Speedway

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 15

December 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 15, 2024.

Romanian / moldovan language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 23#Romanian / moldovan language

New york bozo

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. Complex/Rational 23:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am THAT confident in WP:G10 that I tagged this page myself. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stupid. I was under the assumption that this redirect was created recently and exists purely to try to call Aaron a bozo (which would indeed fit WP:G10), but turns out one look at the edit history tells me that this was likely in reference to some event that happened in 2014? Still, not mentioned in the article so delete User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:52, 16 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).

IMF (file format)

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 IMF (disambiguation). The prior page history will be at IMF (id Software). Jay 💬 07:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with Interoperable Master Format. This redirect has nontrivial history that was merged into Id Software; I think the best approach would be moving it to a less ambiguous title, and redirecting the original title to IMF (disambiguation) § Computing. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 15 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).

Isma'ili sect (Isma'iliyyah)

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. Complex/Rational 23:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pointless redirect GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:01, 15 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).

Bilal El Aly

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. ✗plicit 00:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article; no other reasonable target can be found Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:33, 15 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).

WP:GUY

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. ✗plicit 14:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects need exceptional reasons to exist, and "shortcut to one person's talk page" isn't one of them. Seems like it might have been created as a gag, a very "Wikipedia in 2008" sort of thing. Creator vanished eight years ago so won't be able to contribute to this discussion.  — Hex • talk 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not a helpful redirect, wp:astonishing target. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be fair, JzG is a guy User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikilittering. 67.209.129.67 (talk) 20:35, 17 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).

WP:Fag, WP:FAG, and WP:FAGFP

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 all There is slightly more support for retaining "FAGFP" than the others, but even there there is significantly more support for deletion and even one of the people who previously supported keeping was convinced otherwise * Pppery * it has begun... 20:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to use the homophobic slur fag as a shortcut to this project page, either for linking or searching.

Two of these were listed at RfD in 2013:

Arguments for keeping at the time hinged around "they're plausibly of use", but the complete lack of direct usage in the succeeding 11 years demonstrate conclusively that our editors have sufficient common sense not to use them, and visit stats show that they're not actively being used to search either.

  • WP:Fag - 11 links, of which 1 on its talk page, 1 in a programmatic list of shortcuts, and the rest are discussions about the redirect itself
  • WP:FAG - 13 links, of which 1 on the target, 3 in programmatic lists of shortcuts, and the remainder discussions about the shortcut itself
  • WP:FAGFP - 5 links, of which 1 on its talk page, 1 on the target and the remainder discussions about the shortcut itself. This was created while the WP:Fag RfD was running by one of its participants, not by anyone involved with maintaining the target page

The average daily visit count for each of these page titles during the past year is zero.

The unlikeliness of anyone ever requiring these redirects is reaffirmed by the low usage of the other shortcuts offered by the target page, which are:

  • WP:FINDAGRAVE - 29 links
  • WP:FIND-A-GRAVE - 2 links, which are the page itself and one of the aforementioned RfDs
  • WP:GRAVE - 8 links, including the the page itself, one of the aforementioned RfDs, and one person who thought they were linking to WP:GRAVEDANCING

All of these redirects also have an average daily visit count of zero.

Note: the creators of the two uppercase redirects have retired from the project, so will not be able to contribute to this discussion.  — Hex • talk 13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sees zero usage, offensive and confusing when seen in source editing. Ca talk to me! 14:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2820:B715:5791:DD39 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful --Lenticel (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ones that are pretty expressly a slur, but Keep WP:FAGFP as being a legitimate initialism with only being as offensive as anything else in the Scunthorpe problem. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a queer person myself, I can't disagree more strongly with your assertion that "fag" is just another rude word on a par with "cunt".  — Hex • talk 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not my point at all. My point is that the word I won’t even write as an example by itself is not the same word when additional letters are added. I’m not equating it with cunt, I’m equating FAGFP with any word that contains an obscenity or slur ‘’as a substring’’ of that word. Examples I might equate it with are “roofage” and “Fagin”. Just as those two words mean something else and are recognizable as something else unrelated to the slur, I think that FAGFP is easily parsed as something other than the first 3 letter substring. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that theory is that roofage and Fagin are real words or names which can be pronounced, much like Scunthorpe, but "FAGFP" is a familiar syllable followed by a wall of consonants. The most likely way that someone would parse it would be "fag F P". Roofage also doesn't pose a similar problem (to humans, unlike dozy firewalls) because English speakers will correctly parse it in two chunks as roof-age. The dubious word is split between them and the "g" is pronounced differently. By contrast the initialism begins with a completely unambigous fag.
    Either way, this is needless speculation because the initialism was created by someone after some similarly speculative talk in the 2013 RfD. It's not something which is actually used or likely to be used by anyone.  — Hex • talk 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will concede the point. Personally, the word with FP appended loses most or all of its sting, but while the three letter version is abhorrent to me, I don't have the word directed at me personally (I get other words!) so I would rather respect the opinion of someone for whom the word does personally hurt. I'm fine with its Deletion, especially as it doesn't get much use anyway (per above). For historical reasons only, it might be nice to pipe the very few instances of its use to this discussion. Fieari (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but WP:FINDAGRAVE and WP:FIND-A-GRAVE, which should maybe be retargeted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Find a Grave, which I think is more likely to be what users outside the Wikiproject to which the current target belongs might be looking for. None of this is significant enough to warrant a three-letter redirect, especially not an offensive one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, the latter three aren't actually part of this nomination. I think :GRAVE could reasonably be retargeted to :GRAVEDANCING since I did find an example of someone mistakenly using that way, so I'll nominate it separately once this has closed.  — Hex • talk 15:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As closer, I would have closed this, but for fairness, just notified the target of this discussion, considering the 2013 RfD went very very long and was quite heated. Jay 💬 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That talk page has only had three posts in the last decade, but thanks for your attention to detail :)  — Hex • talk 20:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FAGFP, there's no way to use that one as a slur. Keep WP:FAG. Since that is the natural initialism for Find a Grave, it's plausible to search with that shortcut to find content for Find a Grave. I haven't seen any evidence that this shortcut has been used as a slur, but if so that's a behavioral issue and not per se an issue with the shortcut. Perhaps consider deprecating it a-la WP:DIVA if the concern is sincere. Delete WP:Fag, that one isn't formatted as an initialism so the innocence argument is diminished. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 24 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).

