This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2024.

• 2014–15 Vitória de Guimarães B season → Vitória S.C. B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2014-15 Vitória de Guimarães B season → Vitória S.C. B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2014–15 Vitoria de Guimaraes B season → Vitória S.C. B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2014-15 Vitoria de Guimaraes B season → Vitória S.C. B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2017–18 Vitória de Guimarães B season → Vitória S.C. B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2017-18 Vitória de Guimarães B season → Vitória S.C. B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2014–15 Vitória S.C. B season → Vitória S.C. B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As far as the history of this article shows, it cites no sources for a rather incomplete piece of content. Furthermore, it's a page with no relevance whatsoever, so there's no point in continuing these redirects in the Wikipedia project. We're talking about a page that contains 8/9 redirects without any sense of existence (but they still comment that redirects are cheap!). So let's add more... what a joke of a comment). 44 Gabriel (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 2017–18 since it's a harmless {{R with history}}. Not so sure about the others. I went ahead and bundled these 4 nominations since each rationale was identical, and they all share the same target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep all. If a redirect is accurate, there is no need to delete it even if it is little-used. The nominator has failed to articulate a reason why these redirects are harmful. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirming this rationale applies for the other redirects as well. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of these were already nominated below, where I've voted to keep since there is relevant content at the targets. I'll go ahead and do the same for the other two not below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged the discussions that were below with this one, now that you've !voted here. For the record, your previous !votes were There is relevant content at the target, and redirects are cheap, with the addition of This redirect also has an extensive history before it was BLARed in 2019. for 2014–15 Vitória S.C. B season. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again did any of you see the content of that pages? I'm sure not...

The article only has a set of incomplete tables with results and a short description. There is no reference to the information. So I don't see the relevance of these 8/9 redirects without any useful purpose for the wiki project. In fact, only 2 redirects have a history, the rest are invented

So I don't understand how do you continues to say that there is no articulated reason and that these are relevant redirects! So I ask, should redirect pages be created for the remaining seasons of the remaining clubs since this is so important? 44 Gabriel (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reasons for deletion

- Redundant or otherwise useless templates

- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

-Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) 44 Gabriel (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe B → Joe Biden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous, lots of people named Joe B, with this not even been the top search result (at least for me). Also, not how anyone searches for his name. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - too ambiguous to be helpful. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Google results seem to be for an artist apart from the article for Joe B. Mauldin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• H.S.T. → Harry S. Truman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• H.S.T → Harry S. Truman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Ambiguous as could refer to anything, with Google giving a tax on searching (even with the word person added), and also does not seem like it is really used as an abbreviation. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy retarget to HST, probably doesn't need a discussion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to HST. Searching indicates that Harry S. Truman isn't the primary topic here. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also bundle H.S.T * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If that gets bundled, delete it, as the missing period makes it implausible and unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Missing-full-stop abbreviations show up often enough at RfD that I think they're quite common mistakes tbh. Indeed, very common: U.S.A receives over half the pageviews that U.S.A. does (if interested, check out this comparison). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it gets bundled then its fate should be the same as H.S.T., should also be retargetted to HST, per 947 it is very plausible and would be helpful to some. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to HST as potential variant --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to HST per above. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to HST per above. Also, I have bundled H.S.T per above suggestions (pinging DoctorWhoFan91). Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Breathing (noise reduction) → Noise reduction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pumping (noise reduction) → Noise reduction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched around a little bit and I believe these redirects are referring to literally making pumps and breathing less loud. However, the current target is about a computer science concept, and I could not find a mention in related articles. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of incoming links, which are all about said computer science concept. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware, thanks. I have struck my comment since I was misinformed. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's also Noise pumping, which would be identical in scope to the Pumping (noise reduction). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Pumping (audio) discusses pumping from dynamic range compression and could be improved to discuss pumping from noise reduction systems which typically feature some sort of dynamic range compression and thus are subject to pumping. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Your vote was keep, meaning you wanted both redirects to keep targeting Noise reduction even without the nomination concern of the target having no mention. But you also talked about improving Pumping (audio). How is it related to the redirect discussion? Jay 💬 08:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested Pumping (audio) could be improved to discuss pumping for noise reduction systems and then I neglected to suggest that both Pumping (noise reduction) and Breathing (noise reduction) could then redirect there. An alternative is to improve Noise reduction to mention pumping. My suggestions for improvements are based on my professional expertise in this area. I'm not immediately able to find sources that could support these suggested improvements. This area is underdeveloped but that doesn't mean we should delete redirects to likely search topics, WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target Noise reduction has not yet been improved to mention pumping. Notified of this discussion at the suggested target Pumping (audio).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just Dance 6 → Just Dance 2015  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 7 → Just Dance 2016  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 8 → Just Dance 2017  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 9 → Just Dance 2018  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 10 → Just Dance 2019  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 11 → Just Dance 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 12 → Just Dance 2021  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 13 → Just Dance 2022  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 14 → Just Dance 2023 Edition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Just Dance 15 → Just Dance 2024 Edition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Draft:Just Dance 14 → Just Dance 2023 Edition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

All should be deleted. They seem to be extrapolations of Just Dance 5, which was the working title for (and thus a valid redirect to) Just Dance 2014. However, none of these other games were ever known by these names, and later ones (such as Just Dance 14, 15, and 16) may be confused for earlier entries (Just Dance 2014, 2015, and 2016). Oh, and throw in a random draft redirect for good measure. Loytra (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Redirects are cheap, these are logical and unharmful, and don't seem to meet any of the deletion conditions at WP:RFD#DELETE. RachelTensions (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to meet reason #8, no? (If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful.) Loytra (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the logical chronology of a video game series "a very obscure synonym"? I don't think. RachelTensions (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As these titles have never been used officially nor by fans, I would very much argue they are. Loytra (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A quick googlin' for "just dance 5" finds plenty of results for its target, whereas searches for "just dance 6", etc., find nothing but other stuff. I also want to point out, yet again, that WP:CHEAP is not a reason to keep redirects. It's there to counter complaints about redirects using up system resources. But no one is making such a claim, so you can't use it here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane Katrina (lists) → Hurricane Katrina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Possibly redundant with the "lists", at least should be retargeted A1Cafel (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This redirect has a fairly extensive history, with some content being merged to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 across a few edits before the article itself was restored until 2007. I don't know if there's an easy way to check if any of that content has persisted to the current article. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of storms named Katrina; we can't delete it because WP:MAD attribution requirements. However, the title itself should point to the list article. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as-is due to the history. This is not a way lists are titled, so there would be no expectation of searching for a list in this fashion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would show up in the searcbox dropdown, so one would expect it to link to a list -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of storms named Katrina RachelTensions (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as content was merged from this article to its current target, the redirect must be maintained to maintain attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cannot be deleted, but where it points to can change. Or its name can change to something else; such as displacing it to Hurricane Katrina data lists -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pentapotamian people → Punjabis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pentapotamians → Punjabis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pentapotamian language → Punjabi language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pentapotamian → Punjabi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems unlikely someone would use an ancient greek derived name for a group of people, especially when said group did not have an independent identity at that time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pentapotamia redirects to Punjab. I added those redirects by analogy. I'm also not fully sure if that term is actually "Ancient Greek", rather than a modern calque. Pescavelho (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Punjab do mention that the ancient Greeks called it that. Pentapotamia as a redirect is fine, as it refers to the region. Punjabi as an actual independent identity evolved more than a millennia after that. So these redirects do not make sense. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dronabinolum → Tetrahydrocannabinol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Is Dronabinol a more appropriate target? 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adrian Dittmann → Elon Musk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should be deleted if unsourced. Apokrif (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't found any sources which definitively say that Adrian Dittmann is Elon Musk. All I could find was short news articles reporting on X and Threads posts, nothing that clears WP:GNG. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Starz Entertainment → Starz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Comment: Fixed nomination which was malformed, and tagged the nominated redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:46, 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]

• Round 6 → Squid Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Round Six → Squid Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Generic title, round 6 can refer to anything, not only its original title DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bundled both nominations that share the same target and rationale. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I sorely agree that "round 6/six" is a very bland and generic expression – yet it remains both as the original title and the chosen localized title in some countries. Un Lucas Pestana (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's the original title of the show, and is still the current title of the show in some countries (Canada and Brazil, according to the article). Mentioned at the target. Unless we have another article that needs the "Round Six" title then there's no reason to remove this. RachelTensions (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Round 6", but keep "Round Six". With "Six" spelled out and capitalized, we have something that was an original (and used elsewhere) title for the show, mentioned at the target. It's ambiguous with the generic phrase, but being a title gives it some priority. However, that priority disappears when entered incorrectly, and think having a redirect with the number in place gets in the way of normal searching. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blunt weapon → Blunt instrument  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It's starting to look like blunt instrument may become a redirect. Either way, a blunt weapon is not the same as a blunt instrument. IMO, it should either redirect to weapon and be mentioned somewhere, or be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for the fate of the current target article and do the same. While I agree that "weapon" and instrument" are not the same ("weapon" means intended use while "instrument" in this context means occasional use), their usage and consequences thereof are the same and splitting hairs would be reasonable only in presence of RS. Ny presefence would be redirectr to blunt trauma --Altenmann >talk 18:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think regardless of the fate of the article, "blunt weapon" is used in more contexts than "blunt instrument" is. The latter is solely a legal term. And it would be WP:SURPRISE for someone to be looking for a weapon and be sent to medical trauma. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: It looks like that AfD Blunt instrument is leaning to keep. And from your comment it looks like it makes sense to suggest page renaming/redirect reversal. --Altenmann >talk 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yevethan thrustship → List of Star Wars spacecraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

For the same reason that I proposed that thrustship be deleted: the target section was deemed by the community to be "fancruft", and thus was removed, rendering the redirect useless. ZFT (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedent. No one saw fit to restore any of the deleted content for the more generic term, so this more specific one should now go as well. -2pou (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Timur9008 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brahuistan Province → Administrative units of Pakistan#Proposed provinces  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This may require an expert on the region, which I am not. Regardless, the namespace is not mentioned in the targeted section nor the entire article about administrative units of Pakistan. Brahuistan is the name of a historic region and while it has a nationalist movement, I can find no evidence that it has been proposed as a new province of Pakistan, as implied by the redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Complex math → Complex number  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Complex mathematics → Complex number  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Complex numbers aren't the only complex part of math though? For one, several people have lamented (publicly and privately) about how stuff like calculus and algebra are complex as well. For second, what's considered complex can be different from person to person (for example, a 6-year-old would think something like "8/4" is the hardest question ever made whereas a recreational mathematician could probably do it easily), so complex numbers might not actually be that complex to certain people. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The phrase is inherently ambiguous, and readers have better to search separately its components complex and math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs)
• Delete per D.Lazard. One aspect of the problem is that "complex" has a technical meaning in math (referring to the complex numbers) and a colloquial meaning in general (something like complicated or difficult). Mgnbar (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I've bundled in Complex mathematics. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: this certainly is very ambiguous between the two meanings. However, for one meaning (complex numbers) we have a good target and for the other meaning (complicated in general) we don't. Therefore I'm leaning towards this redirect being ok. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, unlike many areas of mathematics like calculus, geometry, etc., the study of complex numbers doesn't really have a better name as far as I know. Whilst perhaps incorrect (and therefore a {{R from incorrect name}}), "complex mathematics" is a decent guess at what it might be called. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously. Sure, you could say there's ambiguity between "complex math" and "math that's complex" in the same way that if you wanted to you could assert there's some ambiguity between Big apple and an apple that's big. There's no article for the general concept of "math that's complicated", and even if there were, Complex number would still be the correct target for "complex math". I'd be fine with a hatnote if anyone genuinely feels there's some confusion. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody uses the phrase "complex mathematics" for this. When I typed "complex mathematics" into a Google scholar search, not a single result from the first 50 meant complex in the sense of complex numbers. Most of them were about "complex mathematics" tasks in education, meaning difficult, complicated, or advanced. –jacobolus (t) 04:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a redirect, not an article title - it doesn't need to be the exact phrase scholars use. This article covers the accepted meaning of "complex" used in mathematics, and so the redirect is correct. We also don't (and probably shouldn't) have an article on the subjective concept of "difficult mathematics". BugGhost 🦗👻 08:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are lots of accepted meanings of "complex" in mathematics; see below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a phrase which is meaningful or widely used as a unit. Curious readers should be looking up "complex" in Wiktionary and "mathematics" here, or else going to complex analysis or complex number. These titles have no inbound wikilinks from article namespace, another indication that they aren't very useful. –jacobolus (t) 04:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, you're suggesting that if someone knows that there's a concept in mathematics using the name "complex" and wants to learn more about it, they shouldn't be allowed to search "complex math" on wikipedia, they should instead search the first word on a different website and the second word here? Or alternatively, the user should just come into knowledge of more specific terms (complex analysis or complex number), presumably through extra research on some more accomodating website, and then search it here? How on earth would that be a good experience for a reader? Why would any of that be necessary or expected? BugGhost 🦗👻 09:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If we had articles on both the technical meaning and the colloquial meaning we could make a disambiguation page, or choose a primary topic with a hatnote. But we don't (Mathematics Made Difficult doesn't count), and we don't generally let the existence of a non-notable colloquial meaning get in the way of giving articles or redirects on technical topics their correct names. In technical mathematics, this can only mean the mathematics of complex numbers (unless maybe someone trying to be cute has used it for the mathematics of cell complexes), and complex number is the correct redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "giving articles or redirects on technical topics their correct names". Are you saying that "complex math(ematics)" is a "correct name" for "complex numbers"? ZFT (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RASTONISH (I couldn't really find somewhere more appropriate for such a vague term either). The plain meaning of this term is just difficult/technical/etc., not related to the complex numbers. A reasonable person looking for info on the complex numbers that already knows something about them will look up something like "complex numbers". A reasonable person looking for info about the topic that doesn't know anything about them will look for the term they found it referred to as, which will be something like the "complex numbers". The current target is misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't think it's astonishing for Complex math to redirect to the article on the well known mathematical study of complex numbers, I would think it would be astonishing if it went anywhere else. The "plain meaning" of something doesn't hold any weight for a redirect when there is an obvious specific topic that fits instead (see my Big apple vs "an apple that is big" example above). BugGhost 🦗👻 14:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Complex number is certainly not "an obvious specific topic" for "complex math". On the opposite, I think that many (if not most) people searching for "complex math" do not know anything of complex numbers, since people using "math" instead of "mathematics" have generally a very low mathematical level and do not know complex numbers at all. Also, when searched, "complex math" is probably written as an altenative of "difficult math" or "advanced math". So, for there readers, redirecting to complex number goes against WP:ASTONISH. D.Lazard (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  since people using "math" instead of "mathematics" have generally a very low mathematical level and do not know complex numbers at all - Is this a serious claim? Any source for that, or just a gut instinct insult? I've got a maths degree and wouldn't bat an eye at either math, maths or mathematics being used to describe it. Also, where I am from, complex numbers are taught to 14 year olds, who generally feel no elitist need to say "mathematics" all the time, but still have the ability to understand the topic. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do have to say that I think reading anything into "math" vs. "mathematics" is inappropriate...regardless, this is an implausible, vague search topic, and if you really want to get into the weeds, who's to say that this hypothetical searcher isn't looking for Complex analysis instead? That's a whole ass branch whole-ass branch of math. And before you cry "disambiguate", no, just delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your "Big Apple" analogy fails completely for a couple reasons -- 1) it's a very well established nickname for the city in widespread use, as opposed to "complex mathematics", which is not, and 2) people would be very unlikely to search for the topic of a large apple, whereas a search for advanced (or higher, or upper level, etc etc) mathematics is a lot more reasonable. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the likelihood of someone searching "complicated math" is as about likely as someone searching "large apples", as both terms are too vague and ill defined to be articles. I genuinely don't understand the logic of saying this redirect should be deleted because it is allegedly ambiguous with a subjective, vague topic that doesn't (and won't ever) have an article. If it is ambigous with something that isn't at all suitable to be an article then there is no ambiguity at all, and the original target should remain. BugGhost 🦗👻 01:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Complex math" isn't a topic. It's a vague phrase that nobody uses to refer to the redirect target, and a plain reading suggests it's more likely to mean higher mathematics (while we don't have an article specifically about that, we very well could...most any university math degree curriculum contains something like a "transition to higher mathematics" course) than to mathematics about the complex numbers. If you really insist on the latter, again, why the complex numbers, and not complex analysis? Or are you suggesting that this is merely a couple keywords smushed together? If that's the case, we shouldn't be redirecting based on that, but even if we should, then also why not abstract cell complex, CW complex, chain complex, complex manifold, simplicial complex, etc. etc? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "why not a bunch of other articles with the word complex in?" - Because they are clearly not the primary topic. Complex analysis is the study of functions that use complex numbers (extension of real analysis), and so not the introductory base article for the concept of complex numbers. The rest of the articles you listed are not serious suggestions - they are arbitrary articles you picked out of a hat that no one is suggesting, and are obviously more niche and very unlikely to be what the user is trying to find when searching "complex math".

  The study of complex numbers is not a niche topic - I feel some participants are confusing the topic with a some novelty number classification, like lucky numbers or happy numbers. Complex numbers are a hugely important pillar of modern mathematics and have usages that are both influential and applied. They underpin essential concepts in signal processing, computer graphics and quantum physics (examples linked), and dozens of other fields. It is undoubtedly the primary topic. If you need evidence of this, please see David Eppstein's vote above, as his view on this topic should be given some weight. BugGhost 🦗👻 11:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The study and usage of complex numbers is not normally referred to as "complex math". I agree with jacobolus (04:19, 22 December 2024). Adumbrativus (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term "complex" in its technical sense is used with various nouns (complex number, complex plane, complex analysis, complex conjugate, etc.). The phrase "complex math" is not much of a stretch, so it's a plausible search term for this topic. As for the colloquial sense of "complex", I agree with User:Bugghost: what would a reader be looking for? It seems unlikely that an encyclopedia would have an article on the vague and subjective topic of "math that's complicated". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, disambiguate, or hatnote. Just because "complex" has a specific meaning within mathematics, doesn't mean that "complex math" should redirect there, due to the fact that there are other possible interpretations of the phrase; redirecting "complex math" to "complex numbers" implies that the latter is the only instance of, or is synonymous with, the former. Put another way, even though "complex math" (the subjective/vague meaning) doesn't/shouldn't have it's own article, but "complex numbers" does, the latter is (arguably) a subset of the former; having a term with multiple (potential) meanings pointing to only one of several seems inappropriate to me, because that leads to incorrect assumptions/implications. A redirect should take you to the topic you are looking for, not a subset of it; if there are multiple (potential) meanings/interpretations, then a disambiguation page is more appropriate, or at least a hatnote at the primary topic. ZFT (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Complex#Mathematics. In the disambiguation subsection the reader can find related terms to it. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems much more reasonable. I do not agree with BugGhost's and Eppstein's reasoning; redirects should be as direct and straightforward as possible. Your proposal therefore seems like the best solution. ZFT (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But none of those terms would ever be called "complex math". I've also trimmed that section down, as it was rife with WP:PTMs. I was conservative in my removal, but I still wound up removing several. The dab page is a bad target, and a bad target is worse than no target at all. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If they would never be called that, then why are we having this discussion? ZFT (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a fair enough compromise - I personally don't think it's necessary as complex numbers are the clear primary topic in my view, but this disambiguation is a far better choice than deleting. I'd be fine with this as an outcome. BugGhost 🦗👻 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Common lime → Papilio demoleus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Common Lime → Papilio demoleus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

There is no evidence that a primary subject has been specified, as Papilio demoleus is commonly called the Common lime butterfly, but "Common lime" more commonly refers to the tree Tilia × europaea. KOLANO12 3 09:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Tilia × europaea, which my searches indicate is the primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I just added Common Lime to this RfD; that redirect hasn't been touched since it was created on 5 April 2006. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I created the sentence-case redirect on 5 January 2015, in response to this 4 January 2015 edit by William Avery whose rationale was "Downcasing per MOS:LIFE" (I patrol for untruthful hats) – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @Bjh21:, who created the title-case redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on my other edits that day, I think I came across the butterfly article for other reasons and noticed that it started with a common name ("The Common Lime or the Lime Butterfly is a common Swallowtail butterfly.") and there wasn't a redirect at that name. So I don't think I considered the tree at all, and would have no objection to the retargeting. --bjh21 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. The shade tree is definitely more primary than the butterfly, but is it more primary than the citrus (which can be called a common lime to distinguish it from other kinds of limes such as kaffir limes or key limes)? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate is my first inclination as well. Besides the butterfly and the plant which is not closely related to the lime fruit tree, (common) lime most commonly refers to Lime (fruit), Lime (material), and Lime (color). – wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the Tilia × europaea. As far as I can find, "common lime" is used exclusively to refer to this, and never to the butterfly, the fruit, the material, etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's difficult to search because of all the colloquial usages, but here's an example citing "common lime" for the fruit: [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you managed to find one that uses this (even our article doesn't, and this source wouldn't be valid to support adding it in either), and with that in hand, the first thing I found here directly contradicts this usage, saying the key lime is a variant of the "common lime" rather than a synonym for it. Regardless, if such heroic searching is required to find this, then the tree is pretty clearly the PTOPIC, and a hatnote there can point back to the dab page for anyone actually looking for the fruit (or something else), although I think that's still overkill. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I searched Britannica for "common lime" and at the top of their list was European linden which is a red link here, hah! Second on the list was "Lime (tree and fruit, Citrus species)". What I did not see in their search results, even after scrolling way, way, down, was any butterfly. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation draft made Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? As I noted above, there's a very clear PTOPIC for this term, so what would be the point of this? We already have a dab page at Lime itself, so why do we need another here? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is somewhat nuanced and complicated. Lime tree, as listed on the Lime#Botany disambiguation, is Tilia, a genus of about 30 species of trees. The "common lime tree" is Tilia × europaea, a naturally occurring hybrid between Tilia cordata and Tilia platyphyllos, two Tilia (lime) species. It is often the commonest Tilia species in urban areas and along avenues and streets, which I suppose, is how it got the name "common". Redirecting to the Lime dab catches Tilia, but misses the target Tilia × europaea. Whereas there is no difference between lime butterfly and common lime butterfly – those both redirect to Papilio demoleus. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There were just three pages linking to "common lime" as I looked at this today. Lepidoptera in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae: common lime butterfly, which is counter to the idea that the tree is a primary topic, Romford, and Hurstpierpoint. I've just fixed these three. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Ngram shows more frequent usage in the 1800s. Books search 1800–1813 points to "common lime stone" and "common lime water". Neither does a more contemporary search primarily point to the tree. HERE we see common usage in the context of tropical agriculture. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Love and Longing in Bombay → Vikram Chandra (novelist)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Notable book. Has at least one interwiki. Should a red link per WP:RED (otherwise it messes up the interlanguage link template). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep page is a useful redirect to the book's author. The fact that the redirect causes the interlanguage link template to not appear as a red kink is a technical issue that shouldn't be used as a justification for removing a perfectly fine redirect; just don't use the template. RachelTensions (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not familiar with the standards on Polish wikipedia, but the article there is from 2008 and doesn't have a single reference. I have fixed the ill per the instructions from that template. Jay 💬 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NavigationAustianChampionsFigureSkatingMen → Template:NavigationAustrianFigureSkatingChampionsMen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It doesn't appear that this redirect is currently in use on any articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous spelling mistake User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Quapauw tornado → 2008 Picher–Neosho tornado  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Rare mispelling of Quapaw (four hits total for this spelling, none related to the tornado). Most google hits for the correctly spelled version of the term seem to refer to the 2014 tornado (see e.g. this article, which we don't have an article for. Rusalkii (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Must've misspelled it on accident. E_F⁵ 03:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Picher deadly tornado → 2008 Picher–Neosho tornado  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No references at all to this phrasing anywhere in the target or online. Doesn't seem to be particularly useful as a search term over Picher tornado which already points to the target. Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the phrasing may be awkward, I get several pages of results for the 2008 Picher tornado when looking up "Picher deadly tornado". Several tornadoes have hit areas in/around Picher, so this is more of a "refiner". Still useful, imo. E_F⁵ 15:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a search term, not a descriptive title. I have faith in Special:Search that anything containing "Picher" and "tornado" will lead roughly to that article. Departure– (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Smasnug → Samsung  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This REALLY doesn't seem like a plausible misspelling for "Samsung". If anything, this should redirect to Shanzhai as "Smasnug" is a semi-infamous Shanzhai producer User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not exactly a *plausible* misspelling of the name, but it is an *intentional* misspelling... an intentional misspelling used by counterfeiters when selling fake Samsung products [2], and spread widely as a meme by YouTuber DankPods. RachelTensions (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A) DankPods isn't a reliable source OR notable (and that's speaking AS a DP fan so), B) just because it's an INTENTIONAL misspelling doesn't mean anything when it comes to RfD. it has to be widely used, which Smasnug isn't User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not mentioned at target, and no indication why it redirects there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Planet B (TV series) → Mnet (TV channel)#Upcoming programming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in any part of the target page. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet B is a former name of Boys II Planet. Aidillia^(talk) 02:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So i don't know that the title was changed. Aidillia^(talk) 02:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Planet B was the name that "Boys II Planet" was originally announced under. ([3]). It'll likely be retargeted to that article once the show gets underway and the article is moved out of the drafts. RachelTensions (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Xian H-8 → Xi'an H-8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• The Xian H-8 bomber → Xi'an H-8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Proposing deletion as these two are implausible redirects - people are not going to search for an aircraft as "The [Manufacturer] [Designation]", and even less so as "The [Manufactuer] [Designation] [aircraft type]". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]