Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• University Institutes of Technology → University technical institute (France)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's impossible to associate this term with a single subject, even though the french name is in plural too. NotAGenious (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination is simply incorrect - every hit on Google for "University Institutes of Technology" -Wikipedia down to at least the middle of page 2 refer to University technical institutes in France (either the system or the institutions collectively, both of which are covered at the current target article). From the middle of page 2 there are some results for specific institutions of this type - the correct target for searches that generate that kind of result is the list of institutions, which in this case is located at the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On incognito mode, in order:

  https://www.institutesoftechnology.org.uk/ (UK)

  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/institutes-of-technology--2/institutes-of-technology (UK)

  https://www.tudublin.ie/ (UK)

  https://classesinternationales.org/network-of-university-institutes-of-technology.php (France)

  https://www.kth.se/en (Sweden)

  https://www.uitrgpv.ac.in/ (India)

  https://www.gatech.edu/ (USA)

  https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-technology-colleges/ (blog, USA) NotAGenious (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag as {{R from move}}. This redirect is the result of a move that happened just before the nominator proposed deletion. There are still dozens of internal links to the redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:42, 8 September 2024 (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 retarget to Alberta charter schools. Jay 💬 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Almadina (school) → Calgary#School system  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target. There's definitely a school in Calgary called this [1], but that doesn't make this a helpful redirect. The name is also ambiguous with [2] [3] and [4], to name a few. I suggest deletion. Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Alberta charter schools, where these schools are described. The schools in Alberta appear to be the only ones of this name represented in Wikipedia. If that changes, this can be pointed to the disambiguation page as a {{r from incomplete disambiguation}}. - Eureka Lott 21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Alberta charter schools per Eureka Lott. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:39, 15 September 2024 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Patch-management → Patch management  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redirect, not helpful for navigation. (Do I have the right 'closure' tag?) Tule-hog (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't understand the nomination statement, but "not helpful for navigation" is definitely incorrect - this is a straightforward {{R from modification}}. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably either {{R from alternative hyphenation}} or {{R from adjective}}. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not helpful in that its simply not used, no reason to have it anymore than there is reason for a specific redirect from Patch-ManAgEmenT. Tule-hog (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your example is absurd, while the redirect in the nomination is orthographically correct depending on the context. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:13, 14 September 2024 (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 retarget to WMN. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wmn → Woman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure how omitted vowels make this a plausible misspelling. Potentially this could be retargeted to the disambiguation page WMN, though all entries there are all-uppercase; otherwise, delete. ^Complex/_Rational 14:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to WMN. It seems to be fairly standard to have lower-cased redirects to TLAs. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. I added a lower-cased language code. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WMN per the IP editor. While the nominator is correct that this is not a plausible misspelling, that's because it's not a misspelling - it's an intentional abbreviation. It's a plausible search term, but not the primary topic for those three letters though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WMN per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:38, 9 September 2024 (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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Laws of work → Thermodynamics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, and might also refer to Labour law. (Interestingly, work law does not exist as a redirect to that article.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is an uncommon term, and i dont think we lose anything by getting rid of it. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between Thermodynamics and Labour law. Disambiguations are cheap enough to cover this cost. Work law should exist, as Employment law does. BD2412 T 03:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If we're going to convert this to a disambiguation page, Laws of thermodynamics would probably be a better entry than Thermodynamics. - Eureka Lott 15:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DABify between Laws of thermodynamics and Labour law. A search in Google Scholar and other search engines show this term is used in both contexts frequently. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a term used in physics or thermodynamics, and I can't find it used for the laws of thermodynamics anywhere in a quick google search. Work is an important concept in thermodynamics, but only the first law of thermodynamics talks about work. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per Ca's research. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be leaning toward "disambiguate", but more discussion is still needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Dab drafted below the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2024 (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 retarget to Crosswind landing#Techniques. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Crab angle → Course (navigation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Related to Crosswind_landing#Techniques? 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Crosswind_landing#Techniques per nom. Seems like what users searching the term are seeking. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2024 (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 retarget to Π1. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pi1 → Oryza sativa#Pi1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently also refers to Yudo Pi1. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate retarget to Π1 and add "Pi1" as one of the variants covered there. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Π1 where IP has added both entries. Jay 💬 09:22, 14 September 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Margaretville Railroad Station → Margaretville station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Margaretville Station → Delaware and Northern Railroad  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Margaretville station → Delaware and Northern Railroad  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target. Perhaps there's a better target? Redirect is a result of an AFD discussion but I can't see the logic in redirecting to an article that doesn't contain any material on the search term. TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of why I originally nominated the article for deletion. It is completely uncited, which makes merging a non-option. despite it being closed as merge. Thus, I used the other consensus, and redirected.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, but does the station even meet WP:NOTE? The only notable thing mentioned is an AMWAY and it's an WP:EASTEREGG. Unless I'm missing something it's a long demolished train station in a tiny town. This isn't really relevant to the official procedure, but I've got family in the area and Margaretville is lovely but tiny, even when the station existed it probably wasn't particularly notable. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 20:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also bundle Margaretville Station and Margaretville Railroad Station with this. Jay 💬 11:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects, as suggested by Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. The article itself is a real problem and a borderline copyright violation of the 1943 Railroad Magazine article. Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd love to take a look at that magazine, but it looks like the article never had any citations. So that puts us at 4 reasons to delete: per nom, the fifteen years without a single citation, my question re: WP:NOTE, and now potential plagiarism. Just delete the lot of them. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:39, 10 September 2024 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiplicities → Multiplicity (mathematics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear that this plural form would not be ambiguous the same way as Multiplicity. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The term is used in other disciplines but mathematics is by far the primary topic in my search results. A hatnote to the dab will suffice for those looking for other things. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is its use in other disciplines a carefully defined technical term belonging to those disciplines (as it is in mathematics) or is it just an ordinary word used in English? If the latter, then Multiplicity (mathematics) seems like the right target. Unless the page is to be moved to Multiplicity, in which case, if necessary, a hatnote could either direct the user to a disambiguation page or say "For the number of belly buttons a person has, see Multiplicity (omphalology)." Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested potential target Multiplicity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how "multiplicities" is used in other disciplines, but equally I don't know how that is relevant? The primary topic for the plural is very clearly the mathematical use, but that topic is correctly titled in the singular, therefore the status quo is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB, the term "multiplicities" only appears once in Multiplicity (mathematics) but also appears in Multiplicity (chemistry) and in a footnote at Multiplicity (philosophy) and while Google does return the mathematics Wikipedia article first it also returns the philosophy article and I don't think like Orange v Oranges there is much of a difference between the singular v plural to have different targets per WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does seem like the mathematical use in the primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, add a {{Redirect}} hatnote to the dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2024 (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 retarget to Surangkana Wayuparb#ETDA. Jay 💬 09:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ETDA → Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created as an obvious typo of the common name of the chemical, EDTA. However, "ETDA" has two legitimate meanings - the Electronic Trade Documents Act (2023) (see UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records), and the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (see Surangkana Wayuparb). Neither of these has its own article, but the UK legislation, at least, has the potential to merit one. A standard {{redirect}} on the EDTA page is a possibility, but the resulting text will be long and potentially disruptive. My suggestion is therefore to add an ETDA section to EDTA (disambiguation) with entries for the UK law and the Thai government agency, but I don't know if this is fully compliant with our rules on DAB pages, and would like to discuss it before taking unilateral action. Tevildo (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I think it should be redirected to one of the two article's subsections, with a {{Redirect-distinguish}} template added to the other article. I would rather this than maintaining the continued redirection to EDTA/Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid that I had originally set up in 2007, 17 years ago when there were fewer overall articles on en.wikipedia, and there was a greater need to redirect such typos. My preference would be for Electronic Transactions Development Agency, as it actually uses the 'ETDA' acronym within the article (and as a section heading), while Electronic Trade Documents Act (2023) does not use 'ETDA' as an acronym within the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records article. Wiz9999 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Surangkana Wayuparb#ETDA and add a {{Redirect-distinguish}} hatnote there per Wiz9999. In the spirit of MOS:DABACRO, this target is the only use of ETDA as an acronym on enwiki, so it should redirect there for now. Another option is a dab page, but I don't think we should weight a valid use and a misspelling equally for disambiguation purposes, unless there is evidence the misspelling is usually prevalent so as to rival the correct use. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2024 (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).