The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy[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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 22:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Scyrme. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. However, I'm more curious what happened here at this nomination. I gave a simple search for the redirect title and easily got multiple page mentions. With and without having the search text in quotes. Also, there are incoming links from multiple articles, some of which were last updated in 2022. Did something go wrong with the search results when Veverve nominated this, and Pppery seconded the nomination? Jay 💬 17:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just trusted Veverve's search, and said "yes, this logic does lead to a deletion". * Pppery *it has begun... 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there must have been either an error on Wikipedia's servers, or I made a typo in copy-pasting. My apologies. Veverve (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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.
RetargettoAOC (disambiguation). Every source in the target article uses "AOC" with a capitalised O, and it seems unlikely that "AoC" is used to refer to her. Some targets of the DAB page are, however, known by AoC. WP:DIFFCAPS should apply here. Randi MothTalkContribs 19:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. The only reason I can see for somone rendering only the O in lowercase in reference to Ocasio-Cortez is a typo. I would expect either all lowercase, if someone were just being lazy, or a lowercase C if someone wrongly thought Ocasio-Cortez were a single name (although even in that case, why not omit the C?). Seems more likely that "AoC" is a reference to something else, most likely something where the "o" stands for "of" as keeping that lowercase even in initialisms is a common practice. The disambiguation page has a number of 'A of O' entries. – Scyrme (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to disambiguation, could mean a number of organizations that have lower-case o in their titles. Compare AoE and GoT. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elizabeth II was (relatively notoriously) never queen of or in (all of) Ireland. Referring to her as Elizabeth II of Ireland is an anachronism. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an anachronism? Of-course she wasn't ever the de facto queen of all of Ireland, but her regnal titles from 1952 simply refer to "Ireland", although they later were changed as early as 1953 either removing mention of Ireland or specifying "Northern". Regardless, it does seem unlikely that someone would search for her in this way based on an obscure detail like her title for a brief time from 1952-1953; probably safe to delete. – Scyrme (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia-created anachronism not found in any citation. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect name and it is spam for more important results in search results. Eurohunter (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} seems plausible enough, since this sentence is used in the article lead and is the former name of the article (with correct capitalisation). Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this redirect being "spam"? Randi MothTalkContribs 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randi Moth: So let's create thousands more of such incorrect and redundant redirects? There is no any link to "Territorial changes of germany" expect links to this RfD. What is the point to keep former incorect name of the article? "(...) sentence is used in the article lead (...)" - what is the point? There is redirect with correct name "Territorial changes of Germany" - only with difference of correct capitalization. Eurohunter (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under "Likely alternative capitalizations" in WP:RPURPOSE, which "may aid linking from other articles and external sites, as well as direct URL entry". The redirect has 359 lifetime views, so it is helpful. Encouraging other similar redirects isn't a reason to delete this particular redirect. Randi MothTalkContribs 21:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randi Moth: I already explained above that there is no any link to this redirect expect links to this RfD per "may aid linking from other articles and external sites, as well as direct URL entry" and it has "359 lifetime views" due to it shows up in Wikipedia search when you type "Territorial changes of G" then "Territorial changes of germany" pop up under "Territorial changes of Germany" – and people just randomly click the second link + this is spam in search result. And why you don't create Territorial evolution of romaniaorTerritorial evolution of poland or maybe Territorial evolution of rOmania and Territorial evolution of romaniA?Eurohunter (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere only shows the internal links that still exist in the English Wikipedia at this moment. It doesn't check past revisions of articles, edit summaries, or external sites. Direct URL entry is still a plausible method. Each article (including redirects to it) can only appear once in the search results, so it doesn't add any more "spam" to search results; it only shows up as a separate entry now because it is not a redirect for as long as the RfD nomination is ongoing. Other redirects not existing is unrelated to this redirect.Randi MothTalkContribs 16:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a plausible redirect from a miscapitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All-lowercase is obviously plausible; plenty of readers don't bother to capitalise in search queries when the case isn't ambiguous, as is the case here. This redirect is harmless and clearly not spam; the current target is the most relevant search result. The nominator seems to misunderstand how search works; redirects are not listed in results, only their target, and the current target of this redirect is obviously what a reader would expect as the most relevant result.
