Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 8

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

August 8

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 8, 2024.

Tonies

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Tonies (company) to Tonies. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google suggests that the primary topic is toys made by Tonies (company), sending this to RfD because I'm not sure if it should be retargeted, disambiguated, or kept as is. Rusalkii (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related move request opened at Talk:Tonie#Requested move 9 August 2024 claiming there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Tonie". Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Tonies (company) to Tonies per Tevildo and 35.139, and add a hatnote to Tony awards. (No need to send to WP:RM - we can figure it out here without making discussions too dispersed.) Due to the spelling the toy company is the clear primary topic - nothing else mentioned here actually goes by the name "Tonies". Oppose retargetting to Tony - that is a different word - user has typed "Tonies" and so likely wants to go to an existing article with that name. BugGhost🦗👻 15:02, 13 August 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).

New Super Mario World

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo tends to use the word "New" in their game titles to refer to specific media that are usually remakes. If they have never used the title to refer to a game directly, then it is unclear what the title refers to. In other words, unless the title represents a remake of Super Mario World (which it doesn't), readers could potentially be looking up the title looking for the 2nd Super Mario World title, Yoshi's Island ... which, to my knowledge, has never been referred to as "New Super Mario World". Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that may be a bit obscure, since it's an erroneous title for an erroneous/working title, and kind of proves that this erroneous title can have multiple possible targets. We aren't mind readers, so this redirect should be deleted to let the search function figure out what readers want to find. In addition, third party search engines do not connect the term "New Super Mario World" to the current target, but instead bring up a bunch of non-canon subject to a point where this redirect's existence could confuse readers who do not know the clear difference between Wikipedia and Fandom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 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).

Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Useful, as Ca pointed out, to English-Korean readers who perfectly reasonably wouldn't expect it to be published under a different name in Korea. If it was in Korean, WP:RLANG would apply. But it isn't, so it doesn't; the title is just in English and can be transliterated into Hanguel. Since the name is in English, this is just like The Golden Compass redirecting to Northern Lights (Pullman novel). (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Galaxy 2 is not known by this name. The article has only had this title for 16 minutes before being moved back. Mia Mahey (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The odd title is the result of last-minute changes brought due to the Korean Intelletual Property Office determinination that the original title conflicted with multiple pre-existing products. Strangely I can't find any source that covers this. Ca talk to me! 09:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought about it for a while, and I say we keep for the Korean-English bilinguals who may not have realized this game was published under a different name in Korea. The reasoning behind WP:RLANG is that readers would be unlikely to search up topics with non-English search terms if the topic is unaffined to the language.
However, the Korean title is a simple English transliteration of
Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together. "슈퍼 마리오 Wii 갤럭시 어드벤처" contains no Korean words and simply spells out the English title. This may lead readers to think the name is same in English releases too, just not in Hangul. Ca talk to me! 13:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ca's reasoning; this isn't the sort of foreign language redirect we avoid. It's the English translation of the Korean title of the game, which happened to be different from the name in most other places. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure if I have to keep the DRV tag here ... but anywho, vacated my close, relisting due to possibly unclear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i still think rlang applies here. no amount of title-changing will give this a strong enough association with a japanese game. as an example, hoodwinked! is known in brazil (whatever that is) as "deu a louca na chapeuzinho" ("little hood's gone crazy" (no mention of the hood's color or the riding part)), but that likely doesn't warrant the redirect here unless a source is plopped there or the movie is popular enough among brazilian audiences (assuming brazil is real). an example of something like this actually working is chaves (television series), as the target is allegedly heavily associated with brazil
also, the previous title's redirect was already deleted, so add "for symmetry's sake" to my vote cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really a good application of RLANG though. The information on the game's publication in Korea being under a different name probably is worth inclusion, but even if it isn't, a redirect is. This redirect is unambiguous, is based on an official title, and is theoretically useful. There is no reason to delete. RLANG calls out Direct translations where the native/original form of the title is in English (or a language other than the language of the redirect's title), but this isn't a direct translation of the title, that's the point. It's a different title the game was published under. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the discussion has shown that Super Mario Galaxy / Super Mario Galaxy 2 is known as Super Mario Wii / Super Mario Wii 2 in Korea. RLANG is not applicable as this is an English-language title. This (the first part) is not a user-made up English translation. If "little hood's gone crazy" (from that hypothetical country!) had sources, I wouldn't mind that as a redirect. Also, Super Mario Wii redirects to a list without mention, probably it needs to be retargeted to Super Mario Galaxy. Finally, if someone can find a good source about the IPO/trademark/copyright issue behind the naming in Korea, it may be added to the articles. For now we have this reddit thread. Jay 💬 14:19, 27 August 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).