Till It's Gone (Remix Feat. Rihanna)

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 speedy delete. This was never properly tagged, by the way, but I'm just going to go ahead and delete this one per G3. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This… doesn't exist. Originally, this was a very short article claiming that "Til It's Gone" would be the third single of Britney Jean with a music video coming on 'May 23rd', but it was quickly noticed and replaced with a redirect instead of being deleted. I'm sure no one is going to find this misspelled redirect about an imaginary Britney-Rihanna collab useful. Delete. 84.65.16.255 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:59, 16 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).

Template:DisProject and Template:DisPro

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Template:DisProject and Template:DisPro

Wikipedia:ED

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 27#Wikipedia:ED

Joe (drink)

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 withdrawn. I nominated this redirect because there was plenty of other products with this name, but it is clear that coffee is the primary topic. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a reference to Cup of joe, but searching this on Google only displayed teas and alcoholic beverages. Ca talk to me! 04:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 65.92 - It's not implausible that someone might hear the phrase "cup of joe" and search Joe (drink) to find out what it is referring to. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:18, 15 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 saints starting with A

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. ✗plicit 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual redirect, a long list of saints that was nominated for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of saints as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Absolutiva (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no lists of saints anywhere on the target (let alone those that start with A), and it's too vague to redirect to any of the specific ones Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Catholic saints#A as WP:PTOPIC, or else Delete as ambiguous - The Lists of Saints page doesn't have any saints that begin with "A" because it's a list of lists, and we have lots of articles of the saints of different denominations and even different religions... but I think in the English speaking world, when you say you want a list of saints, I'm pretty sure people default to the Roman Catholic ones. If other editors disagree with this, then the only other option is to delete as ambiguous. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:24, 15 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).

Freak-off

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 22#Freak-off

Pansexual Pride Day

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 Pansexuality#Pansexual & Panromantic Days. Note that this would have been a good opportunity to WP:BEBOLD instead of listing it at WP:RFD, especially since the nominator is the redirect's creator. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned specifcially, as Pansexual pride day happens in December, not May. They are different dates. Retarget to Pansexuality#Pansexual_&_Panromantic_Days. --MikutoH talk! 02:28, 15 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).

Transfem

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 speedy revert. This is a somewhat-involved procedural close, as the most recent retargeting was against consensus. @Cereally8: If you want to retarget these redirects to the Trans man and Trans woman articles, please start a new RfD—but be prepared to explain why the arguments made in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3 § Transfeminine and Transmasculine no longer hold true. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently retargeted. --MikutoH talk! 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was recently retargeted? What is being requested here? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin see this consensus. Not every transfem is a woman, that's why they don't fit in these articles. --MikutoH talk! 02:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these were retargeted against consensus, then they can be speedily reverted, no need for an RfD unless the retargeter wants to seek a new consensus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this correctly, these were originally targeted at Non-binary gender#Definitions and identity. This was changed to retarget them at Transgender (discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_3#Transfeminine_and_Transmasculine) and then that was refined to point at Transgender#Transmasculine and Transgender#Transfeminine as appropriate. That was the state of play from 2021 until November 2024 when it was changed. I don't see any discussion but maybe I didn't look everywhere. Whatever the reason for the most recent change, I don't think it was an improvement. I'd support a revert to the previous targets. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and close RFD. No need for this discussion if the change was against consensus. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:15, 15 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).
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_15