Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2025.

Line of Corpses

[edit]

This phrase seems to have been used recently by a Haaretz publication to refer to the military line in Gaza, and several other outlets have picked that up. The primary long-term topic according to a quick search is the song by that name on the album Wreath of Barbs, which we mention on that article. Not sure if it is best to delete altogether or redirect to the album; normally I would consider redirecting myself but this is a controversial topic so sending to RFD for community discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starz Entertainment

[edit]

The original Lionsgate was renamed as "Starz Entertainment Corp." as of November 2024. Because of this renaming, we need to retarget the redirect into the newly-renamed article in preparation of actual WP:RM to more simple name, and WP:NCCORP stats that we not need to use "Corp." or "Ltd" suffix for article naming unless it had been used for legal purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.111.100.82 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate retarget to Starz (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm a bit surprised – although not all – at the RFD nomination, after all, both per the IP nom's NCCORP assertion and that it's not the first time I've come across this title. As evident in the page history of this title (having arrived there via Starz Distribution (which was previously known as "IDT Entertainment" and had stakes/shares in now-named Mainframe Studios, who/which is mostly behind the production of most Barbie films)), the page now at Starz Inc. was boldly moved without discussion to "Starz Entertainment, LLC" and then this title due to (You guessed it!) NCCORP! I listed this at RMTR to have it sent back to the article title of "Starz Inc." again and Robertsky, in one of his final set of actions prior to becoming a now-admin, executed it. I'll list this at RMTR just like before to address (You guessed it again!) the NCCORP concerns once this RFD is done!! Intrisit (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 23:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coppa Maifredi

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Appears to be a race at held at this course, see e.g. 1962 World Sportscar Championship, 1963 World Sportscar Championship. If there was only one such article I would retarget there, but there's two of them. Not sure if it should be mentioned in the article for the course, but I don't have enough context to add it; as is the target is a stub. Rusalkii (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlueAir

[edit]

This revision essentially states why this redirection is unclear: The version of this phrase without a space seems to more commonly refer to the brand of air purifiers owned by Unilever. Redirecting readers to the current target with this title is misleading. With that being said, I'm not sure if delete per WP:REDLINK (the brand seems notable) or weak retarget to Unilever would be more helpful here, considering a hatnote placed on the latter may be a bit confusing since there's no real clear place in Unilever to place a respective hatnote referring readers to the nominated redirect's current target, though the redirect is currently mentioned in Unilever. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The air purifiers are Blueair, not BlueAir. I think this version is a very plausible incorrect name for both the air purifier and the airline. However, the image and mention of "BlueAir" at the current target and the prominence of the airline over the air purifier as encyclopaedic topics mean to keep with hatnote is preferable IMO. J947 ‡ edits 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dagbani Wikipedia

[edit]

Listing this for discussion having bumped into this from Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. This was created on 8 August 2024 with no action on it whatsoever since then. What do you think? Intrisit (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life's nothing like the movies, Fabelman

[edit]

Another unmentioned quote from the Fablemans, but this one targets the film itself. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like my life is going by so fast, but it's not getting anywhere

[edit]

Not useful to have a quote by this person as a redirect to this person. The article itself is separately at AfD, but the quote is not mentioned here nor at The Fabelmans. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not putting me donkey outside when I'm sad, okay?

[edit]

No mention of this quote makes this not a helpful search term for the target film. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humans have only one ending. Ideas live for ever.

[edit]

No mention of this quote at the target article. Also, "for ever"? "forever"? Not a likely means of navigating to this page. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nilo Rodis-Jamero

[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. However, the subject of the redirect seems to be notable and has a strong connection to the target; i'm not familiar with the subject of this reader, but the subject seems to be a costume designer that was heavily involved in Star Wars episodes V and VI. In addition, this subject is mentioned in a decent amount of other articles on Wikipedia. Seems like a good "delete per WP:REDLINK" candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

return to red per nom, and don't tell civvie about his name consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Anthology 3

[edit]

Target is unclear what "Anthology 3" refers to. There are mentions of an "anthology" containing the Rogue One and Solo films, but the reference has no affinity to a number "3". Third party searches also do not return clear results to define the subject of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Organa family

[edit]

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 Skywalker family#Organa family (Leia's adoptive family). This is essentially a "withdraw". Good find! (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect formerly targeted Bail Organa before the target article was redirected; in the current state, the target article does not adequately describe the subject of this redirect. My original thought was retargeting this redirect to List of Star Wars characters#O, but there's not a specific header for this redirect itself, so I'm leaning "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (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).

