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. Jay 💬 10:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Somewhat misleading. I typed this in, looking for the notability guideline on art pieces (there isn't a specific one, it turns out), and I get... a user's draft/essay of a notability guideline on newspapers that hasn't been edited since 2013? Delete unless a better target can be found.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 23:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This is actively harmful, in that it sent Edward-Woodrow down a garden path. He's unlikely to be the only one to make that mistake, and the target deserves to be forgotten, so delete* Pppery *it has begun... 01:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Wikipedia:Notability (published works). I'm surprised there isn't a notability guidelines page for art, actually. I wouldn't be sad to see this redirect deleted, either. 〜Askarion✉ 01:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose that retarget - that's yet another dead proposal with almost all of the same problems as the current target.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Change to delete per Toll Booth Willie's comments below (as the redirect's original creator). My proposed target was only to find a target out of userspace, but perhaps it's time to let this redirect be deleted. 〜Askarion✉ 00:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment There's also
WP:ARTN which targets a specific section of the larger notability guideline. I don't have an opinion on the proposed redirect, but it might be worth keeping in mind that the similarity between this redirect and ARTN might be confusing. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, the only uses of this in discussion are referring to the essay itself (as opposed to the content in it), or are editors mistaking the shortcut as a shorthand for
WP:NARTIST, a shortcut to
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals (an approved notability guideline, not an essay nor a proposal). That could serve as a useful target, though I also wouldn't oppose deletion (we don't have to find targets for every combination of letters).
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, given that E-W and Ivan have now both found plausible independent instances in which this redirect is actively misleading.
Bernanke's Crossbow (
talk) 07:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. As the original creator of this redirect and of the draft/proposed guideline to which it points (thanks for the ping
Edward-Woodrow) I see no continuing need for the redirect, particularly if it is causing confusion. The point of the redirect was to provide a concise link for folks in
WP:JOURN to use while discussing the proposal; discussion fizzled out in 2013. While it stings a bit to acknowledge that, as
User:Pppery has said, it "deserves to be forgotten" ... well, it has. ```t b w i l l i e`$1.25` 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC) (former username Wiki Wistah)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Lisa Simpson giving head
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.
Comment – It is mentioned in the linked section: It was suggested that the logo resembled the American cartoon characters Lisa Simpson and Bart Simpson performing fellatio. I'm not entirely convinced this is a plausible enough search term to refer to this logo in particular, however.
Randi🦋TalkContribs 22:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I highly doubt that it's plausible, especially since it could be easily interpreted as a bad-faith redirect. Millows!| 🪧 05:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 23:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as an unclear nomination. As others have commented, there is mention. It could be easily interpreted as a bad-faith redirect, but is not. Note that
giving head is a valid redirect too, in case the words in the title are seen as a concern. Jay 💬 11:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Unused shortcut to a nonexistent anchor. No relevant content in the page about mixed capitalization (as opposed to alternative capitalizations in general). –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 19:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm surprised I can't find another suitable place for this.
MOS:TMCAPS has some discussion of mixed capitalization, but the context is too specific for this to point there. --
BDD (
talk) 21:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors have not yet presented a clear path forward. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 20:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep with other changes: at the time the redirect was created, the anchor existed (see
Special:Permalink/298473222#othercapitalization) and was placed in a table of rcat templates, alongside a description of {{R from other capitalisation}}. The table disappeared a long time ago, but the information in it generally corresponds to the "purposes of redirects" section in the current guideline. If there are no better targets, I suggest adding the anchor back to that section at the "likely alternative capitalizations" bullet, to preserve the intent of any past uses of this shortcut in discussions.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
CPRR
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.
Note that
Cprr targets to the Central Pacific Railroad rather than Carolwood Pacific. I advise retargeting CPRR to
Central Pacific Railroad because of the following (in no particular order):
Cprr -> Central Pacific was created first (2011 v. 2018)
My quick Google search showed more results related to Central Pacific than Carolwood Pacific.
Central Pacific's on-wiki page views
surpasses that of Carolwood.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 20:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget CPRR being a historical name for the Canadian Pacific Railroad is not mentioned in the article nor could I find any source confirming this. :3
F4U (
they/it) 05:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom. CPRR is not a shorthand for the Canadian Pacific Railroad; British North American and Canadian railroads did not use "RR" for railroad in their shortcodes, that's a USA convention. A hatnote would handle that error.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Ivan; non-railfan users are much more likely to search for the first transcon than any other railroad company.
Bernanke's Crossbow (
talk) 06:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
David Larson (casual/amateur/quarter-professional poker player)
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.
These redirect were created all around the same time. Thre out of four of which target different places. It seems that these are the same people. I also question if "quarter-professional poker player" is a disambiguator that would be likely used. I can't find use of it as a phrase on the internet.
TartarTorte 14:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
David Larson (poker player) and David Larson (quarter-professional) is the same person but just different ways of defining the player. Of these, I can see the "quarter-professional" defining to be the one going down. The other two, of which the causal player may not meet notability (and with the other one a World Poker Tour winner (probably notable)), are two other David Larson's. See this page for clarification -->
https://www.thehendonmob.com/search/?q=david+larsonTheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 14:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, my mistake. I had assumed all the David Larsons playing at WSOP were the same, but it appears to just be a common name in poker. I don't think they necessarily need to be unified in their target then, as that would be incorrect, but maybe there are ways of creating slightly different disambiguators that would be a bit more clear to differentiate between them, but I can't figure that out myself. Thanks for the explanation!
TartarTorte 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I've now created a second set of disambiguators (included as David Larson (circuit player (equivalent w/ David Larson (quarter-professional poker player))); David Larson (WPT winner (equivalent w/ David Larson (amateur poker player))); and David Larson (aria casino player (equivalent w/ David Larson (casual poker player)))). I suggest using both sets for ultimate clarity. I've also created David Larson (poker player) (as a fullength article) - David Larson (quarter-professional poker player) should now link to that article instead - and David Larson (WPT winner) (fullength article) - David Larson (amateur poker player) could so be redirected here. Hopefully this is'nt too elaborate.
TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (
talk) 13:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Project Blueprint
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.
Not mentioned at the target. Most things on wikipedia related to Project Blueprint are related to Australia Supercar Racing. It seems if there is a target that maybe
Supercars Championship#Project Blueprint would be the best retarget? I'm not sure if there is a better target as I don't follow supercars as closely as otherforms of motorsports, or if there is a good non-motorsports related retarget.
TartarTorte 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Perhaps a disambiguation page listing both the supercar racing and the Bryan Johnson pages would be best. I wouldn't have created the redirect page (yet, at least) if I had known there would be a new objection in the RFC I linked to.
Vontheri (
talk) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry about that. I missed the RFC on the talk page. I think that if the mentions are restored/retained on the page then it would make sense to DAB between the two as well. I don't think one is overwhelmingly a
WP:PTOPIC.
TartarTorte 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
So if no one objects, then either you or I can change the redirect to the Australia supercar article, then when/if the mentions to the Bryan Johnson page are restored, (which I'm quite confident will happen), then we can make it a disambiguation page. If you want to go ahead and change the redirect to the supercar article for now, then I'm fine with that.
Vontheri (
talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
ALF (comics)
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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) 13:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
There is no entry anymore for Zeitgeist. From what I remember of Zeitgeist and of the research I have done of it, I can't really find a suitable target. There are some google products that are in certain ways successors to Zeitgeist but none direct successor and none that mention google zeitgeist on their wikipedia article. The closest article I can find that mentions in it a somewhat explanatory way is
Timeline of Google Search but that's not a great target in my view because it doesn't fully explain it.
TartarTorte 23:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think
Google Trends is the product's successor, though I don't know if it's a direct or indirect one. See the stub in the redirect's history and pages
like this for more information. -
Eureka Lott 14:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Probably notable, or at least close enough that it should be covered somewhere in the encyclopaedia. Restore article and slightly beef up with
NPR,
Wired for starters. J947 † edits 00:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk pages of Timeline of Google Search and Google Trends. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think there's any good target for this.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 16:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete unless a suitable target is found or an article is created. Pretty typical
WP:R#D10 for now. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 21:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - If the content was previously merged to
Google search, then I'm wondering where it went. Maybe it was later moved to some sub-page, like the ones noted above? Anyway, if, as
J947 notes, there are sources, then some editor should be able to restore the text and add sources, and wherever that is done, that's where these should target. In the meantime,
Timeline of Google Search, seems to be the page for the history of it, and there's a mention of it there, so I guess that seems the best target for now. - jc37 05:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The merging user
MamboJambo removed it an hour later! However the user was consolidating everything at
List of Google products which at the time had mention of Zeitgeist, but I don't see him making use of the merged/removed content at that list page. Jay 💬 07:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, in that case, it sounds like we have the content, so let's decide where best to merge it to (if anywhere) and point the redirect there? - jc37 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input, as participants have yet to decide what should be done with this redirect… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and oppose restoring. The mainspace content is an unsourced directory listing from 2006 that would clearly not survive NPP/AFD. Of the targets suggested only
Timeline of Google Search mentions it, and that has far too little substance to warrant a redirect.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I understand your point, but if a reader is looking for Google Zeitgeist, we ought to send them "somewhere". - jc37 21:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Skarmory. Interestingly, the term seems to refer to two different Google services:
a TED-talk–style YouTube channel; and a former service that showed a "snapshot in time by week, month and year of what people were searching for in Google"[5] similar to Year in Search, hence why
https://google.com/zeitgeist – which strangely seems inaccessible through archive.org – redirects to
https://archive.google/trends/2014. –
CopperyMarrow15(
talk |
edits)Feel free to ping me! 19:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Erlenmeyer rule
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 former is not mentioned at its target; the latter was
retargeted from that article to one where it is mentioned, but where the former is linked. I suppose aligning the first with the second would currently be the best solution, though the then-circular-links would need to be removed.
1234qwer1234qwer4 19:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. A cursory examination reveals merely that "The Erlenmeyer rule states that all alcohols in which the hydroxyl group is attached directly to a double-bonded carbon atom become aldehydes or ketones." The intent seems to be that this statement, properly amplified and referenced, should appear within the Enol article. Some chemistry-savvy Wikipedian will eventually do so, one hopes.
Urhixidur (
talk) 14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
If
Enol had a history section one could mention this rule there, but very few (i.e. likely no one) teaching
tautomerization refer to the rule as it is not helpful in understanding what is occurring chemically/mechanistically. It is no longer relevant to the modern understanding of
enols, but it will always be relevant to
Emil Erlenmeyer; retarget there. ―
Synpath 17:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 05:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget both to
Emil Erlenmeyer, where the Erlenmeyer Rule is described. Though it might refer to
enol or be relevant to that topic, it is not described there, making it a
WP:SURPRISE to readers.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Wikipedia:Lindsay Moshesh - van der Byl
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 delete. CSD G6 LizRead!Talk! 03:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Please delete this cross-namespace redirect. It was created as a result of page moves. A well-meaning but inexperienced editor mistakenly moved his/her draft article to Wikipedia-space; he/she meant to move it to article-space. --
Toddy1(talk) 02:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Wikipedia:Darren Isaacs
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 delete. CSD G6 LizRead!Talk! 03:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Please delete this cross-namespace redirect. It was created as a result of page moves. A well-meaning but inexperienced editor mistakenly moved his/her draft article to Wikipedia-space; he/she meant to move it to article-space. --
Toddy1(talk) 02:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
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 Web and the Internet are two different things. The Internet powers the Web. The article also doesn't mention "Web" (save for saying that "Web site" has turned into "website" which isn't that related)
Aaron Liu (
talk) 02:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but change to include {{R to related topic}} and {{R with possibilities}} - the Web and the Internet are different objects, but the same capitalization issue exists with both. Until someone writes an article on 'web' vs 'Web', the Internet one is a useful related topic to reference. Full disclosure: I'm involved in the discussion at
Talk:Web Environment Integrity#Open Web that I believe spurred this one.
DefaultFree (
talk) 02:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
It did spur but I don’t think it was related that much
It is a related topic but it doesn’t talk about it at all, plus the search function exists for a reason
Aaron Liu (
talk) 03:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per DefaultFree. I will say that, for me personally, I was unaware that the Web and the Internet are two different things before this discussion, so the redirect is useful. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Huh... that's a very weird section to put that paragraph in, I might change that later. I support either deletion or retargetting for this one.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 20:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review).