Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2020.

Lydia Barrett

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) 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no mention of "Lydia" at the target, making this connection tenuous. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Did a quick Google search, just in case there is a family member named Lydia. There is none. Apparently this might be a reference to Aunt Lydia and The Handmaid's Tale. (Maybe you knew this already, but I figured I'd share what I've learned. :-) ) Edge3 ( talk) 05:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • That's what I had assumed from a cursory search, but wasn't confident enough to report the details (I haven't seen The Handmaid's Tale yet, so I didn't know the reference and didn't want to dig deeper in case of getting spoiled). It's nice to get the reaffirmation! :-) -- Tavix ( talk) 14:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete while there are some conspiracy theorists that associate Barrett with Aunt Lydia Snopes, there is not enough weight presented in news sources to show this nickname is lasting past the SCOTUS nomination process. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Deleteper explanation above-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 04:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as misleading. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2020 (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.

Xemone

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 speedy keep. Withdrawing, justification provided. signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target, a Google Scholar search doesn't suggest that this is an alternative name for the subject. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Source: Ḳasmunah (sometimes called Xemone), Jewish Encyclopedia 7, p. 451. Kyuko ( talk) 23:49, 9 December 2020 (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.

11th millennium BC

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 Timeline of human prehistory. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I would like to nominate a range of redirects to RFD. Since they have different targets, I would like community input on the best target for the redirects. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Some nominations were missing, I added them to the list at it looks like they were unintentionally removed in edit conflicts. [1] Peter James ( talk) 20:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close – I shall !vote only if it is not a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand what you're nominating these for: deletion? Retargeting? If so, where? Surely there is a burden on RfD nominators to actually propose something, or at least say what problem they want to discuss. Otherwise, I agree this open-ended discussion should be procedurally closed. –  Joe ( talk) 12:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Joe Roe: I would like to clarify. I think all of these redirects should go to the same place. I'm neutral on where they should go, so I am open to what the community thinks where they should go. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Timeline of human prehistory, which spans about 300,000 years into the past, except maybe delete 120,000 years ago, which doesn't fit an established convention and is so far back as to be arbitrary. My rationale for the choice of target is consistency with future millennia redirecting to Timeline of the far future. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget all to Timeline of human prehistory. I was expecting one with this many varying-target redirects to be pretty much a WP:TRAINWRECK, but that genuinely does seem to be a consistent target that works best for most, if not all, of these. Some of the other targets ( Last Glacial Maximum etc) are actually perfectly reasonable and relatively accurate for those particular millennia, but are also potentially unduly specific, and Timeline of human prehistory covers the various overlapping major events that concern these date ranges. It may be there are one or two examples that really might be best targeted at something more specific, but consistently targeting everything in this range to the timeline page, as a default, is excellent for consistency. ~ mazca talk 13:45, 16 December 2020 (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.

Toc Chien

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) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a case of WP:RLOTE, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 9 December 2020 (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.

List of weapons in Perfect Dark

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) 20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

No list of weapons exists in the target article. Dominicmgm ( talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This was originally created as a (badly formatted and unsourced) list of the names of 8 weapons, but that should have been deleted per WP:CSD#G4 (The version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Perfect Dark was a much longer list with context, description and (limited, poor quality) sources). As the content would meet a speedy deletion criterion if restored, there is no problem deleting it here (the redirect has never been discussed before so cannot itself be speedily deleted). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:42, 10 December 2020 (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.

Perfect Dark"

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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The out of place quotation mark makes this implausible. Dominicmgm ( talk) 17:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning keep" for the first two, as the title of the first game is stylized with similar marks after the name, but I'm unsure” about the third one since they face the other way. Regards, SONIC 678“ 01:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as stylization. There are other media titles such as Dog Days (Japanese TV series) that use ' and " for their sequel seasons. I don't know if the opening quotation mark format would be thrown in by search engine autocorrects, but I don't believe that would hurt. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (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.

Ring action

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 Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory. I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the subject matter to deal with any content additions that should follow this closure. Courtesy ping to D.Lazard and Quondum signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