Regarding the comparisons to Territorial evolution of romania and Territorial evolution of poland, those redirects would also be helpful and I would't object to creating them; they probably doesn't already exist because searching them already sends the reader to what would be the target due to how Wikipedia is programmed so no-one has bothered to make them yet. They should probably be created so that links will also work.
"readers don't bother to capitalise in search queries" - what this has to do with? You don't have to capitalise letters to see capitalised names in search results so what is the point? Eurohunter (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you simply click Enter rather than selecting from the results preview, it matters. Or it would, if it weren't for Wikipedia ignoring case when case variant redirects don't exist. The point is that search previews aren't the only factor, although I suppose you're right that it doesn't matter much here. In this case the main point of the redirect would be allowing links to work. – Scyrme (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Pointless nomination with no clear reason to delete advanced. A7V2 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first redirect is the result of a 2009 AfD, and the second was redirected along with it to avoid the double redirect. The current target says nothing about approximate conversions, it discusses how to exactly convert between units, and it seems like these target here for lack of a better target. There are some approximate conversions discussed at English units, but that would seem too specific for these broadly titled redirects. If no good target can be identified, I think these merit deletion. We can delete the redirect with history here given that AfD has already determined the page should not host an article, at least not with the existing content in the page history. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like the original article was entirely concerned with converting between imperial/customary and metric, but that's an anglocentric interpretation and I don't think redirecting such a broad term to that topic (for example, to English units) would be appropriate. It's been over a decade since the AfD so I doubt readers would be searching this an expecting that topic anyway. Content wasn't merged so there's no attribution to preserve; seems safe to delete. – Scyrme (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Converting units by using dimensional analysis[edit]
Conversion table: Blood Glucose (mmol/L to mg/dL)[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. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects are left over from a merge back in 2008, but the content seems to have been immedately removed. Nothing about blood glucose or these units are mentioned at the target. The most pertinent target might be Blood sugar level, but while some concentration ranges are given in both mmol/L and mg/dL, mg/dm^3 are not mentioned, and there certainly is not a table. The mg/dm^3 redirect should be deleted as an error because there is no valid conversion from mmol to mg/dm^3, as mmol is an amount unit and mg/dm^3 is a concentration unit (i.e., it should be mmol/L to mg/dm^3). Unclear what to do about the first redirect (the source of the merged content), as it should probably be kept for attribution because the merged content still exists in the page history of the target. I would suggest retargeting to Blood sugar level as an improvement over the status quo. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: these titles with their particular puncutation, syntax, and case are too specific to be plausible search terms even if a conversion table did exist somewhere. Since the content wasn't retained, I'm not sure there's a need to preserve the history to retain attribution. Even if it's existence in the history matters, the table itself was literally just an array of numbers lacking even labelled axes; seems unlikely that it meets the threshold of originality for copyright. – Scyrme (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Winton Wanderers" isn't mentioned in the article, and without a mention it's confusing why these redirects point there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - history suggests page was created for a 5-a-side team from the University and later turned into a redirect. In no way notable. Looks originally to have been a vanity publication.
Comment - this should never have been redirected in the first place. On principal I would argue that the article should be restored and sent to AfD but obviously it would just be deleted anyway as a single sentence unsourced stub about a non-notable team. A7V2 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No longer with the Cards, so the current redirect target is not appropriate. Is mentioned as an example at Phantom ballplayer under his full name - recommend either retargeting there or deletion. Hog FarmTalk 04:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi Satadium[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. Jay 💬 07:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
typo Satadium - not a likely spelling variant, should have been deleted earlier for housekeeping AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K4 – article title for 7 years. Potential harm following deletion is large. J947 † edits 06:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K4 and as a harmless {{R from typo}}. The fact that the article managed to remain at the misspelled title for so many years (without anyone noticing) is beyond me. CycloneYoristalk! 08:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J947. A7V2 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note GSTQ's existence. Currently this looks an ambiguous typo – the anthem usage seems existent too. However, guessing what the reader means is better than the absolute null of Search (incl. link to Euchloe creusa, extremely helpfully), so I'm inclined to say keep at whatever target.
