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 23:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalized, this title more likely refers to a publication at Tufts University, which seems to have been defunct since 2013 but has at least a plausible claim to notability [1][2]. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:08, 4 February 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Complex/Rational 03:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of dubious utility. This results from a 20-year-old page move: the page was originally created at this bad title, and then moved to its current title as soon as a more experienced user noticed it. At the time, the rules in place required even a bad-title redirect to be kept for WP:GFDL attribution reasons if it was where the page had originally been created, but that's long since been deprecated and we now only keep such redirects if they demonstrably have usefulness -- but there's no real reason why a redirect that wraps part of the title in single quotes would actually be useful, so there's no need to hang onto it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't think of any reason why this would be plausible or useful.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not how we name pages or redirects. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging creator SimonP for sake of nostalgia considering this was created in 2003. Jay 💬 20:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not plausible.—Alalch E. 02:28, 12 February 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).
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.
Redirect from implausible typo. That's a zero in the redirect, if you're confused. We simply don't need millions of zero-to-o misspelling redirects for every title with an o in it, and there's no reason to believe that Old English has any special need for something that no other title with an o in it has. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a plausible typo given the proximity of 'o' and '0' on English keyboards in addition to not being immediately obvious. There was a previous discussion here, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_2#0ld_English, which links out to similar examples which I've added in the template. Seeing these old discussions, '0' substitution redirects might be getting WP:COSTLY. ― Synpath 18:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this on those grounds, then we have to similarly create thousands upon thousands of 0-->O redirects for every single title we have with an O in it at all. The question isn't is that possible, it's "does Old English specifically have any special need for this that other titles with O's in them don't also have?" Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you'd want to avoid situations like this search for '0rnithine' where you get the surprising/confusing result of no hits if you don't spot the typo. The search results for '0ld English' only brings up unrelated pages (discounting the redirect). Sometimes you get a spell-check suggestion like this search for 0il, which makes redirects a bit redundant. Whether these should be created en masse is a different discussion, but if they show up I see no issue. ― Synpath 21:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom and since it would actually be "01d 3n61i5h". Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep{{R from typo}} the [0]-key is next to the [o]-key on standard English-language QWERTY keyboards -- thus a likely occurrence as a typo -- we are also not creating new redirects, since this one has been around for 4 years now, and this is not a redirect creation request -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP editor directly above me, and 0/O being additionally a plausible OCR error. We shouldn't routinely create these sorts of redirects, but neither should we routinely delete the ones that have been created. This has been around four years and there is no evidence that in that time it has opened the floodgate to the creation of similar redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past discussions that discussed how swapping letters with numbers is not ideal. For the thousands of pages starting with "Old", there's only two instances of a page starting with "0ld". 0ld school is the other, which goes to the related DAB page (maybe there's a name that applies to that, but none of the titles there do, could be something to look into). But for this case, which has the redirect targeting an otherwise regular article, this redirect's existence is a confusing enigma that's better off removed. Unlike regular letter-typos, nobody who searches this would understand why a number-swap was accepted as an alternate spelling without getting the faulty impression that "numbers and letters can be used interchangeably". The need is not there. Even 9ld English is a likelier typo. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a plausible typo to (arbitrarily) replace a letter with a number, and nothing about Old English that suggests an exception is warranted. Complex/Rational 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Not plausible enough for keeping. Replacing "O" with "0" isn't helpful. 0ld doesn't exist, and this one shouldn't either. CycloneYoristalk! 02:56, 12 February 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).
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 💬 20:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect from a sexual euphemism with no obvious real-world usage. This was first created with a person's name in the edit summary, so I'm not sure whether the intent was to disparage that person by implying that he jerks his gherkin a lot or to immortalize a neologism that person created, but either way I can't find much evidence on the web that this phrase actually has any significant real-world usage as a euphemism for choking one's chicken, especially given that a pillow isn't even usually needed. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 4 February 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).
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 💬 20:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary redirect with a highly implausible combination of misspellings ("Adventue"), miscapitalizations ("Characters") and a leading "the" where one would not be expected by most readers or editors. This has been around since 2011, so it isn't recent enough that I could legitimately speedy it as an R3, but it's still not necessary at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this seems completely unnecessary.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 03:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally worthless with the "The" and unlikely missing letter to boot. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:19, 9 February 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).