"Ring action" is not mentioned in the target article (the target section has been removed since several years). "Ring action" is not defined elsewhere in WP, so there is no available target. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will this be acceptable as an {{ R without mention}}?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In response to the relisting comment, I do not believe that this should be a redirect without mention: the term should be introduced into the target section (a variant of it is already there). A notification could be posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and at Talk:Module_(mathematics) to generate more input. It has already been posted at Talk:Ring (mathematics). — Quondum 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I see that Module homomorphism uses the term "ring action" and variants of it (e.g. "R-action", "right action of a ring", and the like). Ring (mathematics) uses the term "action of a ring". Similar terms (e.g. "field action", "the ring acts") can also be found in some abstract algebra articles. It seems reasonable that the redirect exists, but I am not tied to its existence: it gets used only a few times per month, and as the exact term "ring action" seems to be rare in the literature. However, WP:Redirects are cheap, and we have three candidate target articles. I would like to see comment from people who are more familiar with the topic, such as D.Lazard, who removed a clear definition of the term that the redirect originally referenced and who nominated this redirect for discussion, and who is more knowledgeable than I am on this topic. I see that it was I who created the redirect, but since I appear to be the only person who was pinged, I feel like I am talking to myself in a vacuum. — Quondum 23:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that the term "ring action" is rare in the literature, and I do not know of any reliable source that defines it. I believe that the terms has been introduces into WP by fans of universal algebra that were reluctant to consider algebraic structures involving two sets. The recent discussion at Talk:Algebraic structure#The explanation of "involving multiple sets" has become misguided. may explain this. The fact that a "ring action" may be used for defining modules is clearly explained in Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory. However, the term of "ring representation" is used instead of "ring action". As far as I know, the term "ring action" is WP:OR. In any case, it is certainly never used for defining modules. One witness of this is that nobody uses a "field action" for defining a vector space. Another reason for not using "ring actions" for defining modules is that this would make cumbersome to define module homomorphisms.
So, except if a reliable source is provided, I consider the term "ring action" as a WP:OR concept, and I consider that it sould be removed from Wikipedia. However, as redirects are cheap, I suggest the following. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory, an add to the target section: A representation R → EndZ(M) may be called a ring action ring action of R on M. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This certainly seems to be a good way to go, essentially to treat the redirect as a way to get to what is likely meant if this unusual term is encountered. We might, however, want to avoid appearing to define it as a term, and so might want to remove the bold. — Quondum 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
OK, I have corrected my suggestion. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (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.

Closing Act

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#Closing Act

Luv Is Rage songs

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 Luv Is Rage. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Former redirects to Luv Is Rage before that page's redirection; not mentioned in new target. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I assume these should redirect to Luv Is Rage unless there's consensus for another course (i.e., "no consensus" should result in (re-)retargeting there). -- BDD ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to Luv Is Rage Ballin to the End is one of the alias titles for Ballin Soundcloud Delete Nuyork Night as that isn't the right title. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:54, 10 December 2020 (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.

Big Freeze

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. There's broad agreement that, while both the old and the current target are reasonable, Heat death of the universe is more specific to the "freeze" aspect and remains the primary topic. ~ mazca talk 14:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect changed from Future of an expanding universe to Heat death of the universe. Both use the term conspicuously. Not sure if either is a better target or if the two articles should perhaps be merged. MB 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The two possible targets are not equivalent. The future of an expanding universe has several different outcomes, only one of which is the Big Freeze, the heat death of the universe. There's also the Big Rip, and other more esoteric results. "Big Freeze" should target "heat death". "Future" should remain a separate article from heat death, as there has been much research and commentary on heat death, while "Future of an expanding universe" has other possible outcomes. It is also about the future of such a universe, including what comes before the heat death, and other paths of an expanding universe. Bear in mind there's also the article Ultimate fate of the universe, which also has the Big Crunch, and Big Bounce, etc. -- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment there's also a redirect big freeze which should be made to match wherever this redirect ends up pointing to. -- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (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.

History of the Jews in Svalbard

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) 19:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

While understandably Svalbard articles usually redirect to Norway, there's nothing about Svalbard in the article at all. This link is appearing on some templates as a blue link, and that seems misleading. CMD ( talk) 11:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as it looks like we have nowhere to send readers to give them any information on this topic. History of the Jews in Norway doesn't mention Svalbard, while the Svalbard article doesn't mention Judaism either. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 11:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - if there's stuff to be said about Jews in Svalbard, we should be encouraging article creation via WP:REDLINK. If, as it may be, there isn't any sourced encyclopedic information to offer at the moment, we shouldn't be pretending we do have some. ~ mazca talk 13:56, 16 December 2020 (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.

Plowback retained earnings

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 no consensus. While it seems like the nominator did wait long enough between discussions for it to not be tendentious, there is still no consensus as to whether this redirect is appropriate or not signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect:
  • 1 (no consensus)
  • 2 (no consensus)
  • 3 (no consensus)

