This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2023.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Scott Christian Sava
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Dr. Rabbit
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Actual
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Mosque Street
This is a bad redirect. It falsely gives the impression that WP:PROD can be used on pages in Draft. The original creation edit summary says that this process does not exist. We should not be giving the false impression that PROD can be used on Drafts. ~ GB fan 11:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I've seen this usedso maybe people were trying to substitute a nonexistent template for some reason, but it's also possible I was just referring to the link on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (drafts), which would be much less justified.
I do wonder whether deleting this template actually discourages people from erroneously substituting this template? To be honest, it probably doesn't matter much either way: if the template is deleted and people use it, then the only harm is the literal text {{subst:Draft-prod}}
on the page. If it's not deleted, then there's a warning in {{
Proposed deletion}} when it's placed on a draft: Please use PROD only on articles. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Retro (
talk •
contribs) 22:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This used to be a disambiguation page with one bluelink failing WP:DABMENTION and one redlink. I tagged it as g14 because it was not redirect-worthy, but User:Bradv failed to read the reason= string on my tag or for whatever other reason did the robotic thing and redirected it to the not-redirect-worthy target, so now here we are with more bureaucracy. For what it's worth: Harold N. Gabow has designed many algorithms. Searching Google scholar for the redirect title phrase doesn't find any consistency for calling one of them "Gabow's algorithm". We have no specific articles on any algorithms that are Gabow's alone, and several articles that briefly mention algorithms by Gabow but do not go into detail and do not call them "Gabow's algorithm". I think we would be better off not having a redirect than pretending that the neologism "Gabow's algorithm" should be used to refer to a class of algorithms in which Gabow is in a middle position in a long line of discoverers (as would be implied by the existence of the new redirect). We should also not retarget to the article on Gabow himself because that article provides no guidance on what "Gabow's algorithm" might mean. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Gabow's algorithmcould be too ambiguous for a redirect to one specific article, could the disambiguation page not be recreated in a way that complies with MOS:DABRED & MOS:DABNOLINK?)The previous dab page was getting a fair amount of pageviews ( 227 in the last 90 days), which indicates to me that a page at this title - be it a dab or a redirect - may well be worth keeping due to being a useful search term (per WP:R#K3 and K5). It’s also an {{ R from move}} [1], and a page at this title has existed since 2007; both of which engage K4. As such, on the face of it, I’m quite reluctant to !vote to delete this redirect. Best, user: A smart kitten meow 11:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
designedwith
(re)discovered. However, I still concur with what I said — including, if
Gabow's algorithmis considered an ambiguous term (as it seems it might be), could a MOS-conforming disambiguation page not be written/created? Either (depending on what MOS:DABRED says for each item) with a redlink for the algorithms without articles & a bluelink somewhere in the brief description of each algorithm; or the same but with only the bluelink?All the best, user: A smart kitten meow 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion. Here, the term is not established. It's not like a case where the opponents of a particular law call it the Killing Adorable Puppies Act, and so we have a redirect from Killing Adorable Puppies Act to the official name of the legislation. In this case, the existence of the redirect itself picks out one POV as preferred: it says that the people who use "Gabow's algorithm" to mean one thing are right, and those who use it to mean something else are wrong. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
There are no Paper Mario characters on the list. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of
Paper Mario.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬 07:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an example of a bad filename per WP:FILENAMES. It is not a poster (the first version wasn't a poster either), it is miscapitalised, and there is an unwanted space. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
[i]n most cases the file redirect should remain, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria...or shadows a file on Commons. Best, user: A smart kitten meow 07:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not seem to be a valid alternative name. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Louis van Beethoven
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Penny pincher
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Social media forum
A news agency that is no longer mentioned at the target title. It was formerly present as one uncited word in a list, but I can't imagine this would be a likely search term for this news agency, nor one that would give readers any useful information about it. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to the list?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2023.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Scott Christian Sava
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Dr. Rabbit
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Actual
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Mosque Street
This is a bad redirect. It falsely gives the impression that WP:PROD can be used on pages in Draft. The original creation edit summary says that this process does not exist. We should not be giving the false impression that PROD can be used on Drafts. ~ GB fan 11:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I've seen this usedso maybe people were trying to substitute a nonexistent template for some reason, but it's also possible I was just referring to the link on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (drafts), which would be much less justified.
I do wonder whether deleting this template actually discourages people from erroneously substituting this template? To be honest, it probably doesn't matter much either way: if the template is deleted and people use it, then the only harm is the literal text {{subst:Draft-prod}}
on the page. If it's not deleted, then there's a warning in {{
Proposed deletion}} when it's placed on a draft: Please use PROD only on articles. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Retro (
talk •
contribs) 22:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This used to be a disambiguation page with one bluelink failing WP:DABMENTION and one redlink. I tagged it as g14 because it was not redirect-worthy, but User:Bradv failed to read the reason= string on my tag or for whatever other reason did the robotic thing and redirected it to the not-redirect-worthy target, so now here we are with more bureaucracy. For what it's worth: Harold N. Gabow has designed many algorithms. Searching Google scholar for the redirect title phrase doesn't find any consistency for calling one of them "Gabow's algorithm". We have no specific articles on any algorithms that are Gabow's alone, and several articles that briefly mention algorithms by Gabow but do not go into detail and do not call them "Gabow's algorithm". I think we would be better off not having a redirect than pretending that the neologism "Gabow's algorithm" should be used to refer to a class of algorithms in which Gabow is in a middle position in a long line of discoverers (as would be implied by the existence of the new redirect). We should also not retarget to the article on Gabow himself because that article provides no guidance on what "Gabow's algorithm" might mean. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Gabow's algorithmcould be too ambiguous for a redirect to one specific article, could the disambiguation page not be recreated in a way that complies with MOS:DABRED & MOS:DABNOLINK?)The previous dab page was getting a fair amount of pageviews ( 227 in the last 90 days), which indicates to me that a page at this title - be it a dab or a redirect - may well be worth keeping due to being a useful search term (per WP:R#K3 and K5). It’s also an {{ R from move}} [1], and a page at this title has existed since 2007; both of which engage K4. As such, on the face of it, I’m quite reluctant to !vote to delete this redirect. Best, user: A smart kitten meow 11:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
designedwith
(re)discovered. However, I still concur with what I said — including, if
Gabow's algorithmis considered an ambiguous term (as it seems it might be), could a MOS-conforming disambiguation page not be written/created? Either (depending on what MOS:DABRED says for each item) with a redlink for the algorithms without articles & a bluelink somewhere in the brief description of each algorithm; or the same but with only the bluelink?All the best, user: A smart kitten meow 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion. Here, the term is not established. It's not like a case where the opponents of a particular law call it the Killing Adorable Puppies Act, and so we have a redirect from Killing Adorable Puppies Act to the official name of the legislation. In this case, the existence of the redirect itself picks out one POV as preferred: it says that the people who use "Gabow's algorithm" to mean one thing are right, and those who use it to mean something else are wrong. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
There are no Paper Mario characters on the list. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of
Paper Mario.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
💬 07:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an example of a bad filename per WP:FILENAMES. It is not a poster (the first version wasn't a poster either), it is miscapitalised, and there is an unwanted space. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
[i]n most cases the file redirect should remain, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria...or shadows a file on Commons. Best, user: A smart kitten meow 07:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Does not seem to be a valid alternative name. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Louis van Beethoven
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Penny pincher
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Social media forum
A news agency that is no longer mentioned at the target title. It was formerly present as one uncited word in a list, but I can't imagine this would be a likely search term for this news agency, nor one that would give readers any useful information about it. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to the list?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)