Active worlds in the Solar System

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not the biggest volcano nerd out there, so sorry in advance for any uninformed claims, but from reading the target and other related articles, there seem to be no other celestial bodies that meet the criteria of being a "world", currently having volcanic activity, and being in the solar system, though mercury is a strong "maybe". on another note, i'm not entirely sure "active world" is a term used to refer to volcanic activity, and the creator of the redirect (who seems to have made it as an essay) seemed to have also been referring to geysers, and counting moons as "worlds". for results. wikipedia gave me an mmo (shoutouts to hitomi fujiko), google gave me assorted apps and brands, and wiktionary gave me nothing. unless there's a detail i'm missing or this is a scientific term that refers to celestial bodies with volcanic activity, i'll vote for deletion cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on this note, i should mention "volcanically active worlds", a redirect that specifies the type of activity it refers to and does not specify the location. jury's still out on the definition of world though, but it's a step in the right direction cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better redirect at this time as is this not a redirect with potential.?
Jury is out on definition of volcano as noted in the article itself and presumably meaning of world. Planet and moon are more accurate terms. Many "worlds" are active in some way as they are above absolute zero and may have internal or external entropy sources that disturb their surface however that is defined. Someone could get a good article out of this so my vote is to retain in hope someone will do the job, unless there is a better redirect. ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
drifting into personal opinion territory by now, but wouldn't returning to red be better for that? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Active worlds" is too ambiguous to justify keeping "Active worlds in the Solar System" as a redirect to Volcano#Volcanoes on other celestial bodies. I also have not found any other suitable redirect targets because the problem is the lack of meaning in the redirect's title rather than a problem with any targets of the redirect. I recommend delete. GeoWriter (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:42, 22 July 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, Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was apparently an aborted draft, which was very quickly BLARed back in 2008. The page has no edit history of value, and the title is implausible at best, and misleading at worst. It's pretty wordy, and "active" can just as easily mean any sort of geological activity, not just volcanic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:26, 9 August 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).

Scared Silly

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 15:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

normally a little vague, but as a name, it seems more primarily associated with an open season movie cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak DABify - This is the title of the first episode of The Wacky Adventures of Ronald McDonald, and also for the movie Open Season: Scared Silly. I'm uncertain if the Open Season movie is the WP:PTOPIC for the phrase "Scared Silly" specifically, and google shows that it's the title of more things as well, such as a children's novel by Elizabeth Eulberg (no wiki-page), a picture book by Marc Brown (author) (very famous author), a stage play by Peter Bloedel (probably not notable), and likely many more... as this is a common English expression as well! Google does show the movie a bit more prominently than the other entries, mind you, so the PTOPIC argument can certainly be made, but that's why my DABify !vote is weak. Although I will say, if a PTOPIC is established, a disambiguation page should probably be made alongside it and hatnoted. Fieari (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per Fieari - no clear target BugGhost🦗👻 14:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Creation of a draft disambiguation page may help with consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan: Any objections to a disambiguation page? C F A 💬 03:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nope cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:06, 16 August 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).

Apple reinvents the phone.

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. This appears to be the official slogan of the iPhone. Mia Mahey (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{r from slogan}}. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for trailing full stop. From Search, the slogan (or rather press release headline) appears to have been "Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as this is the product's slogan. Even if "Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone" is the full phrase, strictly speaking, "Apple reinvents the phone" is the concise form which became arguably more popular, and which also gets many search hits. As can be seen from the edit summary, the user who requested the deletion has withdrawn the application anyway.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apple reinvents the phone may be their slogan and therefore a viable redirect, but Apple reinvents the phone. is not. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     20:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Among the main purposes of a redirect is that users who can't remember something's name exactly can still find it nonetheless when they type something similar in Wikipedia's search bar. That's also why likely or frequent misspellings are allowed as redirects. Therefore, I see no problem in having a period here since users may assume that this slogan ends with a period since it's a complete sentence. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as slogans are valid encyclopedic entries for historically interested people. We usually link to the corresponding product or company, tagging the redirect with {{R from slogan}}, unless the slogan became so commonly known that we have a dedicated article about it. (Not an iPhone fan at all, but anyway.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The slogan is unnecessarily long and clearly promotional. Instead something like Phones by Apple Inc. might be useful. IgelRM (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for product slogans to be promotional, I guess. Also, that you find the redirect too long doesn't change the fact that this is the product's slogan, and the less known official-length version of the slogan is even longer. Sorry, but these aren't good arguments. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the full slogan, there's the malformed period at the end, it includes the company name (so at best only marginally useful for "hey, I remember that slogan, but not what it's about, let's ask Wikipedia"), and it's not targeted at "an article or section of an article about the slogan" like {{R from slogan}} says it is. Too many things wrong here. Search is sufficient; it'll find the mention in IPhone (1st generation)'s infobox without this redirect's help. Delete. —Cryptic 16:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained why I don't think it's a problem that the slogan is not the exact official one and includes a period.
    Also, I don't see it as a problem that the redirect includes the name of the company of the product since there are many iPhone models and the slogan could potentially apply to many of them. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS as a similar term "iPhone Apple reinvents the phone." was added to the target in 2011, and then changed to the redirect term under discussion in 2012 by 66.121.52.2. Later, external websites may have picked it up. Fix the slogan at the Infobox or keep the redirect. Jay 💬 18:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. And since the slogan in the shortened, unofficial form has arguably gained more media coverage and popularity (probably because it is more concise), the redirect should be kept. Nonetheless, the slogan in the infobox should be corrected to the arguably less popular full version and get a redirect as well, simply because it's the official one. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 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).

Sharp Willcom D4

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Comparison of netbooks#SHARP. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article was blanked and redirected, but target does not seem to mention this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on creating an anchor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created an anchor Comparison of netbooks#SHARP. Jay 💬 13:11, 17 August 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).

MOS: OVERLINKING

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn because I didn't see this was kept in May. Blegh. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 20:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5#MOS: HYPHEN and others. Queen of Hearts talk 20:34, 8 August 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).

Bolsover (borough)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There was no further participation despite multiple relists. Jay 💬 19:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neither the current non-metropolitan district at Bolsover District nor the previous district Bolsover Urban District hold/have held borough status. Yes Google searches in quotes for "Bolsover Borough Council" will return results but the same is the case for "Braintree Borough Council" and "Harlow Borough Council". This is different to Chesterfield (borough) and Chesterfield Borough Council that go to Borough of Chesterfield that does have borough status along with the previous district Municipal Borough of Chesterfield. Its normal for districts that have borough status to have redirects from "Foo (district)" but not redirects for "Foo (borough)" when the district doesn't have borough status. Yes there are links to the redirect but they can be changed to the correct target and it appears to only have been at this title for a few weeks in 2004 when it was corrected and moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply the result of an error I made briefly over a little over 20 years ago. Seems entirely reasonable to delete. Morwen (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the internet hits for "Bolover borough" and "Borough of Bolsover" this is a common enough error to merit a {{R from incorrect name}} redirect. See e.g page 11 of this PDF where the local Conservative Party calls it "Borough of Bolsover". We educate people making this sort of mistake by taking them to the content they are looking for that explains the correct situation rather than making them jump through hoops to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an attested error that someone might search. The existence of the redirect will correct them effectively enough. Fieari (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 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).

Grand Duke of Hum redirects

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. FWIW, I did check that Grand Duke of Hum is a redlink. -- Tavix (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to bio's name in the article tile is misnomer in form of implausible noble title. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article leads specify that they are Grand Dukes (of Bosnia), and have holdings in Hum... heck, Vlatko is specified to be a Duke of Hum. Seems plausible to me that someone would mash the two facts together when searching for this person. A redirect doesn't have to be accurate, and mistakes and misunderstandings are perfectly acceptable reasons to have a redirect. The target is also unambiguous here. Doesn't really matter if there actually is a "Grand Duke" title for Hum or not. Fieari (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A cursory Google Books search for "grand duke of hum" and "veliki vojvoda humski" don't turn up these people, but it does turn up some other people, Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, Miroslav, Vojislav. Santasa99 what is the actual significance of this title, if any? --Joy (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, guys! Duke of Hum exists as a title, Grand Duke of Hum does not/did not, and there is very clear record about every known/recorded local nobleman and how he used to title himself - so no mystery there. In case of Vlatko Vuković and Sandalj Hranić they did not use title Duke of Hum either, they always signed themselves or were mentioned in charters as Grand Duke of Bosnia only. Many other local noblemen, even of lesser status than Vuković, Hranić, and later Vukčić (all members of Kosača clan) wore the Duke of Hum title - such as Sankovićs, Nikolićs, Vlatkovićs, etc. - simply there was no such title as Grand Duke of Hum, there was only Grand Duke of Bosnia as a title. Of all Kosača members, only Stjepan Vukčić wore both titles, the Duke of Hum and Grand Duke of Bosnia, and also Knez of Drina and of Primorje, and he almost always used full title. There was also nobility from earlier periods, but as far as I know nobility in pre-Bosnian medieval state era mostly wore title of knez (knyaz/prince) and župan. In short, title Grand Duke of Hum never existed. ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have said from Early Middle Ages instead of pre-Bosnian state. ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see every single recorded title in Konkordancijski rjecnik cirilskih povelja srednjovjekovne Bosne. ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 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).

Double dual

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Duality (mathematics)#Bidual. Thanks to Nbarth for creating the section! -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should probably point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are similar, but there's an important difference: the double dual is purely algebraic and completely general (basic linear algebra), while the bidual requires a topology and is much more specific, namely in functional analysis. They should reference and linked to each other as related and confusingly similar, but distinct.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that "bidual" and "double dual" are used synonymously, although I have never heard of "double dual". However, there are two notions of biduals corresponding to two notions of duals: the algebraic dual formed by the linear forms and the topological dual formed by the continuous linear forms. So, I suggest to transform bidual into a dab page with two entries and to redirect double dual there. The entries could be labeled "in linear algebra" (for the present target of bidual) and "of a topological vector space" (for the present target of double dual). D.Lazard (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that these terms can occur in many notions of duality, see e.g. also Dual_cone_and_polar_cone#Properties. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a further reason fora dab page. D.Lazard (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A disambiguation page seems in order, given the multiple meanings of "double dual". I've drafted one at [1], linking to Bidual, and added a link from (the target of) Bidual back to Double dual at [2]. WDYT?
    I've heard the term "Double dual" used widely in linear algebra, group theory, etc., but this is the first I've heard of "Bidual", and it seems specific to the Topological Vector Spaces (though used specifically for normed spaces, Locally convex topological vector space, etc.). A quick check of Wikipedia and Google agrees.
    If someone more familiar with biduals wants to expand that to a dab too, no objections, but given the distinct uses, "double dual" and "bidual" aren't generally used synonymously and shouldn't be merged, despite the similar meaning ("dual of dual, in some context"). Notably algebraic duals or Pontryagin duality don't generally use the term "bidual".
    —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least "bidual" is still ambiguous between a subset of the meanings of "double dual". 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve now drafted a dab at Bidual too, linking to the Topological Vector Space uses.
    —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of a relist, I was looking to close this. @1234qwer1234qwer4 and D.Lazard: what do you think of the two drafted disambiguation pages? Jay 💬 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem fine if one takes only into account the links that have been provided before. However, none of the drafts link to Duality (mathematics)#Dual objects, were a general concept is defined, called there bidual, that includes as special instances all examples given in the two drafts. I do not know how to link it in either dab page without increasing confusion. So, I remains convinced that the best solution is to merge the dab pages with a primary meaning linking to Duality (mathematics)#Dual object. Again it seems that this is the best way to solve the terminology problem that the general concept called bidual has its most elementary instances called double dual. D.Lazard (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like there are two questions: whether to have a DAB page or a page section, and whether to have separate pages/sections for the two terms. If using DAB, it seems clearer to have separate ones, given different uses. However, given that this is a simple definition, best is probably to link both to a section that says "dual of dual, called bidual/double dual, examples", rather than DABs.
    Some text at Duality (mathematics) seems in order anyways; I'll try drafting something.
    —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even with the attempt a few weeks ago to prevent a relist, it does not seem consensus has become clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 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).