Plowback retained earnings is a made-up nonsensical phrase of considerable length and thus not a conceivable search term. None of the reasons for creating/maintaining redirects from WP:POFRED apply to it, and it fails the categorization test, i.e. none of our redirect categories apply to it. Wikipedia has no use for this page; its deletion is long overdue as per WP:RFD#DELETE #8. The only reason it dodged WP:R3 is that it was originally created as a stub. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete (as nom) Our policy dictates that " redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and in this case, the first guess would clearly be either "plowback" alone or "retained earnings" alone rather than a weird tautologous amalgamation of the two that has never been used outside of Wikipedia. Try as I may, I just couldn't come up with a single hypothetical scenario in which Plowback retained earnings would be a useful redirect. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Nominators do not get to !vote twice. Your nomination statement makes it sufficiently clear that you favour deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Involved editors don't "get to" strike through others' comments just because they disagree with their position. I have just as much right to participate in this discussion as you do; your redaction of my comment has been undone and I must ask that you do not repeat it. You are more than welcome, however, to address the points I've made. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Iaritmioawp, it doesn't matter much either way, but it is in keeping with RfD norms for the nominator to not make a bulleted, bolded !vote on top of their nomination statement. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this is the fourth nomination of this redirect by the same editor, and closures of both the first two discussions were taken to DRV. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is unambiguous, harmless and there is plenty of evidence in the previous discussions that multiple people find this useful (all of which are reasons to keep a redirect). I strongly recommend dropping the stick. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Merely asserting the "usefulness" of a redirect isn't enough to prove that it's useful. Not a single hypothetical scenario has ever been presented in which this nonsensical redirect would be useful, nor could it ever be presented because the redirect is, in fact, utterly useless. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Asserting that you find the redirect useless does not prove that nobody does. Multiple people assert that it is useful, which satisfies WP:R#KEEP point 5. If you want it deleted, you need to demonstrate that its presence is causing harm that outweighs the utility to those that find it useful - none of your arguments have demonstrated any harm (reasons why you do not like it are not evidence of harm). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Pageviews analysis clearly shows that the redirect is useless, as does common sense analysis. A mere assertion that the redirect is useful, unsupported by a single example, is insufficient to negate that. We have multiple reasons for deleting redirects, one of them is WP:RFD#DELETE #8, which clearly applies to the made-up term "Plowback retained earnings." You keep talking about "multiple people" finding the redirect useful; are you one of these people? If so, would you mind supplying us with a single hypothetical scenario in which the redirect would be useful? Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If plowback and retained earnings are the same or related it should be mentioned in the article, making this a useful combination for searching, and unnecessary as a redirect (also possibly misleading, by implying that this is a phrase that is used). As "plowback" or anything similar isn't mentioned there now it isn't useful as a redirect. Peter James ( talk) 13:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Peter James: "Plowback" and "retained earnings" are synonyms. Ivanvector added plowback to the article in 2015, but it was removed in an October 2016 rewrite by Bullaful (note blocked sock). I went ahead and plowed it back in to the article, with a textbook reference using the two terms interchangeably. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - this is the eighth time Iaritmioawp has started or restarted this same discussion with essentially the same argument. Here are the results of the previous seven:
The target of this redirect is a fundamental business principle; it hasn't changed in centuries (certainly not in the four years since the most recent discussion) and isn't likely to change any time soon. Relitigating this again is nothing but disruption, this discussion should be speedy closed, and the nominator should be topic-banned from discussing this topic indefinitely to finally put an end to this complete waste of time.
Also, in what I'm sure will be a futile attempt to preempt the nominator's inevitable and relentless badgering, I am declaring now that this will be my final comment on this matter. I am unwatchlisting this page and will not read any replies to this comment. Enough of my time has been wasted on this over six damn years and I have better things to do. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion recommends a two-month waiting period before restarting a discussion closed as "no consensus." I had waited not two but four, and not months but years. You accuse me of "disruption" but the only disruptive activity on this page is your unbecoming attempt to derail the discussion. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand why this is inherently disruptive. The last discussion was 24 January 2016, in other words almost five years ago. See ArbCom and ArbCom #2 (+ the principle below) on such conduct. Particularly, Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree and As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate after a reasonable period of time has passed. And, most importantly, Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. Reading just this RfD so far, the DRV and the latest RfD, I cannot see any points of substance being made other than, mostly, saying the nomination is disruptive. Is it not acceptable for an editor to ask the community, after five years, to hold another discussion to see if consensus has changed? Maybe it hasn't, but I don't see why the editor should be shamed for asking. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    FWIW, I don't know redirect policy enough to comment on substance, but I think I've read enough to say this request doesn't seem obviously frivolous. Multiple uninvolved admins in the DRVs recommended deletion. One comment sticks out at me in particular: No one in this discussion has explained why this redirect is useful and should be kept, and many have explained why it is implausible and should be deleted. The closing administrator should have given the latter arguments greater weight and deleted the redirect. [...] It's comical, if Kafkaesque. We're binding ourselves up in knots to save a redirect no one can justify. So I think it's a little unfair to imply the nominator is acting in bad faith with frivolous deletion requests. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    There is no way to defend this redirect on its merits as it's clearly bad. Thus, those in favor of keeping it have no choice but to resort to... well, the things you can see them resorting to above. Hopefully, the admin that closes this discussion will have enough common sense to see what's going on. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:03, 11 December 2020 (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.

