit a page to replace {{
pagetype}} with {{
a}} you'll save a page diff to the database, which will be orders of magnitude larger than the 7 bytes you save using this shortcut. Any trivial performance benefit from reducing the page size by 7 bytes will be offset by the equally trivial but much larger reduction in performance from sending every template call through a redirect. The current database for the English Wikipedia is about 10TB in size, and there's another ~23 TB of files on commons, so saving at most a few megabytes of page size by making confusing redirects with no connection to their target is not helpful in my opinion.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
13:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Eeeehhhhhhh, delete.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
22:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and salt The fact that this template, over its history, has served at least 5 different purposes (it was originally an accented character template that was deleted at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/March 2005#Template:A, CapA, E, I, O, U Shravakayana, then was recreated as a test edit or vandalism twice, then was recreated a redirect to
Template:A-classicon, which was deleted at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 29#Template:A-classicon, then was recreated as a signature template and deleted per
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 3#Template:A, then was recreated as a redirect to
Template:Common abbreviations (meta), which was deleted per
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 9#Module:Common abbreviations (meta)/data, and then was recreated again to point to
Template:Pagetype) is clear evidence that this is a hopelessly ambiguous shortcut and no recreation will be any less hopelessly ambiguous.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
14:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
13:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Misleading redirect, the city of
Varna, Bulgaria was formerly called Stalin, not Stalingrad. (
t ·
c)
buidhe
06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
2028 United States presidential election
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
This is premature, and not a useful search term if it's just going to point to the generic presidential election article. ―
Tartan357
Talk
04:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL. There is absolutely nothing that can be said about this specific election at the moment, and we still have the 2024 election to go before this one. There was an article in the page history, but it consisted entirely of unsourced crystal balling about Joe Biden's eligibility to run assuming he won the 2024 election, and some
WP:A10 able material that just described the generic process for a US election.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
12:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
BD2412, we already know the date of every future U.S. presidential election, so that isn't saying much. As for your second point, we actually don't know the Electoral College votes apportioned to the states, as the results of the 2020 Census haven't been finalized yet. We don't even know the Electoral College apportionment for 2024 yet. ―
Tartan357
Talk
20:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Then we can make the same statement about that as we have made in
2024 United States presidential election.
BD2412
T
20:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
BD2412 So, you think we should have an article about 2028 with nothing to say other than the scheduled date of the election? We have as much to say about 2028 right now as we do about 2036, which is literally an example at
WP:CRYSTAL of an article we shouldn't have. ―
Tartan357
Talk
20:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Did I say that we should have an article?
BD2412
T
20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
BD2412: You said we should have a draft, which would need to be substantively updated at least every 6 months to continue to exist. I seriously doubt we'll have any more to say about 2028 6 months from now to allow us to keep a draft alive. It's way too soon for even a draft at this point. ―
Tartan357
Talk
21:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- If so, then the draft will be deleted. Isn't deletion what you have advocated?
BD2412
T
21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- I'm advocating deletion of this redirect, not the creation of an article draft for eventual deletion. There is no reason to create and keep a draft that's clearly
WP:TOOSOON for years on end. ―
Tartan357
Talk
22:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Summary of indira gandhi as prime minister
Vladislaus IV of Poland, Sweden, Gothenland and Vandalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and Moscow
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
13:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type
* Pppery *
it has begun...
02:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The action that I am proposing is described
here. It is the same action that was taken for the following WikiProjects: 1)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, which, if you notice on the top right-hand corner, has the "shortcut"
WP:Israel; or 2)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Books, which has the "shortcut"
WP:PPalestine; or 3)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, which has for it the "shortcuts"
WP:JEW and
WP:JUDAISM. At the time of my making the current Redirect for
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Books, I was unaware of the existence of a "shortcut."
Davidbena (
talk)
09:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Davidbena The shortcut examples you provided are in project namespace, while the main point of this nomination is that the redirect is located in the main (article) space.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
13:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
1234qwer1234qwer4, so how do we alleviate the problem?
Davidbena (
talk)
14:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- As proposed, I suggest deleting the redirect.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, if that will help us correct the problem let us delete the Redirect and put in the correct "shortcut".