SurveyMonkey/Axios

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect to fix a plethora of new redlinks. The editor that created those redlinks has fixed them, and this is not likely to recur. Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:00, 8 August 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).

New York Times/Siena College

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect to fix a plethora of new redlinks. The editor that created those redlinks has fixed them, and this is not likely to recur. Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:59, 8 August 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).

Bloomberg/Morning Consult

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect to fix a plethora of new redlinks. The editor that created those redlinks has fixed them, and this is not likely to recur. Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:59, 8 August 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).

Well, excuse me!

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 25#Well, excuse me!

We are two wild and crazy guys

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1977–78#The Festrunk Brothers ("Two Wild and Crazy Guys!"). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A catchphrase not mentioned in the target article. People searching for context on this phrase will be left disappointed with zero information to address their search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:38, 8 August 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).

Chinese coins

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Chinese coins

Sufferin' succotash

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Sufferin' succotash

I can do this all day

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#I can do this all day

Now cut that out!

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Now cut that out!

Stifle!

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "stifle" is mentioned once in the article, in the context that this character tells his wife to stifle herself. It is not implied that the word "stifle" (with nothing else besides this singular word) is a catchphrase, and that it would have priority over any other usage of the word "stifle". Because the idea of a "stifle!" catchphrase (with an exclamation point) is not implied or referenced at the target article, this unmentioned r from catchphrase is confusing and unhelpful for readers. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:38, 8 August 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).

Ten thousand thundering typhoons

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousand", "Thundering", "Typhoons", or even "Ten" are not mentioned in the article, thereby making this unmentioned r from catchphrase unhelpful for potential prospective searchers. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source added. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 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).

Hi, I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl.

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Hi, I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl.

Interim Government of Waker uz Zaman

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know redirects are cheap but this one is misleading and fails WP:V. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:04, 8 August 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).

Güija

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Lake Güija. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article. There seems to be little to no connection from Ouija to Spain or the Spanish language. I'm leaning delete, but i'm also open to retargeting to Lake Güija. mwwv converse∫edits 02:09, 8 August 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).

Ruvaush

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article ... and I'm not sure if it should be or not. Per search engines, this word refers to a Romany word for the target. In addition, in the target page's talk page archives, Talk:Werewolf/Archive 1#Ruvaush refers to what this word possibly is/means. There may be value in adding this word back into the article somewhere, but I'm not even sure if the redirect refers to a similar-enough subject to the target, in addition to not being sure if the redirect has any WP:FORRED issues (but most likely not since it seems the concept of "werewolf" may have Romany roots.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 11:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 8 August 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_8&oldid=1243285435"