Watch Doges

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. While there's an acknowledged Doge->Dog connection in general, participants unanimously feel that there's no specific enough connection from the Doge meme to Watch Dogs to warrant keeping this particular redirect. ~ mazca talk 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not used in the target article and I generally suspect it's not an actual alternative title but instead some petty vandalism... Izno ( talk) 04:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • It's a popular meme. It also may be a plausible misspelling. Not sure if that's justification to keep or not... Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:PANDORA. There's no evidence that doge (meme) would be a plausible search for this game, and would imply that all "dog" articles would also be accessible using "doge". ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, lest we set a precedent for making "doge" redirects for anything with "dog" in it. Doges Trust, anyone? Dominicmgm ( talk) 07:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not mentioned by news articles as a major example of Doge (meme). AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (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.

Villa record

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. Although there is not a strong consensus here, the arguments against disambiguation are clearer and stronger than those in favour. That leaves just keeping or deleting, and overall as there is a consensus against the status quo which produces a consensus in favour of deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s), could also refer to records set by people named Villa. I think that deletion is the best option here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - can't think of any circumstances under which someone would type in "Villa record" when searching for this article, so redirect is pointless -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep @ ChrisTheDude: These are the circumstances. I'm guessing you are not a Villa fan? If the reader was looking for a particular Arsenal record, what would they type? In my own case, why would I not type Villa record? - in actual fact that is exactly what I did and I continue to use it. I struggle to remember the longwinded target page title - people dont think this way: they type in the shortest description and hope for a direct hit. Surely the redirect makes Wikipedia more user friendly. @ Rosguill: @ GiantSnowman: Surely (if ever) villarecord.com becomes notable, we simply create a disambiguation page. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 21:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
No, what a Villa fan searching for records would possibly search for Villa records or Aston Villa records, not this. Giant Snowman 23:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, so a Villa fan searching for a particular record would possibly search for Villa record or Aston Villa record. Firstly, you are using the No true Scotsman fallacy - I can assure everyone here that I am a true Villa fan. Secondly, as a "per nom" voter, can you not see the illogic in quite happily using Villa records while claiming Villa record could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s)? @ Woody: You created the redirect Aston Villa records, I would appreciate your input here. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 08:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Meh I could see someone looking for David Villa records but I don't think anyone will be looking for that website on WP so I don't think that argument has any merit. That said, I also don't see anyone typing in "Villa record" to get to this page (figuratively or literally. Woody ( talk) 10:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the target is the only thing known as "Villa" to have a records page. I'm not worried about ambiguity, but if it is ambiguous I'm sure this is the primary topic. -- Tavix ( talk) 02:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Google. "Villa records" would be borderline, "Aston Villa record" would be benign, but this just doesn't seem like an organic way of searching for the topic. The one link at 1930–31 Aston Villa F.C. season should be piped regardless of outcome here. -- BDD ( talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or disambiguate. It's possible that this is the primary topic for "Villa records" (although "Aston Villa records" is more likely as "villa" has other meanings) but unlikely for "Villa record". Addio, addio is a Villa record, as is SC Villa#Record in the top tier. Peter James ( talk) 13:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Dabify convert to a disambiguation page -- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 18:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I oppose disambiguation, because there is no topic that would simply be called "Villa record" in an encyclopedic context. --- BDD ( talk) 19:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there's too much confusion with this one. It's ambiguous and doesn't serve WP:POFR. Less Unless ( talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • It does serve WP:POFR not least as a short cut. Wikipedia may not be Google but that should not be an excuse to make Wikipedia less user friendly. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 11:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The combination of the (moderate) ambiguity and the singular form of the word 'record' combine to make this an unnecessarily confusing redirect that is not useful enough as a shortcut to outbalance that. Disambiguation also seems inappropriate because it basically would involve nothing but partial or ambiguous matches. ~ mazca talk 13:52, 16 December 2020 (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.

Cytopharynx

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 Cytostome#Cytopharynx. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ ChristianKl with the reason "Cytopharynx is not a synonym for Esophagus, it's a feature of unicellular organisms" FASTILY 02:01, 9 December 2020 (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 man behind the slaughter

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. There's clearly a connection between the redirect and the target, but consensus is clear that this is far too tenuous and ambiguous to warrant a redirect here, and there are no clear better targets. ~ mazca talk 13:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

A line from the fanmade FNAF song "It's Been So Long" by The Living Tombstone, which became a somewhat popular meme in the FNAF community earlier this year. However, the song It's Been So Long does not have its own article, and neither does The Living Tombstone. If they're not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, this redirect should be deleted. And the phrase "the man behind the slaughter" is not an official canon alias for William Afton, but a redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's implies that its canon, which is untrue. ThisIsSparta2007 ( talk) 15:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Too ambiguous. Dominicmgm ( talk) 07:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I'm getting searches for Pat Patterson (wrestler) instead, associated with Sergeant Slaughter AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. My first thought was someone would be looking for information about a person responsible for ordering or enabling a large number of deaths in (para)military or political campaigns, e.g. one of the people listed at the Butcher of the Balkans dab but obviously not limited to just that one epithet or even just that part of the world. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:43, 15 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_9&oldid=994816902"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2020.