Though, actually, I reckon GSTQ can be disambiguated anyway – given how well-viewed Dany Garcia is – and that fixes it up. J947 † edits 03:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - implausible for either the song or the clothing brand. A7V2 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 08:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Pierre Ferrand company is best known for its cognac, not its Curaçao so the link is a bit misleading. Also, there's a probably notable French politician under that name. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so Search is unimpeded, and to encourage an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite creating the redirect, I now see that the target I chose probably wasn't the best option. I may make a quick article if I have the time on Maison Ferrand (the distillery behind the products), as there seems to be plenty of sourcing on the company, and would then have Pierre Ferrand redirect to that company page (or a disambiguation page if an article on the politician is made). --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 retargettoWikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. The existing hatnote will be updated. Editors on both sides expressed degrees of ambivalence, but with arguments of equal merit being made both ways, this comes down as consensus to retarget by strength of numbers. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly redirected to manual of style and was changed in 2020 by User:SMcCandlish without consensus. I believe it should redirect to manual of style first, not an unofficial user essay, as do many other similar redirects. Essays are not official Wikipedia policy, but opinions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 1905 pages that link to WP:PUFFERY. Some of them likely intend to link to the existing target; others were made before the redirect was changed. Since these redirects are often used in discussions, changing this might impact the apparent meaning of comments that include them. The MOS section (MOS:PUFFERY) and the essay are essentially similar, covering the same topic, so it's not a huge issue here, but I lean towards keeping it as-is to ensure open discussions don't have that happen to them. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 02:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't see how MOS:PUFFERY and WP:PUFFERY redirecting to different things makes the slightest bit of sense. WP:WIKIPUFFERY also goes there, and can remain as a redirect to the essay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of cases in which MOS: and WP: links go to different pages. WP:VAR is about variables, MOS:VAR is about variable styles. WP:NB is notability (books), MOS:NB is use of nonbinary pronouns. WP:US is about userscripts, MOS:US is about the formatting of abbreviations for the United States in articles. In some cases they even split off into different style-related things, like WP:TITLE (article titles) and MOS:TITLE (formatting of titles within an article).
At any rate, my concern here is that changing a widely used redirect that's currently linked in active discussions might be disruptive to those discussions. Like I said above, it's not major here, since both pages cover the same general idea, but anyone who intended to link the essay with WP:PUFFERY will probably be surprised to find it now goes someplace different. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 19:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination doesn't really make any sense; there is no rule that a WP:FOO redirect must go to a policy/guideline. Furthermore, the entire reason that MOS:FOO redirects exist is so that MoS doesn't take up all of the useful shortcut terms. That is, it is intentional that WP:FOO and MOS:FOO may go to different pages. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but in this case there is almost no argument for that given that WP:WIKIPUFFERY exists as a suitable redirect. I'm not sure how this personal opinion essay is so important that it needs to take up the redirect over the official guideline on the topic given the redirect can easily be used in error. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see where the nominator is coming from, but I ultimately agree with Dylnuge's point. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is an interesting one which deserves quite some discussion IMO. Note there has been opposition to disambiguating shortcuts in the past: they become longcuts. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 02:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the nominator's point that this redirect was retargeted in 2020, while that is true the redirect was actually created with Wikipedia:Wikipuffery as its target in 2009, and it was only later retargeted in 2017 citing a discussion which is now archived. So, for most of its history it has pointed to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, with the 3 years between 2017 and 2020 being the exception. – Scyrme (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoWikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery, if we have an essay and a MOS-guideline that say essentially the same thing, the simplest redirect shortcut should point to the MOS-guideline to simplify the communication of guidelines for future editors. If there's a concern that old links could be broken (although given the similarity and the amount of people currently using it wrong, this is a bit dubious to me), a hatnote could be added. signed, Rosguilltalk 02:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoWikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery, tentatively. Umming and ahhing, and in the end I think the general shortcut form should point to the guideline over the essay it is explained in. The weakness is because I don't desire the MOS page to utilise all the shortcuts – keep WP:PUFF and WP:FLUFF as they are? Note also this discussion – SMcC did originally support the change. J947 † edits 06:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 will unlink as necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disruptor (character) closed 14 May 2021, result was redirecttoList of minor DC Comics characters. Obvious consensus not independently notable. While nom did specifically advise against redirection, the general consensus of discussion is that there is a good target. Currently, it's not there, but with the preservation of history, hopefully it will be added
Obviously just hoping isn't enough to make it happen. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could re-target this back to Disruptor as an incomplete disambiguation. I'm not sure this is a valid broad concept, or just the name of three unrelated characters. Would be weird to have an English names page titled Disruptor – is that a given name or a surname, or just a nickname – and if it's a nickname do we really do articles about English-language nicknames?