Davidbena (
talk)
14:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Perhaps it will make it easier to correct the problem by looking at
Category:Redirects from shortcuts. I have just now added on the Redirect page the template {{
R from shortcut}} If you should have any questions, please address them to
User:Rosguill, who is a member of WikiProject Redirect.
Davidbena (
talk)
10:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Davidbena: I think you've got confused here and you're talking about the wrong page, I've not proposed the shortcut you made for deletion (which is located at
Wikipedia:Israel/Books) I'm proposing to delete
WikiProject Israel/Books, which because it doesn't have the correct "Wikipedia:" prefix is not in the wikipedia namespace and is instead in article space. Are you familiar with
namespaces and how they work?
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, now I understand you. Can you please tell me what I must do to put this in the proper "Wikipedia:" prefix so that it will be in the wikipedia namespace? I am unfamiliar with how to make the change-over.
Davidbena (
talk)
20:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:Israel/Books already exists, so I don't think any more shortcuts are needed.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
20:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Following the directives listed in
Namespaces, I have added the template {{
WikiProject Israel}} to the Talk-Page of
Wikipedia:Israel/Books and it should help facilitate or "pave-the-way" for the page to be removed from article main space. If there is something else that must be done here, I'll need your assistance, because I simply do not know.
Davidbena (
talk)
20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
To be deleted. Seems to be obvious foreign language clutter in enwiki:
Estopedist1 (
talk)
12:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Estopedist1: I've fixed this malformed nomination and tagged the redirects for you. Could you please read the instructions on how to do bundled nominations properly at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect or discussion? When you nominate more than one redirect in a discussion they all need to be tagged and put in an RfD2 template, you can't just stick them in a bullet point list at the end of the nomination.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
13:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Estopedist1: how do these differ from any of the other redirects in
Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms ( 978 )? Why are these particular ones singled out? --
awkwafaba (
📥)
02:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Awkwafaba: these are categorized into content categories, in this case into:
Category:Siphonophorae; hence - obvious clutter. In addition, probably most of these foreign language redirects (ie
Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms) should be deleted in future to keep enwiki database clean--
Estopedist1 (
talk)
05:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Estopedist1: sounds like you really want to take the above pages out of
Category:Siphonophorae and a CfD on
Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms. --
awkwafaba (
📥)
03:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Comment: All of these are mentioned at their targets; however, I'm not sure what makes the Japanese name relevant. If deemed an
WP:RLOTE violation, these should probably also be removed from the articles.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete all, with the exception of
Julian the Hellene, which was withdrawn, and keep
Julian the Philosopher, which has received some general support. With the exception of one set of votes which appeared confused and made little sense in the context of the discussion, the remainder of the participants have generally come out in broad agreement about the four deleted targets. ~
mazca
talk
22:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
reply
None of these epithets sound legit. A search for "Julian the Philosopher" on Gscholar returns a few results, but (as someone pointed out in the talk page awhile ago) in some of these the phrase seems to simply denote his philosophical activity – thus, a regular qualifier like any other, rather than a proper epithet. "Julian of Rome" sounds like the name of a priest or monk. A search for the more famous "Julian the Apostate" returns infinitely more results than any of these.
Avilich (
talk)
02:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Julian of Rome, Julian the Blessed, Julian the Great and Julianus Imperator; Keep Julian the Hellene (maybe) and Julian the Philosopher (certainly). I was perplexed by several references I found to a "Julian of Rome", but it appears to be an error for Pope Julius I.
Srnec (
talk)
03:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep "Julian the Hellene", no opinion on the others.
