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 were some merges involved here, which normally would be a reason to keep some of these, but in this case all the content has been RD1'd, so it would actually be good to remove the history here. ~ Amory(u • t • c)16:59, 11 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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. I'm not overwhelmed by the arguments based on WP:BALL, as these aren't articles, but the concept is certainly a valid argument applied to redirects, if perhaps weakened. The remaining arguments sort of cut against each other, with two editors suggesting (at least some) redirects should have their targets unified, while one participant gave a rationale for keeping those targets divergent. This close is weakish for elements <= 218, where the keep arguments have more merit, but the creations are not a significant problem — the example of 218 was created twice in ten years (and reverted once more after that) — and any mentions are trivial mentions about number, not really about the (theoretical) element.
The largest hypothetical element with a non-trivial mention at Extended periodic table looks to be Element 184/Unoctquadium. There are a couple more trivial mentions of higher elements later on in the article, such as the 2p1/2 shell is expected to join around element 185 and the 2s shell around element 245. However, after 184 there is a diverge in targets that I think should be fixed along with figuring out what should be the "upper-limit" for redirects of this nature. Any redirects that are kept should be retargeted to Extended periodic table. That being said, I think it may be better to delete this lot due to the lack of any significant discussion of any of these elements. --Tavix(talk)21:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I quote WP:BALL — Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Andrea (2025)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties. Even with ununennium through unbibium, there's a lot we don't know because they would have a totally new electron shell; we can say some about them (otherwise we wouldn't have WP:GAs on all four of them), but Category:Hypothetical chemical elements makes it seem to me that not a lot has been said about higher-numbered elements (otherwise they would probably have articles by now). In this case, I don't think we ought to make it seem as if we have articles about higher-numbered elements: a red link will encourage the creation of an article should the situation warrant it, while a blue link will make it seem as if an article already exists. Red links sometimes aren't a huge deal of encouragement with minimally notable topics, e.g. the historic sites I typically work with (they pass WP:N, but they're obscure, and only a few people write about them), but lots of people will be writing about an element should it get enough hypothetical coverage to warrant an article. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ensure redirects are consistent per Tavix:
Arguments about article notability do not apply to redirects.
If "lots of people would write about" a subject, then we neede't worry about any inhibitory effect blue links might have.
Retargettoextended periodic table up to element 210 (biunnilium) as there are non-trivial mentions of a few elements in this range in WP:RS, and delete all those thereafter per WP:BALL, as Aufbau (justifying up to 218) is almost certainly incorrect and there is no need to go up to 245, 274, or 999 when there is no clear stopping point and there are many consecutive elements without any useful mention. ComplexRational (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could use more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(u • t • c)19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of these redirects, I would like to comment that part of my rationale for creating them was in fact to discourage the creation of new articles about these elements. There have been quite a few sites giving Aufbau-based extrapolations of the periodic table to extremely high-numbered elements, one of the more detailed being Apsidium that went to 232 last I remembered (hence the upper limit), and this is a topic that tends to attract "periodic table fans" who don't know better that these aren't reliable sources. The end result is that articles end up getting created (link is to element 218, the end of period 9 according to extrapolated Aufbau) with non-notable extrapolations that are not only unlikely to be right but also have no possible support from reliable sources. These elements would certainly be notable if serious predictions from such sources popped up, or indeed if they were synthesised, but we are really far away from that happening: it took us almost 70 years just to finish off the seventh row with 26 new elements (neptunium through oganesson), and since we would need another 66 to get to element 184, I doubt any one of us discussing this now will live to see element 185 become a notable topic. So if we do decide to delete the redirects, I would suggest protecting the names up to a certain amount (218 would do) to discourage the creation of non-notable articles.
My logic in having the targets diverge past 184 was that if someone is searching for element 168, say, there is a lot of information about it available at Extended periodic table#Elements 167 to 172, and this is the right target whether the searcher types "element 168" or "unhexoctium". But if one is searching for element 218, there isn't any information anywhere (not everything is known). So I thought that if one was searching "biunoctium", you might want systematic element name to see how such names are constructed, but for "element 218" the only reasonable target is a discussion of how far the table can go, i.e. Extended periodic table#End of the periodic table, because it's not a IUPAC systematic name. So I was thinking about a possible difference between wanting information about the hypothetical element and the temporary name for it that could be encoded in the search term. If the redirects are to be kept, I would prefer them to be harmonised according to the targets of "element X", as searching "element 218" should not lead you to systematic element name. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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.
This redirect is misleading. To be anonymous is not to be "nameless", but rather being anonymous is to have a name but not reveal it, or in extreme cases, not have a name but not reveal that there is no name. Either way, the redirect is not exclusive with its target, and has the potential to mislead readers. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lead paragraph of the article discusses the differences between namelessness and anonymity. As there doesn't appear to be an article dedicated to the concept this is the best place to target the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although being anonymous and nameless are not the same it seems plausible "namelessness" would most likely refer to "Anonymity" when most reader's search this; also per Thryduulf's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:15, 3 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 retargettoList of states by population. Participants are split, but I find the retarget rationales quite convincing, especially in light of the delete !voter's emphasis on the importance of the word "states." ~ Amory(u • t • c)17:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Tavix. Nobody using this search term will be surprised to end up there, and it should contain every relevant list we have - if it doesn't then (a) they can be added and (b) this is not a problem with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2019 (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.
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.
No 2006 data in target. Also, "Population" is not exclusive to countries and dependencies; it could also refer to cities, states, and other uses of "population". Steel1943 (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Originally inteded to be a data colletion of each nations population for the year 2006 specifically. If you look through my editing history on the page, you can se it contained data. Same goes for any other article about population for a specific year. If the same data is found elsewhere they redirect is fine by me :) --Mattfolk (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is longstanding, but I don't see any relevant pages that this fits. Data "as of" isn't enough, 2006 should be covered, as with 2005 below. ~ Amory(u • t • c)14:57, 12 January 2019 (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.
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.
Delete - A wide variety of other things can be described as heavily 'populated' and brag about certain figures: video game servers, amusement parks, trendy restaurants, and so on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2019 (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.
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.
Delete. In the unlikely event someone searches for this, the last thing we should be doing is directing them to an article that doesn't even contain what they are looking for. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd support retargeting there. I guess I'm surprised we have it, but it is perfect! ~ Amory(u • t • c)14:54, 12 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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. The consensus is that this is an extension of the 2014 AFD. A few years have passed and no content from the article at this title is preserved in the current version of femal genital mutilation, so it should be appropriate to delete this redirect and the article history at this title. Deryck C.13:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afusat Saliu, the result was to merge the article into this redirect’s current target. However, at the present time, the subject of this redirect is not mentioned in the target article. In addition, it seems that the subject of this article was the mother of children attemption to escape the subject of thebtatget article, and thus probably fails WP:ONEEVENT as even a mention. Steel1943 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2019 (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.
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.
Note: The "Other" refers to the previous content, which appears(?) to be an attempt to write an article on supposed non-abusive/non-mutilating reasons for FG cutting? None of that content is included in the the target, so there does not appear to be an attribution issue to deleting this. ~ Amory(u • t • c)17:12, 11 January 2019 (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.
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.
Not mentioned in the target article. Per this page’s history, the subject of this redirect seems to represent a TV commercial for Butterfinger, but it’s not mentioned there either. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2019 (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 advertisements featuring The Simpsons characters[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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 redirect is not exclusive to its target; its target is just essentially a subtopic if this redirect’s topic. This redirect’s subject seems like a candidate for WP:REDLINK. In addition, I reviewed Voting rights in the United States (a possible retargeting option), and I did not seem to find a section that details the subject enough to warrant a retargeting. That, and the redirect may be vague anyways since the United States is not the entire world. Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, USA and South Africa are the only countries where suffrage for poor people pre-dates suffrage for ethnic black people, making "black voting rights" a meaningful topic. So some kind of disambiguation or set indexing may be possible as well. Deryck C.13:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Black suffrage While I'm theoretically fine with either the current target or Deryck Chan's suggestion, this seems to be most accurate and overwhelmingly the most comprehensive, even if a bit difficult to navigate. ~ Amory(u • t • c)13:48, 12 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Not mentioned in target article and apparently not directly related to the target. Per third-party searches, if no alternative target exists, this redirect’s subject may be notable enough for its own article (delete per WP:REDLINK.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2019 (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.
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.
To "plead the fifth" is notable, but when it comes to "pleading" United States constitutional amendmends, it does not seem as though the "plead the ..." has notable use for any other amendments. Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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.
It is not clear nor guaranteed that this redirect refers to its target. I was considering retargeting this redirect to Article Two, but there’s no guarantee that all cases of the abbreviation "Art." in this case refer to "Article". Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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.
Not mentioned in the target article, thus the connection is unclear. Due to this, there is a chance that readers will be WP:ASTONISH-ed when arriving at the target page when looking up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steel, or, alternatively, weak retargettoBen Franklin (this needs some explaining: he had a famous quote that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (bolding added). Ben Franklin is the top result when searching for essential liberty on google (see here) and clearly has extensive coverage relating to the quote) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the term is highly associated with Franklin, I'd rather us just let people use the search engine. Numerous later individuals and groups have used similar language in political arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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.
Delete - responsibilities = things you are supposed to do (responsible for). rights = things you are able to do. There is no reason that this should redirect to bill of rights --DannyS712 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2019 (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.
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.
Delete. Well the redirect and target are synonyms to an extent, so it's not implausible, however none of the potential topics that might use this term seem to use it as far as I can tell, meaning there is no good target. If Salacious were a soft redirect then I'd consider redirecting there, but that's also a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2019 (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.
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.
Seems highly insensitive to be redirecting this to a page about deceased Wikipedians. Perhaps there is a more appropriate target, but I doubt it, and think that deletion is the most appropriate course of action here. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (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.
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 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.
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.
There's no such thing as the "European race". News searches bring up various races and rallies in Europe. This term is occasionally used in literature, but mostly in fringe contexts: [1]. FYI, the first RfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 25#European race. Looking at the page history: the redirect's creator was blocked in 2008 for disruption in race-related articles: [2], and has not returned.
Delete - The past several millennia of conflict between European groups of differing skin colors, ethnic backgrounds, tribal loyalties, etc make it rather patently ludicrous to talk about a single, well-codified 'European race' coming into existence. It gets even more insane when peculiarities such as the 'one drop rule' get applied. In the absence of reliable source commentary using this term, deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a fashionable misnomer (at least among a certain sort of people) redirecting to an older, less fashionable but at least notable, misnomer. If it should redirect anywhere it should redirect either to White people (as that is what people actually mean by the term although we probably don't want to endorse that) or else to Ethnic groups in Europe (a reasonable option suggested on the first RfD which was ignored). The latter would offer the best chance for anybody falling down this particular rabbit hole to actually learn something useful but I still think the best thing is to get rid of it completely. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2019 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#MLive.com