Lydia Barrett

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) 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no mention of "Lydia" at the target, making this connection tenuous. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Did a quick Google search, just in case there is a family member named Lydia. There is none. Apparently this might be a reference to Aunt Lydia and The Handmaid's Tale. (Maybe you knew this already, but I figured I'd share what I've learned. :-) ) Edge3 ( talk) 05:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • That's what I had assumed from a cursory search, but wasn't confident enough to report the details (I haven't seen The Handmaid's Tale yet, so I didn't know the reference and didn't want to dig deeper in case of getting spoiled). It's nice to get the reaffirmation! :-) -- Tavix ( talk) 14:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete while there are some conspiracy theorists that associate Barrett with Aunt Lydia Snopes, there is not enough weight presented in news sources to show this nickname is lasting past the SCOTUS nomination process. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Deleteper explanation above-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 04:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as misleading. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2020 (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.

Xemone

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 speedy keep. Withdrawing, justification provided. signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target, a Google Scholar search doesn't suggest that this is an alternative name for the subject. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Source: Ḳasmunah (sometimes called Xemone), Jewish Encyclopedia 7, p. 451. Kyuko ( talk) 23:49, 9 December 2020 (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.

11th millennium BC

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 Timeline of human prehistory. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I would like to nominate a range of redirects to RFD. Since they have different targets, I would like community input on the best target for the redirects. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Some nominations were missing, I added them to the list at it looks like they were unintentionally removed in edit conflicts. [1] Peter James ( talk) 20:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close – I shall !vote only if it is not a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand what you're nominating these for: deletion? Retargeting? If so, where? Surely there is a burden on RfD nominators to actually propose something, or at least say what problem they want to discuss. Otherwise, I agree this open-ended discussion should be procedurally closed. –  Joe ( talk) 12:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Joe Roe: I would like to clarify. I think all of these redirects should go to the same place. I'm neutral on where they should go, so I am open to what the community thinks where they should go. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Timeline of human prehistory, which spans about 300,000 years into the past, except maybe delete 120,000 years ago, which doesn't fit an established convention and is so far back as to be arbitrary. My rationale for the choice of target is consistency with future millennia redirecting to Timeline of the far future. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget all to Timeline of human prehistory. I was expecting one with this many varying-target redirects to be pretty much a WP:TRAINWRECK, but that genuinely does seem to be a consistent target that works best for most, if not all, of these. Some of the other targets ( Last Glacial Maximum etc) are actually perfectly reasonable and relatively accurate for those particular millennia, but are also potentially unduly specific, and Timeline of human prehistory covers the various overlapping major events that concern these date ranges. It may be there are one or two examples that really might be best targeted at something more specific, but consistently targeting everything in this range to the timeline page, as a default, is excellent for consistency. ~ mazca talk 13:45, 16 December 2020 (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.

Toc Chien

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) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a case of WP:RLOTE, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 9 December 2020 (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.

List of weapons in Perfect Dark

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) 20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

No list of weapons exists in the target article. Dominicmgm ( talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This was originally created as a (badly formatted and unsourced) list of the names of 8 weapons, but that should have been deleted per WP:CSD#G4 (The version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Perfect Dark was a much longer list with context, description and (limited, poor quality) sources). As the content would meet a speedy deletion criterion if restored, there is no problem deleting it here (the redirect has never been discussed before so cannot itself be speedily deleted). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:42, 10 December 2020 (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.

Perfect Dark"

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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The out of place quotation mark makes this implausible. Dominicmgm ( talk) 17:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning keep" for the first two, as the title of the first game is stylized with similar marks after the name, but I'm unsure” about the third one since they face the other way. Regards, SONIC 678“ 01:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as stylization. There are other media titles such as Dog Days (Japanese TV series) that use ' and " for their sequel seasons. I don't know if the opening quotation mark format would be thrown in by search engine autocorrects, but I don't believe that would hurt. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (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.

Ring action

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 Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory. I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the subject matter to deal with any content additions that should follow this closure. Courtesy ping to D.Lazard and Quondum signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