Per WP:DDD, Don't include entries without a blue link. After removing the three red-link items, there's nothing left, thus a WP:G14. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes absolutely no sense to simply redirecttoList of DC Comics characters: D without merging content. That's essentially WP:Deletion by redirection. Don't be passive-aggressive about the matter – if the goal is to delete the content, then just delete it, dammit! wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptor is mentioned (listed) on List of Teen Titans enemies. Could re-target to that list. Are Teen Titans enemies DC Comics characters? – wbm1058 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Disruptor at List of Teen Titans enemies is a guy Michael Beldon, whereas the Disruptor who is a member of Terror Titans is described as a girl. So which is the real Disruptor, are there two? The Disruptor dab page says the character refers to multiple DC Comics characters. Jay 💬 09:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-redirect history linked above makes it clear there are two (actually 3). The problem is that none of them are notable, and the existence of Terror Titans and List of Teen Titans enemies means neither of those is a good target, and the current targets are either far to broad to be useful or don't discuss either character. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many incoming links, so they will have to be cleaned before a deletion, or redlinks will just get them recreated. If this is going to be a disambig, we need two new redirects (or three), and someone has to sort out all the incoming. Jay 💬 11:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Many options have been presented so far, and further discussion on them is necessary to determine a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion, since nobody else seems to be commenting: I would still prefer deletion, as an ambiguous term with only brief mentions. Second choice would be to retarget to List of Teen Titans enemies, which does discuss two of the disruptors, and the third one seems to be mentioned nowhere so can just be ignored. Finally, a decent chunk of the incoming links come from Template:DC characters, so may not actually need sorting out. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems to be in that perfect storm of ambiguity and triviality that we can't do better than a search result. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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. While there is disagreement as to whether "Next ____ election"-stye redirects are generally desirable, there is agreement that this should be resolved in a centralized discussion and not on a case-by-case basis at RfD. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:REALTIME, "Next" is very vague and can be outdated quickly. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would've been a bit hesitant if it were an {{R from page move}} as sometimes election articles will initially have titles like Next United Kingdom General Election, which get moved to the year they're taking place when that's figured out; however, even then it would have probably been appropriate to delete after fixing incoming wikilinks, but as this was just a created redirect not from a page move, I think that deletion is fine and should be maintenance free as no articles link. TartarTorte 14:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I think all article titles that will inevitably become redundant should be outright banned on Wikipedia (eg "upcoming film", etc) where they don't have a viable exit plan. For now this might as well be kept since the 2026 election is indeed the next one. After that either a section should be created at Parliament of South Australia where this can be discussed (and targeted), or it should be deleted and not created again with this name. A7V2 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This type of redirect (or even outright naming) is routine in countries with parliaments that can be dissolved before before any set-date elections and without a widely used election numbering system. In this case, while the expected date for the next South Australia state election, it is possible that it will occur earlier for a number of reasons (snap election by government, sudden loss of confidence in the government). The phrasing "next X election" is usually a contender for the actual WP:COMMONNAME of the article subject and is usually edited by diligent editors who will update thesee redirects. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
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 without prejudice to the drafting of a disambiguation page. There were attempts to draft a disambiguation page, which were disavowed by the editors who attempted them in favor of deletion. No further successful attempt materialized after three relists, so the result is deletion despite the even vote count. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Global Series" is too generic to redirect to FIFA. The NHL and Apex Legends Global Series are much more popular. I propose to either delete this redirect or turn it into a disambiguation page. TimSmit (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate there is also the Global-series of business jets Bombardier Global -- 5000/6000/7000/7500 -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started off with a dab draft with the above mentioned entries, and gave up. Either they are partial title matches, or have no mentions, or trivial mentions. Delete, as the search will fare better. But if someone can come up with a draft, I won't mind. Jay 💬 15:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 05:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see that a draft page was attempted to be created, but either way, the creation of a draft disambiguation page on the redirect may help form consensus... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This will keep being relisted until someone drafts the dab page or consensus emerges to do something else. C'mon, it's not difficult to make a dab page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ambiguous adjective-noun combination. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. I could reconsider if a viable draft disambiguation page were created. A7V2 (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 21#Video log