Big Game James

[edit]

This might well also apply to James Franklin (American football coach), who is also known as "Big Game James". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B***h

[edit]

Unnecessary censorship and not a likely search term. Also, nothing at the target includes any type of censored term. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget to Bitch (slang)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moral delete, but prefer keep to retargeting. I'm dubious this is actually helpful, but given the lack of deletes above, it seems here to stay. But regardless, the starred out version is exactly as ambiguous as the unstarred, and so should point to the dab page there, not to one of the entries on it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as my first choice... this is a disambiguation page that leads to both the female dog sense and the pejorative slang sense, which I agree is more likely to be censored. However, this is still my 1st choice because of J947's argument. That said, as a close second choice, I would accept retargetting to Bitch (slang), as it is the most likely intended target. Fieari (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Closed (Kanye West song)

[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Purportedly an unreleased song originally intended for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy but later reworked into the Snoop Dogg song "Eyez Closed" from the album Doggumentary,[1][2][3][4] which is mentioned at the target. मल्ल (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GvK

[edit]

Ambiguous DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:IARD

[edit]

Doesn't seem to need to exist in mainspace along with other real mainspace articles, confuscating actual articles people might want to navigate to in favor of backroom templates of a controversial pseudo-namespace when the "TM:" alias has existed for nearly a year now. TM:IARD works just fine at easily navigating to this page, without needing to be cross-namespace of a controversial PNR. And no incoming links. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:IAP

[edit]

TM:IAP works just fine. No incoming links, no need to occupy mainspace with an additional redirect alongside the other real articles that begin with "T:" that people might want to navigate to with less backroom possibilities. An australian place infobox does not seem to meet the threshold of daily site maintenance, but even if it did, adding an extra "m" to the TM:IAP link works well enough. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:Pic of the day and etc.

[edit]

I'm not convinced these are useful as "T:" redirects. The pages in question have cropped up relatively recently. The only reason that "T:" would be used is for shortform shortcuts to oft-navigated templates. While TM:TFA and TM:POTD might qualify for this bill, I don't think they qualify for the fully written out versions. People who are interested in getting to this page quickly would not be writing out "Today's featured article" in full, nor "picture of the day" in full. They'd use TM:TFA or TM:POTD. "T:" is currently used only for specific shortform shortcuts. These are not those. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P:

[edit]

Probably not useful as an open-ended redirect when no article title is given for it. There are mainspace articles such as P:Machinery and P:ano that could have very well been sought, but instead these two characters (which would otherwise indicate portalspace if a portal's name was given to them), take readers to a portal of its own choosing. People looking for portals using the P: pseudo-namespace, can do so by typing in "P:", followed by the name of the portal they were after. I'm not convinced an "empty"-titled redirect is going to be of much use here. Targeting P seems more useful, if it targets anything. This one doesn't even point to portal space. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't follow your reasoning. It's not for users looking for a specific portal, and it doesn't take users to a portal of its own choosing. It's a shortcut to portal space, and while it doesn't technically go to a portal space page, it goes to the contents for portal pages. Whether that's the best use for P: (as opposed to going to P (disambiguation)), I don't know, but it does make sense as a shortcut. Mclay1 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

H:

[edit]

Probably not useful. Created with the edit summary "MOS: redirects to the Manual of Style". MOS is now a namespace of its own. And in any situation, "MOS" is both longer and more specific than just the letter "h", followed by a colon. I'd argue there's really no reason to have this as a guesswork redirect. People looking for help would probably be more likely to type in something like H:HELP which takes them to the same place. All articles have titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:

[edit]

"Cat" is not a pseudonamespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:

[edit]

I don't believe this is helpful as a redirect. Even as a pseudo-namespace, it's generally a good idea to give some indication about what category is being sought here, to which there is none. CAT:CONT makes a lot more sense, rather than being one colon away from the mainspace disambiguation page of CAT. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tp:

[edit]

"Tp" is not a pseudonamespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TP:

[edit]

"TP" is not a pseudonamespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:

[edit]

Makes no sense as a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Higher Education

[edit]

Delete as a misleading redirect.

  • European Journal of Higher Education refers to this journal (ISSN 2156-8235)
  • European Journal of Education refers to this journal (ISSN 0141-8211)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea women's national kho kho team

[edit]

Simply listed as a participant, without any further any further details about the team provided. Delete to encourage article creation and because anybody searching for this title won't find the information they're looking for based on the current target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PolyGram Audiovisuel

[edit]

No mention of this name on the target page. Also appears to be using the French spelling of "audiovisual", making it unlikely to be used much. The English spelling of "audiovisual" is also absent from the target page. – numbermaniac 12:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tik tok

[edit]

re-targeting to tick tock PER WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and onomatopoeic writing, much more neutral. What's more there is the SPACE between. gtp (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Tik tok comes also from searching "tik tok" since auto-capitalize the first. Nothing against the kids scoial media, just considering encyclopedic criteria. gtp (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 30#Tik Tok, which had unanimous support to redirect to TikTok. This is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the prev. RfD you cited. Anyway, the major technical argument proposed in that discussion is counting views from "Tick tock" searches which majority is effectively TikTok, while I would like to know views from "Tik tok" searches, in appearance similar, but different since "Tick tock" searches include who know TikTok only by speech (not write), while "Tik tok" is shorter but, paradoxically, more specific search. gtp (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: [5] is the proven proof people come back from "TikTok" to "Tick Tock", not to do some sports, but since they didn't find what they searched for. For who don't know how toread the left column are % links-clicks to Tick Tock from other searches/pages (which back from TikTok is 49%); the right column are links from Tick Tock to disambiguated. gtp (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that 49% of the Tick Tock hits come from TikTok is because TikTok is a very very popular article. TikTok gets about 300,000 views a day while Tick Tock gets about 4000 (stats). Your stat doesn't indicate that Tick Tock is the primary topic at all, it does the opposite. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - social media app is clear primary topic, dropping the space is a very plausible mistake. Hatnote already exists. Not sure what is meant by 'more neutral'. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, if somebody searches fo TikSPACETok, maybe he really wants Tik_Tok, otherwise he had searched typing "Tiktok" or (if he had really no idea) for "Tick tock" english onomatopoeic. Even my grandma knows a SPACE really counts in engine searches. Pls read my second Update. gtp (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From a user point-of-view, I suspect that in January 2025 if people are searching on "Tik tok" they are probably looking for "TikTok" the social media app. I know that for the longest time I did not realize there was no space when I was searching for it. People who are not familiar with the app may mistakenly think there is a space there. - Dyork (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The social media is currently the WP:PTOPIC by a landslide, even with the space. Fieari (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums number ones of 2025

[edit]

The target doesn't include lists of number one hits per year, let alone number one hits from 2025. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it expands to more than albums; extended plays and compilations. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angular precision

[edit]

"Angular precision" is not mentioned at the target, though I'm certain "Angular precision" is related to something somewhere! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Bhopal

[edit]

There is no such list at the target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I concur the redirect is misleading in its current form. Still, does contain history back to 2021. This page existed as a standalone article until 2 days ago (December 31st), when it was BLAR'd and remade at the target of this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triple dub

[edit]

Delete. It appears to be an outdated slang term that saw some use in the earlier days of the Internet but has largely faded into obscurity. A Google search shows three entries on Urban Dictionary for the phrase, and essentially nothing else. It also appears to be the name of an obscure rapper, which may well be a slightly more popular topic. Regardless, this redirect has gotten a whopping zero page views in the last month, so the course of action seems clear. Anonymous 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it really appears to be the name of an obscure rapper. Otherwise keep since it's an improbable search, and could help that 1/1000000.

Xenopronoun

[edit]

When this term is used in online MOGAI circles, it seems to refer to a kind of neopronoun that are unable to be understood by humans[6][7][8] (While I know that these sources are unreliable, there aren't really any reliable sources that discuss this topic). The current target links to "nounself pronouns", which are a different category. JJPMaster (she/they) 02:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By their very nature, Xenopronouns aren't currently known by humans. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many such reliable sources exist proving it is a thing. Saying things like Xenopronouns aren't currently known by humans isn't a very good argument. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Significa Liberdade. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many people use this term to mean nounself pronouns or even neopronouns in general, typically because they don't know this specific definition, which is possibly a recoining or reinvention. I couldn't check what's the meaning these sources are using. It's a brief mention, only a source with a lot of microlabels and neologisms would use this meaning or know this lore. Skemous (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, without predjudice to re-creation if the appropriate information is added to the target article (or elsewhere). The current target is not what the term means, and is therefore potentially misleading (criterion 2). Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6 April 1992

[edit]

Does not appear to be the primary topic on a quick google news Wikipedia search, and the war was not a one-day event, making this redirect highly unlikely. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to a heading explaining the start of the Bosnian War. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
April 1992 has a mainspace target. Skemous (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2025 (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, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Variants names for Israel-Hamas war

[edit]

None mentioned in target article or in fact used at all anywhere that I can find. Appear to variants on Shemini Atzeret war or Simchat Torah war, both of which do get used. Rusalkii (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Understood your question, what would you suggest...deleting? gtp (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think these should be deleted, yes. Rusalkii (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor product of shaves of modules

[edit]

Unlikely typo that could inhibit search. Correct Tensor product of sheaves of modules exists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T:Uw-move3

[edit]

Unnecessary new T: space redirect which will occupy mainspace alongside other articles. No incoming links. TM:Uw-move3 works just fine to navigate to the template in shortform. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For specific usages. Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ROWN

[edit]

Confusing shortcut/redirect that looks too much like WP:OWN and several other shortcuts already exist that do the job. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others that exist that already help, so that this confusing/misleading one does not need to exist and should not exist, include:WP:ONLYREVERT, WP:REVERTRARELY, WP:RVONLYNEC. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Currently used on over 400 talk pages across wikipedia, some of those uses are fairly recent. Typical usage seems to be to pipe it with another phrase relevant to the specifics of their discussion (example from one of those pages: "I’d appreciate it if you would revert only when necessary"), so wikipedians are using the shortcut just to save keystrokes while making their point. It's useful to someone. Heck, it seems to be useful to a lot of someones. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Khalaf

[edit]

Target page does not mention this person. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop philosophy

[edit]

It is not clear that this is directly relevant to the target, and it is not mentioned there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, as it could refer to a lot of different stuff, from shower thoughts to influencing. or wait until april fools to close this as "retarget to rizz" consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Dolphins season (Disambiguation) and etc.

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It should be said, that uppercase letters being used in a disambiguator in article titles is generally equally likely as lowercase letters in article titles to be searched for by unfamiliar users, in my opinion. However, per MOS:DAB and WP:DAB, disambiguation pages are not articles.

Uppercase versions of parenthetically disambiguated words may be useful in navigation to a particular article title about a "foo" versus a "Foo", and whichever way is comfortable to readers. In this case though, "(disambiguation)" is the tag we use to indicate a disambiguation page, which happens to reside in mainspace, a location it shares with regular articles which can also include parenthetical disambiguations to distinguish them. It is not helpful nor useful to have an uppercase variant as a redirect to this type of help page, of which there are hundreds of thousands of disambiguation pages in quantity.

Thus is the nomination. As it happens though, I did (what I found to be) an interesting query to determine, based on Jarry1250's findings in 2007, to find which of these common disambiguation terms have uppercase disambiguator redirect variants being used in the year 2025. These findings are posted in the similarly named User:Utopes/findings. I think it's pretty interesting to compare the existences of uppercase disambiguators to see which disambiguators are used more frequently as uppercase ("Album" and "TV Series" sweep this competition), as well as the ratios between total usage and uppercase usage. The resulting ratio may be ~juuust about equal to the same ratio with 2010-2025 titles added in, but I have not been able to fully confirm this because the queries for 2025 have taken far too long 😅 and using 2007-2009 works as an example.

By looking at the ratios, we note some interesting outliers that don't really matter to this nomination, but are intriguing to think about regardless imo. Such as how "(TV Series)" disambiguators in 2025 exist at an ~approx 2:5 ratio with the correctly named "(TV series)" pages from 2009. Maybe because there's already two capital letters, people feel like adding a third? But perhaps even more shockingly is the popularity of "(Number)" which exceeds the number of "(number)" pages from 2009, at a 1.04:1 ratio. Fwiw, if someone wants to replicate this examination for 2025 numbers that could also be interesting (because I tested it for "(number)" and of course the ratio dropped back down, but 360 appearances of "(Number)" in a title is still quite fascinating to me).

Nevertheless, it seems there is already an overwhelming trend in the dissolution of "(Disambiguation)" disambiguation pages. Compared to the 26k disambiguation pages of 2009, only 15 of which uppercase versions exist in 2025. (3 of the 15 are Ø (Disambiguation). 12 becomes the more accurate number, for an even smaller proportion & also is the number of redirects in this nomination). This contrasts the rest of the common disambiguations, such as "(Album)", "(Song)", or "(Band)", whose uppercase variants seem to be otherwise mainly harmless, and also reflect an infinite possibility of disambiguators that could be used instead which could be upper or lowercase. But "(Disambiguation)" is not how we do disambiguation pages. These are not regular articles, because they are not articles, meaning that we don't particularly require modification variation redirects to reach them. They are, what they are, for what they are. (These are otherwise a bad practice with very little apparent consensus, so delete these to sweep the lot.) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all: Clear plausible miscapitalizations. Considering you hold the shift key to get a bracket on most keyboards, it'd be very easy to hold it a slight bit too long and end up capitalizing the first letter. Also, redirects are WP:CHEAP and these do no harm, so I see no reason to delete them. I also don't see the number of them in existence as being a contributing factor towards deletion, it doesn't make them less useful or more harmful in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 14#Coby (Disambiguation) ended in keep back in 2020, but it was batch deleted by BD2412 when they deleted ~292 pages on November 19, 2022, citing the outcome of the discussion a month prior that resulted in 120 pages being deleted. I mention it to show that explains why there are so few pages that have "(Disambiguation)" and that there were actually a lot of other pages that weren't discussed and because, in the past, there has been a discussion that resulted in keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: harmless. C F A 01:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted that all of these were created in 2024 or later, because the last bundle of these were all deleted in 2022 at the most recent RfD of this type. Therefore none of this bundle has substantial history, and all were the result of errors fixed immediately with the exception of 2. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were also RfD noms that resulted in keep prior to the mass nomination, in which those previously kept redirects ended up deleted for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me. I'm of the mindset those ended up deleted more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. I was kind of surprised to see this notification on my talk page because I agree, this is obviously an error. Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of clarity, I created a few of these the dolphins redirect and it was definitely intentional @Bobby Cohn. It's fine if you think these should be deleted, but I wanted to be clear that they're not necessarily clearly errors. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, of course; I didn't mean to speak for everyone. I realize that wasn't clear in my !vote now, but I meant in regard to one on my talk page. Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As Josh pointed out, redirects are indeed cheap. The redirect I created was not out of error, it was very intentional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Harmless, WP:CHEAP, unambiguous. Do I advocate creating this style of redirect for all disambiguators? Heck no. But do I support removing those that already exist, and have been helpful to someone? Definitely not. Doing so would only make wikipedia less useful, not more so. Fieari (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Hey man im josh and all other!Keep voters above and WP:CHEAP. Like I've argued in previous discussions with this capitalization, capitalizing the disambiguator doesn't harm things around here—it still fulfills its promise of a disambiguation page. I don't see any valid reason to delete these redirects given that. Regards, SONIC678 08:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Indic languages, Matheus Pereira, Object-orientation, P90, and PBA. These were left over from disruptive page moves which were soon reverted, and should have been deleted as G3. Delete Late Again, Lusarreta, Northern Bears/bears, and Progressive Christianity. These are R from move redirects, though the pages were at the wrong title for a few hours at most. Also delete Eidi, which was likely created in error. Neutral on 2023 Dolphins season, which is the only one intentionally created, and which the creator feels strongly about. Though I'd argue that R to disambiguation page redirects are technical in purpose, i.e. to avoid directly linking to dab pages in navigational aids. Such navigational aids are expected to be correctly capitalised, and errors should be fixed, negating the need for such redirects from miscapitalised Ds. Readers directly typing the terms in the search box gain nothing from their existence, since search is case-insensitive. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per precedence. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all esp until the mobile search is fixed Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPSR (FM)

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Cannot find any sources referring to the target this way. Rusalkii (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Praise Network owns a fourth full-power FM facility, KPSR (FID 767452), at Smith Center, Kansas. The station was authorized with a license to cover last month and then immediately went off the air. The request for silent STA reads,

    The station completed construction of the facility on October 31, 2024 and filed License to Cover application on November 1, 2024. Upon activation of the transmission system, it was found that harmful interference was being caused to collocated WISP antennas on the tower. Reduced power was attempted, but it was determined that KPSR must cease operation pending the replacement of cables for the WISP. Troubleshooting and repairs cannot be made in a timely manner and the station is formally filing request for Silent Authority until such time as the interference can be mitigated.

    The facility is authorized and has been added to the full-power repeaters table. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think without any context on this in the target it's confusing to have on station redirect to another with no explanation. Rusalkii (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is normal for this type of facility, especially a non-commercial educational radio network (either Christian or public). There isn't a lot of content about KVHL in Texas Public Radio, but that is where it should redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_9&oldid=1268522284"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy