Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 21, 2024.

Brahuistan Province

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 29#Brahuistan Province

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

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 consensus not to keep, defaulting to deletion. The arguments for keeping were both a numerical minority and unable to provide evidence of third-party use of this term. Among other comments, there's a roughly even split between deleting and targeting The Holocaust in the Netherlands. Between those two positions, the argument for deletion is moderately better-founded, in that the retargeting side did not rebut the point that the Holocaust in the Netherlands was not a pogrom. Thus, as a bartender's close, I am deleting this redirect, but if someone would like to recreate it as a redirect to The Holocaust in the Netherlands, that would not be against consensus (but might lead to a new RfD). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in the Netherlands, where actual pogroms happened, is a better target than a WP:RECENT football hooligan clash. मल्ल (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Pogrom" is not an established or a widely used term, looking at the coverage of this incident WP:RNEUTRAL. Retarget to the suggested article is also fine. — hako9 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, but I suggest adding a {{for}} hatnote (not a {{redirect}} hatnote, for language reasons) to that target. It is supposedly being used in prominent sources (and probably social media but I'm not on Twitter) to refer to the recent ethnic hooliganism, but I agree that it's inappropriate and insensitive to refer to this as a pogrom when actual state-sanctioned pogroms actually happened here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Redirects are navigation aids. With the target article saying that the President of Israel characterized the attack as a pogrom, that's sufficient to make it a reasonable search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the redirects is covered in WP:RPURPOSE. The President of Turkey characterized the president of Israel as a "genocidal murderer". Is that sufficient to make it a reasonable search term, and therefore, a redirect? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your analogy doesn't apply. Per WP:BLP, it would be inappropriate to put into the biographical article on the President of Israel the personal attacks that some other world leader made (although it would be appropriate to say that he has been criticized). Likewise, we do not put into biographical articles all the insulting "nicknames" that Trump has given all his political opponents.
    In the case of this redirect in question, the target article specifically has the term "pogrom" in the article, and there are no WP:BLP concerns.
    It's somewhat bewildering that this is not obvious, and I need to explain it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's somewhat bewildering that you missed the obvious point: the president of Israel is not a reliable source for such a statement. His irrelevant opinion can be attributed to him, but that's about it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS does not apply to redirects. The question about redirects is whether it's a plausible search term. The fact that the President of Israel called it a Pogrom, and it's in the article, makes it a plausible search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably delete, the usage of pogrom seems to be isolated to biased sources and should be avoided for obvious WP:NPOV concerns. I think a retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands would only work if it is retarged to something specific on that page. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. What happened yesterday in Amsterdam was characterized by reliable sources as a pogrom. This is stated in the lede of the target. What happened in the Netherlands during the Holocaust was mass-murder of Jews, but not a pogrom or a sequence of pogroms. In fact, that article does not mention pogroms and never uses the word.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have any of the WP:RSP described this as a pogrom in their own voice? — hako9 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands or delete.
When I was a fresh-faced disambiguator, I came across an ambiguous link to a place in modern Belarus. I identified it.
The very next problem was identical. I solved that too.
The third one was the same, and I solved it as well.
At that point, I took a break, because for some reason I was unable to focus properly and was swearing uncontrollably. One of those three places, obliterated in the early 1940s, is commemorated by an engraved stone in the ground. The other two are not.
Calling the recent incident in Amsterdam a "pogrom" is an insult to all those who were victims of actual pogroms. FWIW, I have no Jewish heritage. Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and Strong Keep - What happened in Amsterdam was horrific and it needs to be reflected as such. It has been described as a pogram and that's because it was one. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try to say this as charitably as possible, but as someone whose relatives have had to flee actual pogroms during WW2, I feel I do need to say it:
    I find this comparison, made by heads of state or politicians and now defended by you, incredibly insensitive, deeply upsetting, and bordering, itself, on antisemitism, given how profoundly, by association, it minimizes the horrors of anti-Jewish pogroms and relativizes the atrocities of those that carried out pogroms. Especially now that it's become increasingly apparent the Israeli fans engaged in behavior that could itself, at best, be described as monstrous bigotry and cheers for ethnic cleansing.
    Either way, while I wanted to share how offensive I think this comparison actually is, I'm aware my feelings on the subject matter little. The only question that should be considered here is: per RNEUTRAL, is this term one that's been established by reliable sources to have due weight and therefore meets the criteria for NPOV redirects? I don't have an answer to that myself as I haven't looked at the proportion of sources that use the term, but I think that's what should be focused on here. LaughingManiac (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaughingManiac How is calling it a pogrom bordering on antisemitism? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said what I said and have laid out my reasons for saying it already. Take it or leave it at that. LaughingManiac (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very quick Google search demonstrates that the term “Amsterdam pogrom” and “pogrom in Amsterdam” are being widely used to describe the article topic. This strikes me a reasonable search term; I personally used the redirect to initially find the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) EDIT: under wikipedia:RNEUTRAL we are permitted to use non-neutral redirect titles and are in fact given extra leeway because redirects are less visible to readers. Given that the the term has been frequently used in reliable sources and given that it is a reasonable search term for readers to utilize, I really do not see a justification to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or just delete - the reliable sources used in the article which I spot-checked do not describe this event as a pogrom; at most they quote Israeli officials doing so. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are not describing this as a pogrom. Netanyahu is not a reliable source for what this article should be called. Parabolist (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unfortunate event with poor behavior all around does not meet the definition of a progrom. If someone has called it that that can be reflected in the article text but we shouldn't be saying it was one. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or redirect as suggested. Not a pogrom, though there was violence against Jews. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands. This feels like another case of WP:RECENTISM. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget WP:RECENTISM in full swing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands per Ymblanter. The segregation and deportation of Jews in the Netherlands was a gradual and meticulous process. The holocaust article also has no redirects or incoming links from articles having "pogrom' in the title. If a president naming a recent incident as a pogrom, is irrelevant opinion, a group of Wikipedia editors characterizing the Holocaust in the Netherlands as comprising of a pogrom, is not any less. But if we have other redirects titled "pogrom" targeting holocaust articles where "pogrom" is not mentioned, or pogroms didn't happen, then I would like to look at those, and possibly reconsider. Jay 💬 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where The Holocaust in the Netherlands covers actual pogroms? Jay 💬 16:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe Holocaust in the Netherlands does not appear to cover pogroms, and the use of this to 'November 2024 Amsterdam attacks' is a massive neutrality violation.
TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the target notes, any commentators incorrectly called the attack a pogrom. Neutrality isn't an issue per WP:RNEUTRAL. The Holocaust article does not speak about any pogroms in Amsterdam or elsewhere but rather an efficiently brutal genocidal administration, so it does not appear to be an accurate historical rendering to target this there. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In order to list together with Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was an incident but no pogrom. Hopelessly biased. The suggested retarget "The Holocaust in the Netherlands" is not sensible, as it does not cover any pogrom. The Banner talk 12:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of the Jews in the Netherlands which does briefly mention pogroms (which appear to have primarily occurred in the Netherlands in the medieval period). There's simply no way that the 2024 incident passes the ten-year test in a country that has had actual pogroms (although the incident may warrant a brief mention in that same article). I'm not terribly opposed to deletion, but we do have a somewhat relevant page to point to. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 2 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).

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

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 consensus not to keep, defaulting to deletion per my close of § Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam, which was essentially a more in-depth version of the same debate held below. No one in this thread, on any of the three sides, gave any reason that this redirect should be handled differently from the singular form. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't direct to a pogrom -- haminoon (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:ARBPIA's extendedconfirmed restriction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. I see that you have registered today and the only edit you did id on this page. Do you mind to elaborate your point? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge what little there is, place a redirect if really necessary, but I think due to how general the title is, that due to WP:RECENT within a few months it will be back here to be deleted due to lack of precision. TiggerJay(talk) 08:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge, as many RS call it this way:
  1. The Jerusalem Post (1, 2, 3, 4)
  2. The Times of Israel (1, 2, 3, 4)
  3. Reuters (1 - quote)
  4. JSN (1)
  5. New York Post] (1 - quote)
  6. The New York Sun (1, 2)
  7. BBC (1, 2, 3)
  8. Israel Hayom (1)
  9. Arutz Sheva (1, 2)
  10. The Jewish Chronicle (1)
  11. The Spectator (1)
  12. The Forward (1)
  13. Ynet (1)
  14. The Jewish Press (1)
  15. Newsmax (1, 2)
  16. Legal Insurrection (1)
  17. Townhall (1)
  18. Israel Today (1)
  19. And more.
With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these sources are not calling it a pogrom in their own voice and are simply quoting people describing the event as such, or just mention it in the headline (WP:HEADLINES). The only sources that are asserting it was a pogrom are 6: Townhall (WP:MREL), Legal insurrection (not a RS, looks like a glorified blog), Israel National News (not a RS, it's an Israeli Zionist media network), NYSun (a conservative news website known for dishonest reporting), a blog from ToI (WP:NEWSBLOG) and finally, and unsurprisingly, Jpost (not precisely known for fact checking and currently under discussion re: their reliability). - Ïvana (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --MikutoH talk! 03:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In order to list together with Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was an incident but no pogrom. Hopelessly biased. The suggested retarget "The Holocaust in the Netherlands" is not sensible, as it does not cover any pogrom. The Banner talk 12:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to History of the Jews in the Netherlands which does briefly mention pogroms (which appear to have primarily occurred in the Netherlands in the medieval period). There's simply no way that the 2024 incident passes the ten-year test in a country that has had actual pogroms (although the incident may warrant a brief mention in that same article). I'm not terribly opposed to deletion, but we do have a somewhat relevant page to point to. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 2 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).

The Tabernacle

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 Tabernacle * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many other entries at Tabernacle (disambiguation) are referred to as "The Tabernacle", and I don't think this concert hall is the clear primary topic among them. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep That's the point. It's to make the concert hall easier to find since there are already a lot of places with the same name. Also as seen on Tabernacle (concert hall) it is often called "The Tabernacle" as with most concert halls have a "the" and are more likely to be searched for that way. The only other option is to disambiguate but I am against that as none of those links to it link anywhere else but the concert hall anyway. This0k (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. KOLANO12 3 20:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear this should be retargeted, but to which page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 22:56, 21 December 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).

FC Türkiye II

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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could refer to the B-team of the target club, but it isn't mentioned in that page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to give time to respond to recent clarification
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 21 December 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).

200cc

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might cause confusion due to the possibility of it referring to engine displacement. Frost 18:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, indeed, a WP search for "200cc" shows lots of hits with it as a descriptor for various real engines; I don't see why the game should get any sort of priority, especially since it's just one little minor factoid in the article and not any sort of main topic therein. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 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).

Cisidentity

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 and retarget. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary or their equivalent -gender articles? LIrala (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing the point of those redirects but redirecting to Wiktionary seems unlikely to be helpful. It seems like they should both link to the articles but maybe I'm missing the point here? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal The point of the redirects? The terms are more used academically in journals or activist writing in English, and are the literal translations of the terms French Wikipedia uses in the mainspace titles, probably because of WP:NOUN policies plus the terms being more formal in French. Cisidentity, specifically, seems to be a protologism. I guess people redirect them to Wiktionary because the terms are not mentioned in the main articles. Though recently some egregious groups started using them to mean "cisid" and "transid". LIrala (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should be mentioned in the main articles then? I'm not sure to what extent French terminology should guide us but if redirecting to Wiktionary makes more sense for reasons that I'm not getting then that's fine. I do think that both should do the same thing though. It's confusing if parallel terms are treated differently. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and understand your confusion. I have the same opinion of yours. LIrala (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JuxtaposedJacob: are you interested in helping this issue? The term is used in:
  1. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA58521436&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=10746846&p=AONE&sw=w
  2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-psychiatry/article/why-and-how-to-support-depsychiatrisation-of-adult-transidentity-in-icd11-a-french-study/3F7D1966A924FAF172F1E36DA411A361
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014385523000348
Cisidentity: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/37406/1/9783839430200.pdf#page=64 and https://www.transcript-open.de/pdf_chapter/bis%204699/9783839444412/9783839444412-004.pdf
You can also check fr:cisidentité and fr:transidentité. Do you think it fits transgender terminology section?
And what about the redirect non-cisgender, now that gender modality exists. LIrala (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that transidentity should redirect to Transgender to reflect the cisidentity redirect. The first source you linked is not relevant because it is an economics source. The other two seem like they are in use only to provide a word that is closer to the French studies' meanings than other English words; they is no evidence that either word is more an artifact of translation than anything else. Thus, I think we should link to the respective articles. If there is some source out there that describes them in much greater depth, or if more sources are published describing/using them, then, by all means, we should create a new article from a redirect, as I did in Gender modality.
You could stand to create a separate RfD on non-cisgender.
I also think that, if we do end up choosing to write about the terms, then we could have a broader gender terminology article, perhaps including Gender modality and the transgender terminology section. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 15:31, 28 December 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).

Legends Drum and Bugle Corps

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 for now without prejudice against restoration if a mention is added to the target article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear at target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I removed it from the target page since it no longer fits the criteria of the list (i.e., a multiple-time finalist in the World Class division). However, I would not be opposed to keeping it purely to preserve the page history. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on... the criteria of the list reads list of defunct Drum Corps International member corps, particularly those that have been finalists multiple times. The Legends Drum and Bugle Corps seems to satisfy that. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They have not been finalists overall, only in the lower division (which most make since it is smaller). The only time a lower-division corps has made finals was the Magic of Orlando in 2002. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There is no need for this, no important links to it nor is it of any substance. It's probably best to delete this redirect entirely as it has also been removed from the target article.
This0k (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKERed-tailed hawk (nest) 06:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:53, 21 December 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).

Complex math

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 29#Complex math

Common lime

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 29#Common lime

Sarsanghachalak

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! 07:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a plausible search term. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an alternative transliteration of sarsanghchalak. The only difference is the presence of an "a" before the c-l-k sequence; the lead gives the IAST Sarasaṅghacālaka, which also has an "a" in that position. Ngrams shows that it's an uncommon but extant spelling. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:53, 21 December 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).

List of Sarsanghchalaks of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

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. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it was likely created by a typing error as it has a fullstop at the end. Not a plausible search term. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:UNNATURAL. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jlwoodwa. KOLANO12 3 16:56, 21 December 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).