"Ring action" is not mentioned in the target article (the target section has been removed since several years). "Ring action" is not defined elsewhere in WP, so there is no available target. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will this be acceptable as an {{ R without mention}}?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In response to the relisting comment, I do not believe that this should be a redirect without mention: the term should be introduced into the target section (a variant of it is already there). A notification could be posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and at Talk:Module_(mathematics) to generate more input. It has already been posted at Talk:Ring (mathematics). — Quondum 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I see that Module homomorphism uses the term "ring action" and variants of it (e.g. "R-action", "right action of a ring", and the like). Ring (mathematics) uses the term "action of a ring". Similar terms (e.g. "field action", "the ring acts") can also be found in some abstract algebra articles. It seems reasonable that the redirect exists, but I am not tied to its existence: it gets used only a few times per month, and as the exact term "ring action" seems to be rare in the literature. However, WP:Redirects are cheap, and we have three candidate target articles. I would like to see comment from people who are more familiar with the topic, such as D.Lazard, who removed a clear definition of the term that the redirect originally referenced and who nominated this redirect for discussion, and who is more knowledgeable than I am on this topic. I see that it was I who created the redirect, but since I appear to be the only person who was pinged, I feel like I am talking to myself in a vacuum. — Quondum 23:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that the term "ring action" is rare in the literature, and I do not know of any reliable source that defines it. I believe that the terms has been introduces into WP by fans of universal algebra that were reluctant to consider algebraic structures involving two sets. The recent discussion at Talk:Algebraic structure#The explanation of "involving multiple sets" has become misguided. may explain this. The fact that a "ring action" may be used for defining modules is clearly explained in Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory. However, the term of "ring representation" is used instead of "ring action". As far as I know, the term "ring action" is WP:OR. In any case, it is certainly never used for defining modules. One witness of this is that nobody uses a "field action" for defining a vector space. Another reason for not using "ring actions" for defining modules is that this would make cumbersome to define module homomorphisms.
So, except if a reliable source is provided, I consider the term "ring action" as a WP:OR concept, and I consider that it sould be removed from Wikipedia. However, as redirects are cheap, I suggest the following. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory, an add to the target section: A representation R → EndZ(M) may be called a ring action ring action of R on M. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This certainly seems to be a good way to go, essentially to treat the redirect as a way to get to what is likely meant if this unusual term is encountered. We might, however, want to avoid appearing to define it as a term, and so might want to remove the bold. — Quondum 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
OK, I have corrected my suggestion. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (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.

Closing Act

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#Closing Act

Luv Is Rage songs

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 Luv Is Rage. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Former redirects to Luv Is Rage before that page's redirection; not mentioned in new target. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I assume these should redirect to Luv Is Rage unless there's consensus for another course (i.e., "no consensus" should result in (re-)retargeting there). -- BDD ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to Luv Is Rage Ballin to the End is one of the alias titles for Ballin Soundcloud Delete Nuyork Night as that isn't the right title. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:54, 10 December 2020 (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.

Big Freeze

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. There's broad agreement that, while both the old and the current target are reasonable, Heat death of the universe is more specific to the "freeze" aspect and remains the primary topic. ~ mazca talk 14:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect changed from Future of an expanding universe to Heat death of the universe. Both use the term conspicuously. Not sure if either is a better target or if the two articles should perhaps be merged. MB 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The two possible targets are not equivalent. The future of an expanding universe has several different outcomes, only one of which is the Big Freeze, the heat death of the universe. There's also the Big Rip, and other more esoteric results. "Big Freeze" should target "heat death". "Future" should remain a separate article from heat death, as there has been much research and commentary on heat death, while "Future of an expanding universe" has other possible outcomes. It is also about the future of such a universe, including what comes before the heat death, and other paths of an expanding universe. Bear in mind there's also the article Ultimate fate of the universe, which also has the Big Crunch, and Big Bounce, etc. -- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment there's also a redirect big freeze which should be made to match wherever this redirect ends up pointing to. -- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (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.

History of the Jews in Svalbard

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) 19:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

While understandably Svalbard articles usually redirect to Norway, there's nothing about Svalbard in the article at all. This link is appearing on some templates as a blue link, and that seems misleading. CMD ( talk) 11:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as it looks like we have nowhere to send readers to give them any information on this topic. History of the Jews in Norway doesn't mention Svalbard, while the Svalbard article doesn't mention Judaism either. 61.239.39.90 ( talk) 11:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - if there's stuff to be said about Jews in Svalbard, we should be encouraging article creation via WP:REDLINK. If, as it may be, there isn't any sourced encyclopedic information to offer at the moment, we shouldn't be pretending we do have some. ~ mazca talk 13:56, 16 December 2020 (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.

Plowback retained earnings

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 no consensus. While it seems like the nominator did wait long enough between discussions for it to not be tendentious, there is still no consensus as to whether this redirect is appropriate or not signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect:
  • 1 (no consensus)
  • 2 (no consensus)
  • 3 (no consensus)

Plowback retained earnings is a made-up nonsensical phrase of considerable length and thus not a conceivable search term. None of the reasons for creating/maintaining redirects from WP:POFRED apply to it, and it fails the categorization test, i.e. none of our redirect categories apply to it. Wikipedia has no use for this page; its deletion is long overdue as per WP:RFD#DELETE #8. The only reason it dodged WP:R3 is that it was originally created as a stub. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete (as nom) Our policy dictates that " redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and in this case, the first guess would clearly be either "plowback" alone or "retained earnings" alone rather than a weird tautologous amalgamation of the two that has never been used outside of Wikipedia. Try as I may, I just couldn't come up with a single hypothetical scenario in which Plowback retained earnings would be a useful redirect. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Nominators do not get to !vote twice. Your nomination statement makes it sufficiently clear that you favour deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Involved editors don't "get to" strike through others' comments just because they disagree with their position. I have just as much right to participate in this discussion as you do; your redaction of my comment has been undone and I must ask that you do not repeat it. You are more than welcome, however, to address the points I've made. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Iaritmioawp, it doesn't matter much either way, but it is in keeping with RfD norms for the nominator to not make a bulleted, bolded !vote on top of their nomination statement. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this is the fourth nomination of this redirect by the same editor, and closures of both the first two discussions were taken to DRV. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is unambiguous, harmless and there is plenty of evidence in the previous discussions that multiple people find this useful (all of which are reasons to keep a redirect). I strongly recommend dropping the stick. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Merely asserting the "usefulness" of a redirect isn't enough to prove that it's useful. Not a single hypothetical scenario has ever been presented in which this nonsensical redirect would be useful, nor could it ever be presented because the redirect is, in fact, utterly useless. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Asserting that you find the redirect useless does not prove that nobody does. Multiple people assert that it is useful, which satisfies WP:R#KEEP point 5. If you want it deleted, you need to demonstrate that its presence is causing harm that outweighs the utility to those that find it useful - none of your arguments have demonstrated any harm (reasons why you do not like it are not evidence of harm). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Pageviews analysis clearly shows that the redirect is useless, as does common sense analysis. A mere assertion that the redirect is useful, unsupported by a single example, is insufficient to negate that. We have multiple reasons for deleting redirects, one of them is WP:RFD#DELETE #8, which clearly applies to the made-up term "Plowback retained earnings." You keep talking about "multiple people" finding the redirect useful; are you one of these people? If so, would you mind supplying us with a single hypothetical scenario in which the redirect would be useful? Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If plowback and retained earnings are the same or related it should be mentioned in the article, making this a useful combination for searching, and unnecessary as a redirect (also possibly misleading, by implying that this is a phrase that is used). As "plowback" or anything similar isn't mentioned there now it isn't useful as a redirect. Peter James ( talk) 13:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Peter James: "Plowback" and "retained earnings" are synonyms. Ivanvector added plowback to the article in 2015, but it was removed in an October 2016 rewrite by Bullaful (note blocked sock). I went ahead and plowed it back in to the article, with a textbook reference using the two terms interchangeably. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - this is the eighth time Iaritmioawp has started or restarted this same discussion with essentially the same argument. Here are the results of the previous seven:
The target of this redirect is a fundamental business principle; it hasn't changed in centuries (certainly not in the four years since the most recent discussion) and isn't likely to change any time soon. Relitigating this again is nothing but disruption, this discussion should be speedy closed, and the nominator should be topic-banned from discussing this topic indefinitely to finally put an end to this complete waste of time.
Also, in what I'm sure will be a futile attempt to preempt the nominator's inevitable and relentless badgering, I am declaring now that this will be my final comment on this matter. I am unwatchlisting this page and will not read any replies to this comment. Enough of my time has been wasted on this over six damn years and I have better things to do. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion recommends a two-month waiting period before restarting a discussion closed as "no consensus." I had waited not two but four, and not months but years. You accuse me of "disruption" but the only disruptive activity on this page is your unbecoming attempt to derail the discussion. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand why this is inherently disruptive. The last discussion was 24 January 2016, in other words almost five years ago. See ArbCom and ArbCom #2 (+ the principle below) on such conduct. Particularly, Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree and As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate after a reasonable period of time has passed. And, most importantly, Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. Reading just this RfD so far, the DRV and the latest RfD, I cannot see any points of substance being made other than, mostly, saying the nomination is disruptive. Is it not acceptable for an editor to ask the community, after five years, to hold another discussion to see if consensus has changed? Maybe it hasn't, but I don't see why the editor should be shamed for asking. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    FWIW, I don't know redirect policy enough to comment on substance, but I think I've read enough to say this request doesn't seem obviously frivolous. Multiple uninvolved admins in the DRVs recommended deletion. One comment sticks out at me in particular: No one in this discussion has explained why this redirect is useful and should be kept, and many have explained why it is implausible and should be deleted. The closing administrator should have given the latter arguments greater weight and deleted the redirect. [...] It's comical, if Kafkaesque. We're binding ourselves up in knots to save a redirect no one can justify. So I think it's a little unfair to imply the nominator is acting in bad faith with frivolous deletion requests. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    There is no way to defend this redirect on its merits as it's clearly bad. Thus, those in favor of keeping it have no choice but to resort to... well, the things you can see them resorting to above. Hopefully, the admin that closes this discussion will have enough common sense to see what's going on. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:03, 11 December 2020 (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.

