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.
I do not understand, why the redirect is not useful. Explanation for deletion is needed. If the name consists of 3 parts, then I routinely create redirects, which consist only first and third part of the name. Taivorist (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2021 (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.
Unused redirects, and misleading since the target template doesn't mention a section unless the |section=yes parameter is also specified, making the template call appear redundant. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The redirects are a result of a 2014 TfD of what was at the time a separate template. A strange outcome, as redirecting here is worse than either keeping or deleting. – Uanfala (talk)16:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Unafala. This is leftover detritus from a template merge. The result is bad, because these names imply that the section output is what one will get. I was thinking at first that an alternative would be setting up a {{Other uses section}} wrapper for {{Other uses|section}} (or{{Other uses|section=yes}}, whatever), then point all these redirs at that wrapper. But we seem to be doing okay without that, and nothing at {{Other uses}} suggests we need a |section parameter (it doesn't presently have one). The wording of the template doesn't imply that it's applicable only article-wide, and in fact many uses of it are already sectional. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:42, 12 July 2021 (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.
After the production of Train 18, Govt. of India announced the production of Train 19, but since then there has been no development of this project and this set of rakes with this name, is unlikely to be commissioned ever. Hence requesting for deletion of this redirect. Sony R (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2021 (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.
I think this is an unlikely search term because if someone was looking for the series, I doubt they would know it was abbreviated as "MHA" and not know the full name. And even if they did, they would probably just see the link at MHA instead. Link20XX (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAnd even if they did, they would probably just see the link at MHA instead. Keep in mind that one of the main reasons redirects exist is to save users a single click, so I don't find this argument very compelling. However, I do agree that it's probably an unlikely search term. Mlb96 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if someone typed "MHA" looking for My Hero Academia (perhaps out of laziness, not because they don't know the full name) and this redirect appeared in the dropdown, then it would save them the click. Therefore, I say we should keep. Mlb96 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2021 (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 result of the discussion was disambiguate for now, with no prejudice against expansion to a proper article. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to encourage article creation, and because there have been 2 Refugee Olympic teams: 2016 and 2020. As such, a generic article about the team could be created, and the redirect is misleading anyway Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Rather than deleting the redirect, could we not just convert it to a disambiguation page until such time that a general article is written? 142.161.113.242 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because having the DAB page there still discourages article creation- because it doesn't show as a red link on relevant articles, which is a good way to encourage the article creation. If I supported DABing, I would have just made the DAB page rather than creating this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page does not prevent it being overwritten by an article in future. Deletion to create a redlink is not an option because there are two ambiguous articles to which the title might refer, and no clear primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion to create a redlink is not an option because there are two ambiguous articles to which the title might refer There are 2 partial matches, and neither of these are the correct target for this redirect. WP:PARTIAL says that partial matches like these shouldn't be included on DAB pages, therefore a DAB page with 2 partial matches is wrong. What we need at some point is for a general summary article to be created. That article is more likely to be created if people see redlinks than if they see a blue link (which is a DAB page). Many users use redlinks in existing articles as a basis for creating articles, and so would not realise an article could/should be created. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2021 (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.
I propose deletion of this redirect. According to this page history, this page was created after a company (calling itself at different times as Turing Space Industries and Turing Robotic Industries) claimed to develop a phone (Turing Phone) made out of this material. Supposedly, at the time the company did not elaborate what they meant by "Liquidmorphium alloy" and how they planned to manufacture it. Supposedly, later the whole project was canceled and some people who made preorders received low-scale production prototypes made out of plastic. Supposedly, there were very few phones manufactured and none of them ever used "Liquidmorphium alloy" or anything related to "Liquidmorphium" and Liquidmetal. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, Liquidmetal did discuss this term, but unsourced and seemingly parroting the claims you're talking about, so I just went ahead and removed it. That said, I still think we should keep this. Turing got a fair bit of press coverage (albeit not particularly high-quality coverage) over the liquidmorphium claims, so this remains a plausible search term. While an {{r without mention}} is less than ideal, the similarity of the names, and the fact that liquidmorphium was consistently described as a form of liquidmetal, makes Liquidmetal still a reasonable target. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi.13:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning up Liquidmetal article. I think that keeping redirect from Liquidmorphium alloytoLiquidmetal is undue toward Liquidmetal because it is a miss-characterization of Liquidmetal. Simply put, according to Liquidmetal article, Liquidmetal and Vitreloy are commercial names of a series of amorphous metal alloys and there is no evidence that so-called "Liquidmorphium alloy" ever had any contracts with the owner of "Liquidmetal" brand name. Keeping the redirect would be propagating the mischaracterization. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of mention. If we keep this, it is an Easter egg at best, harmful at worst for someone searching this and coming to an incorrect or incomplete conclusion due to where they ended up. --Tavix(talk)02:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting since another redirect was added late to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!00:06, 10 July 2021 (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/2021 July 18#Hertevin