★Trekker (
talk)
13:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: to the extent that any of these are likely search terms, they should be kept, even if other phrases are much more common. They should only be deleted if it is highly improbable that anyone would search under them—e.g. if they were the invention of a single person with an agenda to puff up Julian's reputation, and not adopted by any serious academics. "Julian the Blessed" strikes me as that sort of attempt to "counteract" the common title of "Julian the Apostate", which, while admittedly negative, is among the most common names for the subject, past and present, scholarly and otherwise, and, IMO, has lost most of its pejorative force (apart from the most fanatical of religious figures, who rails against apostasy these days?). So really Julian doesn't need a fan club to escape his "bad reputation amongst Christians"—most Christians don't really care that Julian, like all of the emperors before AD 337, was a pagan. Of course, if it's actually used in scholarly literature to refer to Julian, and not merely mentioned in passing, then even "Julian the Blessed" would be an appropriate redirect, but only if it's actually in general (not necessarily common, but not limited to a single source of dubious authority, and a handful of citations to it) use. I doubt that "Julianus Imperator" is a useful redirect, since it's just "Julian Emperor" translated into Latin, and this is English Wikipedia. It would be a reasonable redirect for Vicipaedia, or other Wikis that use Latin orthography for Romans, but we never use forms like this to refer to Julian in English—apart from, perhaps, the title of some chapter in a biography, or the caption of an illustration—but in those cases I still don't think anyone would search under the term. As Srnec suggests, "Julian of Rome" seems fatally vague, and might be better as a redirect for the pope.
P Aculeius (
talk)
13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
- As the nom I still believe "Julian the Philosopher" is very flimsy and questionable. As is already clarified in Julian's talk page (December 2012), the epithet is quite rare and, when it does appear, it likely denotes Julian as a philosopher (a mundane reference to this occupation) rather than a something he was actually known as. If it ever becomes a common term it could be recreated, but currently it does not seem to be so, either in reliable sources or common usage.
Avilich (
talk)
20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete "of Rome", as it appears to primarily refer to a pope, "the Blessed" and the Great due to lack of evidence of use, and Imperator per P Aculeius. Keep others based on some evidence of use in a Google Scholar search. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- There's noevidence for 'the great' and only very limited for 'the philosopher'.
Avilich (
talk)
15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- I thought I had seen some use on Google Scholar, but I now see that the only true match was from a rather dubious source, hellenicfaith.com, and the rest were false matches. Amending my !vote accordingly. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep.
✗
plicit
14:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target or
Android version history, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Please read a message I wrote at the bottom of
Talk:Android 10.
Georgia guy (
talk)
16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not quite sure what you're asking for there, you want those pages creation protected so that the operating system articles can be moves there? If there's a redirect in the way of a page move list it at
WP:RM and the redirect will just be
WP:G6 speedy deleted to make room for the page move, or if it has significant history a page mover can do a
WP:Round robin page swap. There's no need to block protection of those articles.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
19:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- This seems to be related to Google's developer previews for the operating system. If you look at the android developer blog
here you can see that to get code to compile for android 12 you have to tell the compiler to compile for operating system version "Android-S"
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
19:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep.
Android version history makes it clear that most versions were codenamed alphabetically with a dessert (eg: Nougat is 7, Oreo is 8, Pie is 9). By the time they got to the letter Q for Android 10, they dropped the dessert name and codenamed it with just the letter. Following that forward,
Android 11 is
Android R and then 12 is S. --
Tavix (
talk)
23:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep.
(non-admin closure)
Adumbrativus (
talk)
06:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
This is my first time nominating a redirect for discussion, so I apologize in advance if I'm doing something wrong. I was wondering if this redirect is valid? "Does the Flower Bloom?" is a fan-translated title for the series that seemed to have appeared when the live-action film was released despite "Does the Flower Blossom?" being used as a title since 2015.
lullabying (
talk)
06:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
✗
plicit
14:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
The target article has little to do with the subject of 'Lexi Rabe', other than her being a cast member. It does not contain any info about her, and is confusing for someone who searches for the subject. The redirect should therefore be deleted.
IronManCap (
talk)
00:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep targeting the only article that currently mentions a Rosen trap. If reliably sourced content about a different sort of Rosen trap is added elsewhere, then the redirect can boldly be expanded into a disambiguation page.
(non-admin closure) –
Uanfala (talk)
14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in target.
Onel5969
TT me
19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Personally I think of the phrase "Rosen Trap" as referring exclusively to a Rosen Stalemate Trap, not anything to do with the Englund Gambit. Note that the source linked above is just a mirror of a YouTube video, and should hold no more "weight" than the video itself. This should redirect to Swindle in my opinion.
AviationFreak
💬
15:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.