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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editor asking for delay until the resolution of a different RFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:30, 18 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editor asking for a delay until the resolution of a different RFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of characters from the game were nominated separately. I believe they should have been nominated together. I suggested re-nominating them together if this got closed as keep. Anyway, now that it has been decided to not restore the list, delete. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:54, 29 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editor asking to wait until the resolution of another RFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:27, 18 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.
It was mentioned in the lead of the affiliate, but not in the article body. I moved it down to a section. May be retargeted, and unlinked there. Jay 💬12:05, 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).
2031 NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament
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 men's tournament is scheduled to be there. I'm happy to withdraw if it is shown that the women's tournament is also set in the same place. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no relevant information at the target, except that it's apparently scheduled to take place at a specific stadium, which is unsourced. I think this is too far in the future with too little information at the target to be useful. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of no sourcing at the target, not a redirect concern. Agree that there is no information other than the stadium name. Jay 💬18:21, 12 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.
Delete. Someone entering this title is probably looking for F. Scott Fitzgerald, but the omission doesn't seem to have affinity (AFAICT he was never referred to as "F. Fitzgerald"). If you search for "F. Fitzgerald", F. Scott Fitzgerald is the first result, so the redirect doesn't have much navigational value either. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very clearly not the primary topic in Ireland, where the name FitzGerald originates. There is currently no hatnote for F. Fitzgerald on the F. Scott Fitzgerald article. One would need to add F. Fitzgerald (disambiguation) as a redirect to Fitzgerald (surname)#F in order to pick up Fern Fitzgerald and Frances FitzGerald (disambiguation). I would oppose any such hatnote as it would clutter the article and invite the inference that "F. Fitzgerald" is a reasonably common way to refer to "F. Scott Fitzgerald" as opposed to a very rare way. jnestorius(talk)21:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thruduulf. It does not lack affinity, by the way, as excluding a middle name is a reasonable thing to do in many cases. — Godsy (TALKCONT)21:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Isn't "this modification could just as well apply to a vast number of other titles" the definition of "lacks affinity"? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa:Affinity applies to things like a period at the end of a title, being in quotes, etc. In other words, an error that could apply to almost absolutely any title. A title without a middle name only applies to names, and furthermore only names including a middle name. It is always reasonable to leave out a middle name for a redirect, as long as there is no ambiguity in what's covered (or there is a primary topic as in this case). I would support that every single time. I would not support every single title having a redirect from that title in quotes or with a full stop at the end and so forth. Affinity is in regard to much broader variants, not specific ones like this. This situation clearly does not apply to every title (or a vastly broad enough swath of titles). Even if it did, it would still be appropriate all the time, rendering affinity double moot. — Godsy (TALKCONT)09:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does seem to be occasionally used in product listings and non-RS. If there were usage of the term to refer to anyone else, that low-quality usage wouldn't be weighted very strongly, but the only search results I see are spurious ones about John F. Fitzgerald. (The sources still write out the entirety of "John F. Fitzgerald"; Google just includes them because the substring matches.) Limited usage trumps no usage, so keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Autogenerated listings and poorly copyedited self-publishing? I don't think is persuasive evidence that real humans are using the term other than as a slip. The term is too ambiguous to prioritise autocorrecting a slip. jnestorius(talk)22:04, 28 July 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.
weird case, this one. results are torn between every possible thing that can be and is referred to as a literal straw man (from scarecrows to straw men to straw man), and also donald trump. straw man (literal) was seemingly accidentally moved by a bot to avoid a double redirect, though its talk page still redirects to the dummy. opinions? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? It's an entirely plausible disambiguator for multiple topics things that are literally made of straw, including Straw man (dummy) and Scarecrow, that would be used by someone who doesn't want the rhetorical use but doesn't know there is more than one literal usage. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to sound repetitive but this comment again makes me go "eh?" - I don't understand how OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is at all relevant here? We have a plausible search term that people are apparently using but which could refer to multiple different articles. When that happens we disambiguate because multiple articles exist. What is rhetorical and literal is not subjective in this case - either something is a man made that is literally made of straw or it isn't. Someone using this search term knows they don't want the article about the type of argument or other figurative uses but they don't know that we have articles about multiple things that meet that description - and they should not be required to know that before being able to find the article they want. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's better than deletion, but still inferior to the disambiguation page as there are multiple types of literal straw man and I see no evidence for a primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Straw man (disambiguation) I am concerned about the accuracy of a redirect to Straw man (dummy). Our article on the logical fallacy of the same name states "The term's origins are a matter of debate, though the usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw that is easy to knock down or destroy—such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy."
Straw man, even discounting the logical fallacy is used vaguely to refer to many literal topics. (You could even argue that the most literal interpretation of "straw man" is a man made of straws)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try. Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target and creator talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬16:13, 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.
I expect it is more that it is sometimes, for whatever, reason, used as a cool-looking symbol for Vitamin D rather than "officially" being connected. Cremastra (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This character is part of a range of symbols in Unicode derived from ARIB STD-B62 related to TV broadcasting technologies. According to this translation, it represents data broadcasting, which would be a more pertinent target than the current target Data. It might also be okay to redirect it to its Unicode block’s page, though I don’t think that is as helpful. Vitamin D is a red herring and not relevant to this discussion: searching for the character on Google brings up results about vitamin D only because Google normalizes “🆥” to “d”, and searching for “d” also brings up results about vitamin D. Gorobay (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement, where it will provide information on what the f this character is. At that location, I suggest the meaning of "data broadcasting" be explained, and we can link to that article there, in order to serve the admittedly unlikely possibility of someone already knowing the meaning of the symbol and wanting to get to that article. Far more likely, anyone searching for this stumbled across it in the unicode character map or stumbled across someone using it randomly, and wondering what it is. The unicode block page will provide the information said searcher is looking for. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Same relisting comment as last week. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:28, 18 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.
Brief mention in relation to a particular work, but the genre itself is not described within the article. Any thoughts or better target suggestions? — Godsy (TALKCONT)00:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A move without redirect to punk rock opera would certainly be possible on the technical side; however, that title has existed since 2007 (just looked). However, that (sub)genre does not seem to be covered explicitly at the current target either. At the end of the day, an important question remains: Are we directing readers to a place that sufficiently covers what they are looking for? If either 'punk opera' or 'punk rock opera' are synonymous enough with 'rock opera', that may not be a problem. — Godsy (TALKCONT)20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled with the other similar redirect, as requested by the nom. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!20:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay:A move without redirect to punk rock opera would certainly be possible on the technical side; however, that title has existed since 2007 (just looked). I have no suggestions at this time. — Godsy (TALKCONT)18:35, 18 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.
Delete because it is unclear whether this word means a black leopard or a black Asian golden cat or just a black cat. The user who once created this page, referred to only one newspaper article mentioning this word. So I think the WP:Notability of this page is questionable. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:44, 19 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.
Delete - I can't help but see this as implausible. Basically no one uses this literal translation of the Japanese name, 5 hits in a year notwithstanding. WP:RFOR would allow for the exact Japanese name (in kana, kanji, and various romanization systems) but this literal translation of the name seems a step too far removed. It reminds me of that silly game where you use machine translation back and forth between languages a bunch of times to get something nonsensical. Fieari (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble I have is that there's far more than one way to literally translate 大乱闘. Great Fray is not near the top of my list for how I'd translate it! You could also translate it as "Great Melee", or "Big Brawl" or "Massive Battle" or "Large Fight" or "Huge Rumble" or "Major Clash"... any one of those could be considered a literal translation. Why redirect "Great Fray" over any of the others? Fieari (talk) 02:15, 18 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.
Not discussed at target with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect - the target section makes one passing mention with no context, leaving anyone who isn't a Warcraft fan more confused than they were before. * Pppery *it has begun...05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There has been some support for a target that is currently at Articles for Deletion. Notified of this discussion at its talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬07:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing until the AfD concludes. Until we know the outcome of the AfD it's not worth spending any effort evaluating whether we should point this redirect there or not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The AfD closed as No Consensus. Hence there are two plausible proposed targets now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬18:08, 18 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.
weird case, this one. "self-torque" seems to refer to 3 different things (one being a band), none inherently related to light, though one can be a property of it... but also of seemingly any wave. the term isn't mentioned in the target either. "self aligning torque" seems to be the term this was referring to, but it's also not inherently related to light (if at all). does anyone know what could be done here? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not familiar with the concept of self-torque enough to be able to help point to the correct target, but I would like to remind Constant314 that catching links from within articles on Wikipedia is not the primary purpose of redirects, and a redirect having NO links to it on wikipedia is not a valid reason to delete that redirect. The primary purpose of a redirect is to assist users to find what they are looking for, such as when they type it into the search bar... which they would do if they saw the term in a textbook or similar source and wanted to know more about what it is. This is almost certainly a valid thing to search for, the question is simply where it should point in order to help provide that information. Fieari (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A paper "Self-torque and angular momentum balance for a spinning charged sphere" published in the American Journal of Physics, is used as a reference in Newton's laws of motion. However, there is no information about this term on enwiki. Delete in the absence of anyone providing any info on what this is. The redirect creator was community banned and cannot return until 2025, hence no prejudice against recreation if we have useful content later. Jay 💬17:30, 28 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 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.
2024-Delete because I have no idea what's going on here per nom. The edit history of the redirect doesn't help clarify the intent either. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above unless someone give a good justification and explanation. Cracker Barrell is absolutely a plausible misspelling, but the "2005-" prefix is perplexing. I tried googling the exact phrase, but the most relevant search results were people who worked at or visited Cracker Barrel in 2005. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was created as an article about an (almost certainly non-notable) album by Sara Evans apparently created by/for the company [1], which definitely existed [2]. The title is still a bit of a mystery and given the stub article was completely unreferenced I think can be safely deleted, but I am not opposed to restoring if others feel that is necessary. A7V2 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think A7V2 has satisfied Chesterton's Fence here. Presumably this CD, sold only through Cracker Barrel (and not Cracker Barrell), was created in 2005. This is not how people search for things, this is not how we name articles, and I don't think we have any information on this album anyway! I mean, it's not even MENTIONED in the Sara Evans article. Maybe it should be? But even if it were, I don't think this should be a redirect to it, as again, the naming convention is pretty far removed from any kind of standard, and includes a typo to boot. Fieari (talk) 23:22, 23 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 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.
While it is true that the International and U.S. Hall of Fames for amateur wrestling are in the same area, there is nothing more than a passing mention in the U.S. Hall of Fame's article. If possible, restore the original redirect at United World Wrestling. Sekundenlang (talk) 15:55, 3 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.
refers to evolutionary stages. as an example, popplio is stage 1, brionne is stage 2, and primarina is... why is there no stage 3 redirect? the terminology is sort of mentioned in the target (under breeding), but not in a way that would help those redirects cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)19:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"used" it is. relatively commonly, for that matter. it's just in that weird limbo of not being properly mentioned outside of the tcg, and not well-covered enough to warrant being mentioned in depth. a lot of pokémon-related stuff falls in that limbo, it's painful cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)23:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wherever we point these on wikipedia, they won't help anyone much. They'd be better off at Bulbapedia. We may as well remove them -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 18 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 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.
Silly redirect, probably created as a joke. Low number of pageviews (21 average per year since 2020), and it's unknown how many of them were actually looking for New Hampshire. Batrachoseps (talk) 03:59, 18 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.
Keep As far as I can tell this is the only target that discusses Mahayana Buddhism in the United States, the Mahayana Temple organisation certainly has no presence outside that state. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf above. As a side note... are there any reliable sources that say that this is the only Mahayana organization in the united states? That would be a useful piece of information to add to the article. Fieari (talk) 07:33, 24 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).