This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 31, 2023.
Consciousness engineering
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 23:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The target page does not make any mention of engineering, and google suggests it might not be a 1:1 target match. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:26, 31 October 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).
In minecraft
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.
Fuzheado |
Talk 11:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Does not seem to be a reason to include the word "in" here. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete 4chan meme. Not sure where to put it but it's not directly related to the game --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only usage of this phrase is for a meme that is not discussed in the article—no other reason for "in" to be used. ULPS(
talk •
contribs) 01:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unused, unnecessary redirect with no useful purpose. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 06:01, 1 November 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.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There was an overall lack of clarity on exactly what propositions were being made, convoluting the discussion, and an unfortunate lack of participation after the final relist.
(non-admin closure)—
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 02:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why this redirect exists - no mention on destination article. This is a Hungarian surname, so it is a likely search term that should not be silently redirecting to a place in Belarus.
asilvering (
talk) 22:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
In this case isn't it better to delete the redirect entirely?
Sluch (Belarus) will show up in the search results, now that you've added to that article. --
asilvering (
talk) 23:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
In this case I think it's still better to keep the redirect for now, given that
the search results leave it buried under the barely-notable musician and a bunch of citations to authors with the surname. But I agree deletion is a better option than the status quo or an {{R from surname}}. Let's see which option other editors support.
59.149.117.119 (
talk) 01:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Morocz is only linked to in the WWII article
Operation Hornung. The village has an article in 5 languages, including
Polish, but with only 137 inhabitants not really notable. I propose to change the link in Operation Hornung to
Morocz (Salihorsk District) which would be a link to
Salihorsk District.
Filiep (
talk) 06:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Move without redirect to
Morocz, Belarus per Skarmory and retarget per IP. I understand the IP said later to "keep the redirect" but I think he may have meant to retain the redirect at the suggested target of Sluch (Belarus). Removal of the page at the title of Morocz will ensure that search results are helpful, per IP. Jay 💬 12:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow •
talk 13:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Sluch (Belarus) per the IP above. There's no reason to bother moving redirects since there appears to be nothing else worthy of a redirect competing for this title.
* Pppery *it has begun... 22:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Clarifying my earlier comment, since this discussion is starting to confuse me a little: I was recommending changing the link within Operation Hornung to
Morocz, Belarus (or Minsk Region), not moving the redirect to that title. I think my preference would currently be to disambiguate, with
Tamás Mórocz,
Sluch (Belarus), and
Morocz, Belarus, though it's not a particularly strong one. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 16:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: for consideration of the disambiguation suggestion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:53, 31 October 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).
Swe-bop
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 23:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target article, nor is "bop". The only source I could find on this was that it was a derivative of swiss jazz, and not swedish. Would recommend deletion, however. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:43, 31 October 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).
Devil Z
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.
Would probably a better redirect to
Wangan Midnight, given that it is more associated with that (search engine popularity also leans towards it).
FMecha (
to talk|
to see log) 22:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:09, 1 November 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).
Goaltender(ice hockey)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 23:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:RDAB due to lack of space between title and disambiguator. The title with the current spacing, Goaltender (ice hockey), is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete due to malformed modifier --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete although from 2007 it was created as a redirect rather than from a move or duplicate. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 21:10, 6 November 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.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 23:39, 7 November 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.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 14:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Persian translation of term with no connection to Iran or any of its cultures. Delete per condition 8 of
WP:RDEL.
ArcticSeeress (
talk) 14:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Classic
WP:NOTDICTIONARY, use of redirects as a form of foreign language dictionary. Not qualified for acceptance under
WP:FORRED.
Largoplazo (
talk) 19:26, 31 October 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.
Personal name of
Duanzong is Zhao Shi, not Shi Zhao. Other emperors from Song Dynasty also don't have such redirects.
-Lemonaka 12:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep due to plausible error
Yoblyblob (
talk) 14:43, 31 October 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).
Tapping into oneness
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 14:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Cannot imagine anyone looking up such a term and if anyone did, there is nothing at the target page that would shed any light on it.
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (
talk) 09:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. We don't use random woo-speak for redirects.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 10:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It likely won't surprise anyone that this is a phrase that is widely used, but it is far too vague to make a useful redirect - results mainly relate to relaxation or meditation (either generally or specific types or techniques of or as part of some type of therapy), ludic dreaming, and rebalancing/enhancing/discovering various "psychic energies" (and similar woo). Notably in the first four pages of Google hits not one was related to telepathy.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
delete per nom. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:12, 1 November 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.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, R3 & G7. by
User:PonyoLenticel(
talk) 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Misspelling of language as laguage. Only other use of this spelling in Wikipedia is in an erroneous quote in
Tridu Songtsen. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Since you created this redirect, this is now eligible per
G7. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 18:35, 31 October 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.
The result of the discussion was delete.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 15:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Probably has something to do with
Donald Trump, but the target article does not explain what.
Steel1943 (
talk) 01:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Rarely used derogatory nickname - in fact, mostly seemingly used for Mike Johnson, a completely different politician, making the case for deletion even stronger. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits) 01:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This should not be a redirect at all. Neither for Mike Lawler or Mike Johnson. Keeping it is akin to having "Crooked Hillary" redirect to
Hillary ClintonEpicradman123 (
talk) 05:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
See
WP:RNEUTRAL. Being non-neutral or even derogatory, is not a reason in itself to delete a redirect that is otherwise useful, e.g.
Crooked Hillary exists (although it points to the list article where it is mentioned, not her bio where it isn't).