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 💬 20:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect from typo. There's no discernible evidence that any known sources actually think the subject's name was "Alozno" instead of "Alonzo", so it isn't a real-world usage that we need to concern ourselves with -- it's just a straight-up typo of the sort that absolutely anybody might make if their fingers were typing faster than their brain, and we don't need millions of redirects to preemptively anticipate every possible combination of mistyped letters that any random user might ever produce. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as R typo without prejudice to delete if needed in the future. I actually found few publications that make this typo. Respublik (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly Weak Keep, swapping the two consonants in an unfamiliar name doesn't seem too bad in the grand scheme of typos. "Alnozo" or "Alonoz" would be far worse vowel/consonant swaps. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:46, 9 February 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Complex/Rational 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POV redirect. Apparent attempt to compare BLM protests to the January 6 insurrection? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That comparison is what the people calling it that are attempting to invoke, but it's widely used among highly-placed Republican politicians, and so a likely search term. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only usage is a few people ranting on social media. Fails WP:RNEUTRAL. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike with "George Floyd race riots," I'm not really seeing usage of this term. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 20:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure I have seen this anywhere, not even the right-wing rant sphere. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 5 February 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).
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 💬 20:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RNEUTRAL: …redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion… No significant coverage using this non-neutral term. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an attempt at A fork as they can't get to call it a RIOT at the main page, delete as it's not a likely search term. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not neutral. No RS calls the protests "race riots". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rioting has occurred after several events that also led to BLM protests or other action, so nothing Floyd-related is an appropriate target. Targeting the main BLM page is unhelpful, as readers looking for this term would find no relevant content there, and they may be looking for riots that are associated with BLM only in non-reliable sources (this is common). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This user's other redirects need scrutiny, too. I just nominated two others for deletion. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speculating about user intentions is baseless mind-reading. There are thousands of search results for the term, so it's a common name and a perfectly plausible title for the article. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike with "George Floyd race riots," I'm not really seeing usage of this term. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 20:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I disagree with others on the standard of usage required to keep a non-neutral redirect, in this case searching online this could refer to other protests etc that BLM have been involved with, not just those connected with George Floyd. A7V2 (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete while I am finding uses of this term, many (possibly most) are not referring specifically to the protests related to George Floyd, but to protests in favour of equal treatment for black (or other minority groups) generally e.g. the subject of one is potential future riots in Japan. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 6 February 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).
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. ✗plicit 14:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"DAC" is not mentioned at the target, and without a mention this redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DAC was an CP/M derivative mentioned in some of the references. I have now added it to the prose itself. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, particularly it now in prose. Skynxnex (talk) 19:17, 5 February 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).
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, it is very unlikely that anyone would search for a term including a general topic between brackets. The page Conservatism (disambiguation) already links to the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QueryMarcocapelle, What evidence or experience do you have to support this opinion? Is there any policy or guidance to support the proposal? Would "conservative diving" or "conservative decompression" be better? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 08:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guidance that I know of, it is a matter of common sense. What term would people use to search for, other than "conservatism"? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but need to choose an alternative. The term conservatism is moderately common among divers, referring to a decompression strategy of risk limitation beyond the nominal use of the decompression algorithms. It is a potential encyclopedic topic as Conservatism (diving), which is why I made the redirect with that title. As I mentioned above, there are alternatives but they might be less likely as search terms. However a search for conservatism without a modifier would get the disambiguation page where a link to whatever the title eventually becomes should be available, so not a crisis once a suitable title is chosen. Decompression conservatism would also be a possible search term. There could be a handful of reasonably plausible alternative search terms of roughly equivalent usefulness, but currently I am leaning towards decompression conservatism as the best alternative for an actual subtopic title. Would that be more acceptable? Also, there are several other potential topics which are currently redirects with titles including (diving) as a disambiguator. Should I be be looking for alternatives or just leaving out the disambiguator when it is not currently necessary, but I am aware of potential ambiguities that may make disambiguation necessary later? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 12:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a helpful navigational aide (and there's no benefit to deleting it). Being able to type "conservatism diving" into the search box and immediately see "Conservatism (diving)" popup as a result helps reduce the number of pages a reader has to go to to get to their intended destination. (To add, I am not a diver but when I learn about a new field I often use the pattern of searching for "[concept] [field]", both on Wikipedia and elsewhere.) Skynxnex (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skynxnex and the fact that I can see no reason to delete. Indeed even the link on the dab page is to this very redirect! This is just a completely standard and plausible disambiguated redirect. A7V2 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this topic had a stand-alone article it would very plausibly be at this title, so it's a very likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 6 February 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).
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.
Redundant draft that cannot serve as a plausible redirect. A proper redirect with the same title already exists. I suggest this draft be deleted under the G6 criteria for maintenance. Keivan.fTalk 05:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid WP:RDRAFT redirect with 10 or so incoming links, existing as a Template:R from move, and is especially valuable to keep as it was moved to this title from 2021 to 2022, before returning to mainspace via the Articles for Creation process. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: harmless WP:RDRAFT redirect that stops links from being broken. Per Utopes. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:58, 8 February 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).
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 04:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The selection of all Film(film) redirects (from F-Z). All of these articles have had errors in the means of disambiguation, and in this group, all are getting 0 views in accordance with [3]. Additioally, pages that can be fixed, have since been fixed (therefore being excempt and not listed in this nomination). With that out of the way, errors that are "popular" by the massviews, as well as pages with history, are also not being touched in this group. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (including the ones in the back-to-back nominations that aren't merged into this one). We don't need to retain "bad typos" that completely mangle the title by running the disambiguator up against the base name. Not likely search terms, and we do not want to encourage someone to get the idea in their head that more of these should be created "just in case" or we could end up with an unbelievable number of them, especially if someone went nuts with AWB or another fast-moving and semi-automated tool. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Given the anon's observation immediately below, the most sensible fix would be for an admin or page-mover to simply move-without-redirect in most of these cases to the properly spaced version. Two birds, one stone. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be doable, yeah. @SMcCandlish:, I did want to add though: for the most part while creating this nom, I was also simultaneously performing the moves where appropriate, specifically looking at titles that were created at the wrong target. My move log for February 3rd/4th includes 20 or so changes as such: [4]. You suggested to "move most of these cases to a properly spaced version", although I believe the 6 links grabbed by 176.33 below are the only such cases where this move is possible? At the time, I might not have acted on 100% of these as they may have already targeted a properly spaced version, of some variety (leaving the red links as differently capitalized/modified versions). This also applies to something like Yes man(film) and Yes Man(film), which both point at a properly spaced counterpart. One was a 1:1 at the correctly capitalized version, but I didn't feel it was urgent to pick a redirect to put at Yes man (film) when Yes Man (film) already existed. This applies to the Addams family, Royal Hunt, and Prema Kadha as well, which all consisted of more than one deviation from the intended target. I guess the modifications wouldn't hurt to have, but oftentimes they were already moved to one of those pages in the first place, if I recall correctly. Not sure where that leaves Metse and School Ties though as the final 2/6 with red counterparts; might've missed them in my first go. I don't think any of those 6 red links hurt, so moving-without-redirecting is a decent option here. Wanted to give that context, re:moves. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:RDAB as implausible search terms but create redirects at the titles mentioned by the IP as those are plausible search terms. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of these appear to contain any useful history and would appear to fall under the proposed R5. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 5 February 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).
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 04:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No longer mentioned at either target cat article. It is sourceable that such an experimental cat crossbreed was in development at one time, but it is not covered even at List of experimental cat breeds, which is where it would be covered if there eventually turns out to be enough sourcing that this passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (passing WP:NOTABILITY is unlikely). So, no prejudice toward recreating these redirs later, if it ends up with an entry in the list article. PS: The bare Cheetohs should probably not redirect to Cheetos, since anyone looking for the exact string "Cheetohs" is probably looking for the cats, and it's a trademark (even if not a notable one). We generally should not redirect one trademark to another owned by another party, even if they are similar. Cf. also WP:SMALLDETAILS. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If the sourcing on that gets done, it'll probably be by me, but the list article already has unsourced stuff in it, and going through it one by one and either sourcing it enough to keep or removing it as unsourceable is higher priority. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:08, 4 February 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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11#Drew Dixon