Watch Doges

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. While there's an acknowledged Doge->Dog connection in general, participants unanimously feel that there's no specific enough connection from the Doge meme to Watch Dogs to warrant keeping this particular redirect. ~ mazca talk 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not used in the target article and I generally suspect it's not an actual alternative title but instead some petty vandalism... Izno ( talk) 04:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • It's a popular meme. It also may be a plausible misspelling. Not sure if that's justification to keep or not... Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:PANDORA. There's no evidence that doge (meme) would be a plausible search for this game, and would imply that all "dog" articles would also be accessible using "doge". ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, lest we set a precedent for making "doge" redirects for anything with "dog" in it. Doges Trust, anyone? Dominicmgm ( talk) 07:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not mentioned by news articles as a major example of Doge (meme). AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (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.

Villa record

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. Although there is not a strong consensus here, the arguments against disambiguation are clearer and stronger than those in favour. That leaves just keeping or deleting, and overall as there is a consensus against the status quo which produces a consensus in favour of deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s), could also refer to records set by people named Villa. I think that deletion is the best option here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - can't think of any circumstances under which someone would type in "Villa record" when searching for this article, so redirect is pointless -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep @ ChrisTheDude: These are the circumstances. I'm guessing you are not a Villa fan? If the reader was looking for a particular Arsenal record, what would they type? In my own case, why would I not type Villa record? - in actual fact that is exactly what I did and I continue to use it. I struggle to remember the longwinded target page title - people dont think this way: they type in the shortest description and hope for a direct hit. Surely the redirect makes Wikipedia more user friendly. @ Rosguill: @ GiantSnowman: Surely (if ever) villarecord.com becomes notable, we simply create a disambiguation page. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 21:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
No, what a Villa fan searching for records would possibly search for Villa records or Aston Villa records, not this. Giant Snowman 23:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, so a Villa fan searching for a particular record would possibly search for Villa record or Aston Villa record. Firstly, you are using the No true Scotsman fallacy - I can assure everyone here that I am a true Villa fan. Secondly, as a "per nom" voter, can you not see the illogic in quite happily using Villa records while claiming Villa record could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s)? @ Woody: You created the redirect Aston Villa records, I would appreciate your input here. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 08:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Meh I could see someone looking for David Villa records but I don't think anyone will be looking for that website on WP so I don't think that argument has any merit. That said, I also don't see anyone typing in "Villa record" to get to this page (figuratively or literally. Woody ( talk) 10:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the target is the only thing known as "Villa" to have a records page. I'm not worried about ambiguity, but if it is ambiguous I'm sure this is the primary topic. -- Tavix ( talk) 02:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Google. "Villa records" would be borderline, "Aston Villa record" would be benign, but this just doesn't seem like an organic way of searching for the topic. The one link at 1930–31 Aston Villa F.C. season should be piped regardless of outcome here. -- BDD ( talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or disambiguate. It's possible that this is the primary topic for "Villa records" (although "Aston Villa records" is more likely as "villa" has other meanings) but unlikely for "Villa record". Addio, addio is a Villa record, as is SC Villa#Record in the top tier. Peter James ( talk) 13:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Dabify convert to a disambiguation page -- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 18:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I oppose disambiguation, because there is no topic that would simply be called "Villa record" in an encyclopedic context. --- BDD ( talk) 19:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there's too much confusion with this one. It's ambiguous and doesn't serve WP:POFR. Less Unless ( talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • It does serve WP:POFR not least as a short cut. Wikipedia may not be Google but that should not be an excuse to make Wikipedia less user friendly. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 11:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The combination of the (moderate) ambiguity and the singular form of the word 'record' combine to make this an unnecessarily confusing redirect that is not useful enough as a shortcut to outbalance that. Disambiguation also seems inappropriate because it basically would involve nothing but partial or ambiguous matches. ~ mazca talk 13:52, 16 December 2020 (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.

Cytopharynx

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 Cytostome#Cytopharynx. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ ChristianKl with the reason "Cytopharynx is not a synonym for Esophagus, it's a feature of unicellular organisms" FASTILY 02:01, 9 December 2020 (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 man behind the slaughter

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. There's clearly a connection between the redirect and the target, but consensus is clear that this is far too tenuous and ambiguous to warrant a redirect here, and there are no clear better targets. ~ mazca talk 13:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

A line from the fanmade FNAF song "It's Been So Long" by The Living Tombstone, which became a somewhat popular meme in the FNAF community earlier this year. However, the song It's Been So Long does not have its own article, and neither does The Living Tombstone. If they're not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, this redirect should be deleted. And the phrase "the man behind the slaughter" is not an official canon alias for William Afton, but a redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's implies that its canon, which is untrue. ThisIsSparta2007 ( talk) 15:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Too ambiguous. Dominicmgm ( talk) 07:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I'm getting searches for Pat Patterson (wrestler) instead, associated with Sergeant Slaughter AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. My first thought was someone would be looking for information about a person responsible for ordering or enabling a large number of deaths in (para)military or political campaigns, e.g. one of the people listed at the Butcher of the Balkans dab but obviously not limited to just that one epithet or even just that part of the world. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:43, 15 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_9&oldid=994816902"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE