Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27

February 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 27, 2023.

Chesss

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10#Chesss

Backslash redirects

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. Salvio giuliano 10:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a plausible typo. If Reddit inserts backslashes in external links, it is not necessarily a sufficient condition that we should create that redirect. For the record, I was not able to replicate that bug. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Blue Mooning

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. Salvio giuliano 10:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects not mentioned at target article, and one of them even has an implausible disambiguator. CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Plurielles

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. Jay 💬 10:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not mentioned in target article to provide any context for why it redirects there. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the word is the French feminine plural of "plural" ([1]). As to the connection, there definitely must be something since an internal search for this term brings up articles using a website "plurielles.fr" (such as Zahia Dehar) as a source, and this now redirects to a TF1 website [2]. However, without mention (and none existed when this redirect was created either) this is confusing and should probably be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous and confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

(214) 748-3647

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 10:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously mentioned a claim that this number frequently appears as a phone number due to integer overflows. That line has since been removed from the article, and is unlikely to return, given that even the source doesn't vouch for its truthfulness. Unlike the one other redirect that is a fully formatted U.S. phone number (full disclosure: my (re)creation; see edit summary there), this is a private individual's phone number, so we should probably delete it. (N.B.: Have already checked with an oversighter that this does not meet OS criterion #1.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Other films are no longer upcoming

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 discussion merged into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#"Upcoming" no longer upcoming. All of the nominated redirects have now been tagged.. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as none of these appear to have followed the RfD process. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As of this moment, none of these redirects are tagged and none of the redirects' creators have been notified. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp... These still aren't tagged yet, and now that it's a new day in UTC, it makes it quite the more complicated to tag these redirects, as well as notify the redirects' creators since the default day in the links will now be the day after this one. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well paste my comment from the other thread here:
    • Keep any that have received many views since becoming a redirect, which these titles are prone to do. In that case what has likely happened is another website has linked to a work-in-progress title whilst that was the title of the respective title, and not updated the link since our article was renamed. Readers clicking on that link will be inconvenienced by the respective redirect being deleted – this IMO outweighs any potential confusion as to the film or whatnot being or not being released. I will not go through to see which of these very many redirects this rationale does apply to. Because I'm lazy and don't want to. Delete other ones.
  • – J947 † edits 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. I'm all for deleting all of these, but they're not nominated correctly. To avoid a train wreck it might be better to have smaller batches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

South Ukraine counteroffensive

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#South Ukraine counteroffensive

Prince of Demons (Dungeons & Dragons)

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 Demogorgon#Dungeons & Dragons. Jay 💬 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Beelzi

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. Jay 💬 16:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature

Break down of demonic structures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10#Break down of demonic structures

Ars Millennia

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. Jay 💬 16:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Pithius

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Pithius

"Upcoming" no longer upcoming

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#"Upcoming" no longer upcoming

Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj

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 wrong forum (non-admin closure). 176.88.82.7 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make place to move the Muhammad abd-al-Salam Faraj page, to fix orthography. I can't move it on myself due to an error (The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.). Tempest (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures

Eclipse of God

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Eclipse of God

Cercaria (trematode)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Cercaria (trematode)

Free term

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. There was some support for retargeting in the form of "delete or retarget" votes, but without a strong frontrunner retarget candidate, delete is the consensus position. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that this redirect was created as a result of a misunderstanding of a source; see my edit summary here. But even if that's not correct, I do not believe this usage is a common (let alone the standard or most common) use. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term in the redirected meaning is fairly common; I am not an expert in the subject field to say if it is the prevailing alternative, although a common-sense check suggests so: for example, a search in Google Scholar for
"free term" -"arbitrage-free" -"default-free" -"model-free" -"cons-free" -"leukocyte-free" -"context-free"
(negative keywords are necessary to avoid situations where "free" is a part of a compound) yields the results are almost exclusively related to the free term of polynomials, with a free term algebras and uses in the functional analysis quite rare. That said, if an algebra expert will state here that this is not the best way to use a redirect, I will not object. Even in this case, I would propose turning the page into a disambiguation instead of deleting it. Викидим (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Викидим: I had not realized that Constant coefficient is itself a redirect, so your retarget suggestion is incorrect, unless that becomes a standalone article. Jay 💬 07:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Second woe

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 no consensus. There was no support for deletion, but there was no agreement on a single target. Changing the target to Seven trumpets from one of the suggestions. Jay 💬 07:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expression way too vague to redirect here. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Revelation 9. The fact of the matter is that the second woe is mentioned on the page for the book, as it occurs in Revelation 9, and there doesn't really seem to be anything else we can point to. That being said, the article for that chapter of the Bible is not well-developed, and I'm not sure that retargeting makes sense until the article content is improved. But deletion seems unreasonable; it's very clearly used to refer to a part of the Bible, and it is going to be extremely hard for the WP:PTOPIC to be anything other than Revelation 9. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

First woe

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 no consensus. There was no support for deletion, but there was no agreement on a single target. Changing the target to Seven trumpets from one of the suggestions. Jay 💬 07:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expression way too vague to redirect here. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Revelation 9. The fact of the matter is that the second woe is mentioned on the page for the book, as it occurs in Revelation 9, and there doesn't really seem to be anything else we can point to. That being said, the article for that chapter of the Bible is not well-developed, and I'm not sure that retargeting makes sense until the article content is improved. But deletion seems unreasonable; it's very clearly used to refer to a part of the Bible, and it is going to be extremely hard for the WP:PTOPIC to be anything other than Revelation 9. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Revelation of Christ

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 New Testament. Jay 💬 07:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mention at the target and not a good target. There are two many possible retargets to article that would be better: New Testament, Revelation#Christianity. Veverve (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the previous discussion on this Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 20#Revelation of Christ picked that target. Originally it was Second coming. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to New Testament. It seems like a reasonable redirect, and pointing to Revelation of John is less than ideal in the current state. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Isalm

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. Jay 💬 07:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a redirect from a typo, not a misspelling (cf. Finalnd, Rcie). Mast303 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mast303: Thanks, but I'm perfectly aware of those discussions, as I was a participant in the second one that you just linked (in case you haven't noticed). CycloneYoris talk! 05:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_27