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
delete it is not recognizable or relevant enough to be useful as a redirect. Trump gives many people many nicknames, we don’t need to document each one.
isadora of ibiza(talk) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget and add an entry to
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump - this fits the selection criteria for that list (which includes names made up by Trump as well as those with other origins that Trump has used).
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Attack redirect, whether it's Lawler or Johnson. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 20:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete neither the current target nor the proposed target even use the term a single time, not even in the references section.
JM2023 (
talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Before looking, I would have assumed this was referring to
Mike Pence. Is
MAGA really an 'attack'? It seems like it'd be something these guys are embracing. --
Tavix(
talk) 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, retarget, or convert to a disambiguation page. I don't see a single 'delete' argument that holds water. Redirects are intended to be used for common search terms. The fact that some may subjectively consider it derogatory is irrelevant if that's what people are using to search for the topic. There is no requirement for a redirect to be neutral or non-derogatory in order to be useful, and besides the target of the redirect is likely pleased and proud of the nickname, and from that perspective it's neither an attack nor derogatory. Furthermore, there is no requirement for an article to mention all the terms that people might use to find the article. All the 'delete' comments here are nothing more than excuses for
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 02:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete seeming attack redirect, per
WP:Redirect#D3. The only reason to keep would be if it were widely used, and would tangibly facilitate search results towards
Mike Johnson in a way that outweighs D3. However, the nickname has been used mostly by Matt Gaetz, with news articles attributing it to him or otherwise linking it back to him
[2][3][4]. Apparently, House Democrats have tried it out once, too
[5], but I don't think it rises to the level of widely-used at this point to justify the redirect existing. Maybe in a month or two, if it really takes off.
PhotogenicScientist (
talk) 16:37, 6 November 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).
Retribution (upcoming film)
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. 0x
Deadbeef→∞ (
talk to me) 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Still getting a significant amount of page views. Come back when we're on the order of single digits per week not multiple per day.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
An average of less than 2 views a day is not a rationale to keep based on the agreed-upon verbiage of
WP:UFILM.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
See my comment below. UFILM does not say what you think it says.
Thryduulf (
talk) 04:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
InfiniteNexus eh? Please explain why it is problematic to point out when someone is citing a guideline incorrectly?
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
You're the one citing the guideline incorrectly. --
Tavix(
talk) 12:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I find it amusing that every time one of these redirects get nominated, you're the only one who objects with the same old arguments. Time and again, we have seen that most editors do not share your opinion on when a redirect becomes useless, and almost never has consensus been swayed by your dissent. And I shall remind you that if you had agreed to a CSD criterion as originally proposed, we wouldn't be here clogging RfD and going around in circles.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 18:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM, the film was released more than 30 days ago. --
Tavix(
talk) 01:23, 1 November 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).
Cobweb (upcoming American film)
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. 0x
Deadbeef→∞ (
talk to me) 03:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM. Film was released about half a year ago, and the redirect has virtually no page views.
Steel1943 (
talk) 01:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Has actually had a resurgence of page views in the last month, it still getting multiple hits on most days which is a long way from "virtually no page views".
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
An average of less than 2 views a day is not a rationale to keep based on the agreed-upon verbiage of
WP:UFILM.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
UFILM says "when the page views have tapered off", it doesn't explicitly state what that means but it's certainly not getting hits on more days than it's not.
Thryduulf (
talk) 04:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
UFILM does not say "when the page views have tapered off". It actually says ...at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, in order to allow pageviews to taper off. It is explaining why there is a 30-day grace period (rather than deleting as soon as it's released), it's not a second requirement. For that to be the case, it would have to say something like "...at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, and for pageviews to taper off to minimal levels." --
Tavix(
talk) 12:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The point of in order to allow pageviews to taper off. is so that the redirect is not deleted until the page views have tapered off, otherwise there would be no reason to mention them at all. Therefore it is not in accordance with UFILM to delete a redirect before the page views have tapered off. They have not done so in this case.
Thryduulf (
talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The consensus agreed to in
WP:UFILM is that 30 days is the amount of time to allow page views to taper off. It was not agreed to that page views need to taper off to some specific undefined amount before deletion. You're still reading into the clause something that is not there. --
Tavix(
talk) 14:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM, the film was released more than 30 days ago. --
Tavix(
talk) 01:20, 1 November 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).
Methylene iodite
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 14:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
While the names are similar, this target refers to an iodide and not an iodite. In fact, there are no individual pages on Wikipedia about iodite compounds (beyond the general
Iodite), due to the fact that they decompose so rapidly. Because of this, the "iodite" in this particular title is misleading. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as chemically incorrect. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as potentially confusing --
Lenticel(
talk) 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. As best as I can tell, this is a misspelling of methylene iodide, a synonym for diiodomethane. I found no usage of "methylene iodite" as a synonym for diiodomethane; however, it's possible to hear "iodide" as "iodite" when spoken so this is a plausible misspelling for the purposes of searching. ―
Synpath 17:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
For completeness: Google scholar returns roughly 15 results searching "methylene iodite" used mostly in the context of separating out zircon or other grains from crushed rock as some density gradient technique that includes bromoform (not my area of expertise). In other words, they're definitely not using some exotic oxidized iodine compound. ―
Synpath 17:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete due to being incorrect, confusing, and misleading. Iodite is a real thing, so having this redirect misleadingly implies this is an alternative name for the compound when it's not. The correct
methylene iodide exists.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 00:25, 1 November 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).