This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2024.
The Sultanates of Lanao: Guardians of Moro Identity and Independence[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. Complex/Rational 00:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Guardians of Moro Identity and Independence" not remotely mentioned at the target page. This page was essentially a promotional essay with broken citations and copyvio problems that didn't last 10 minutes before getting tagged and later becoming a redirect by Mako001. I don't think there's anything salvageable in the history here, and as a redirect title it does not appear to be likely or suitable besides that. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, just a colourful phrase. Noting administratively that the links at Article Alerts and the redirect page link to the 2024 March 18 rather than here. CMD (talk) 09:21, 24 March 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.
There are many different Spanish Revolutions described at Spanish Revolution; the term "Revolutionary Spain" only appears once outside of the citations, so it's unclear whether this particular term is associated with just the 1936 revolution, or if it is more generalized. Spain could have been described as in a "revolutionary state" during any of its revolutions. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite familiar with y'all's terminology ("retarget per nom") but I'm okay with redirecting it to the Spanish Revolution disambiguation page instead, makes more sense. AethyrX (talk) 18:54, 18 March 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 23:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian labour law is never referred to as "oz labour" or "oz lab" at the target page. It's unlikely to be searched for using this highly-offhand term. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:36, 17 March 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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 08:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
%d is a format string specifier that is used by both printf and scanf. While copying %s#C string is what I believe we should do, it has been pointed out in the talk page that we may want to include more targets in the dab page than just these two. Nickps (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate in the same fashion as %s ... since two possible targets is greater than none, meaning deletion of the redirect probably is not the solution here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per Steel1943. Thryduulf (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per Steel1943. --Lenticel(talk) 05:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commentformat string also redirects to printf even though the term could refer to scanf format strings too. Should it also be included in the RfD? Nickps (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest nominating that separately if you think the current target is incorrect given how different the two strings are. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll get onto it. Nickps (talk) 13:45, 18 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Engels isn't referred to this way anywhere and certainly not in the article. Google search gives a smattering of minor companies, social media accounts, and mistyped biblical references. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, upon further consideration, this should be deleted per Rusalkii's search and the complete lack of this redirect ever being used really. If I may ask @Rusalkii, how did you find this redirect and decide to nominate it for deletion in the first place? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking because this one was not that new, but I understand you said "new-ish"... the backlog is extremely deep right now from what I understand. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we're three months deep in redirects, just got to November 17th. Rusalkii (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way that i could help with that? Or do I need new page patrol permission? I do not want that, i just would like to help with redirects. There should be a permission for just helping with redirects. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:13, 22 March 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 restore without prejudice to renomination at AfD. Complex/Rational 23:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event was the casus belli for the Battle of Amritsar. A relatively minor incident, with seemingly minimal casualties, does not need an entire Wikipedia article. We're better off including this article's content as the prelude for the events of the Battle of Amritsar. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a misdirected WP:AFD? This isn't currently an article, just a redirect. The article doesn't currently mention Sangrana, but if it was in fact a prelude to the Battle of Amrisar then a redirect to the section describing the battle of Sangrana within the Battle of Amritsar seems exactly correct. Rusalkii (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this was an article until earlier today, when it was WP:BLARed by the nominator, who then brought it here. That appears to have been a misguided action based on a misunderstanding of a suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sangrana. - Eureka Lott 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to an AfD or merge discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 04:27, 18 March 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 23:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Target essay was userfied due to being contrary to consensus. It hence does not deserve a projectspace shortcut. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some essays in userspace may have shortcuts in the Wikipedia space. Take WP:THREE as an example, it is in Wikipedia space, but leads to the userspace of User:RoySmith. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction there is between essays that (mostly) follow the standard consensus like that one (which I'm actually surprised isn't at Wikipedia:Three best sources) versus essays that were almost deleted at MfD because they openly defy it. * Pppery *it has begun... 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some essays in userspace do have WP space shortcuts, but most don't. It all depends on whether there is consensus that a given essay should have one, and that's based on the essay's individual merits. In this case, I see an essay that far from having broad community support has exactly the opposite. WP shortcuts is sometimes OK for essays that have both broad support and opposition, but not ones that have near unanimous opposition. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP shortcuts for acclaimed user pages such as WP:OWB are welcome but shortcuts for pages that are not accepted by the community should be removed to avoid the impression that the page has community endorsement. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 19 March 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 term was already outdated and was replaced by gender-affirming care - there are no links left to this, so it can be deleted. Raladic (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People need to stop nominating redirects for deletion because they're "outdated". Not only is this still a common term, but even if it was no longer used, it should still be kept for its historical use. Kk.urban (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nomination - this redirect is unused. There is no purpose in keeping it around as that means someone may use it again in another article instead of using the correct new WP:COMMONNAME. Raladic (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internal links are not the only purpose for redirects. Someone may very well search this term from outside Wikipedia, or there may be external links. Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Though in that case then, we should at least tag this redirect with R from non-neutral name to discourage internal use. Raladic (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kk.urban. This is literally the sort of thing a redirect is for-- if someone searches for a term that's out of use, and gets redirected to a better term, that's not a bug, that's a feature.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kk.urban and Lunamann. Thryduulf (talk) 04:33, 18 March 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.
While all three of these names show up in the article, the article makes it clear that these are foreign names for the banana cultivar. All three redirects were also made on the same day by the same editor, and I'm bundling them here for the same reason-- WP:RLANG-- with the same recommendation for each-- deletion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do not fit the criteria for deletion by WP:RLANG. They are not direct translations, not ambiguous, nor common words or concepts, but proper names (as in literally used in local scientific terminology and literature, e.g. [1] which uses 'Pisang Embung' instead of 'Gros Michel'). These are the names, in common use, by which this specific cultivar is known in these countries. In a lot of instances, especially when it comes to common names for plants and animals, the foreign common name is the one far more in use than the English common name (if it even has one). Especially for plants and animals that are not native to English-speaking countries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not an arbitrary translation & mentioned in the article. These were the names used by some of the people actually cultivating these. Rusalkii (talk) 18:33, 17 March 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 March 26#Between Greetings
