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 per WP:RDAB and the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. Search would take readers to London (disambiguation) if deleted anyway. The only way people would be affected is if they use direct URL navigation which is unlikely as most people are going to know DAB pages have a lower case qualifier. In terms of OTHERSTUFF/PANDORA I'd point out that there are no merits like being discussed on external websites or useful history etc that would make this one different to others. Redirects from WP qualifiers with incorrectly formatted redirects are generally not useful to readers but are an inconvenience to editors and create clutter. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as yet another example of a useful and completely harmless {{R from other capitalisation}}. Contrary to Crouch, Swale's evidence-free assertions the encyclopaedia gains nothing by deleting this other than making it harder for some readers to find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mega-RfD linked above includes an extensive specific discussion of London (Disambiguation), which was used as an example even though it did not exist at the time. It contains plenty of evidence for and against the deletion of the then-hypothetical redirect. Certes (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was indeed extensive discussion, and absolutely none of it included evidence that convinced me that redirects of this nature were harmful or that the encyclopaedia would benefit from their deletion. In the absence of such evidence I will continue to oppose the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...none of [the discussion] included evidence that convinced me..." I get that; my point there is that I've never seen such accurate WP:CRYSTAL discussion in regards to a redirect that had not been created yet. (I think I know what happened regarding this redirect, but since my thoughts go into a potential WP:AGF failure [not against you], I'm gonna leave it at that for now.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel it would be helpful to readers to have such redirects why don't you just get consensus to create them all with a bot. Why do you oppose to deleting this redirect? What is different about this redirect than the numerous others that don't exist? Why do you think deleting this one is a bad idea but you don't appear to want to bother to get them mass created? Why do readers need a redirect here? Apart from the fact someone has bothered to create this one I can't see any merits that are different about this one. I can't see why readers benefit from a small arbitrary number of DABs having these redirects than inconvenience editors. If we did mass create them then the tools might get fixed to prevent them showing up as errors but with only a small number its probably not worth the trouble. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't want the tools "fixed" to prevent links to London (Disambiguation) with a big D showing up as errors, because they are errors. WP:INTDAB recommends, in certain circumstances, links to Foo (disambiguation), not Foo (Disambiguation) nor Foo (discombobulation) nor any other variant. That's because it is not a qualifier in the normal sense like (footballer) or (film). It is a technical placeholder which is detected and handled specially by numerous pieces of software as well as editors who specialise in disambiguation. It's rather like a reserved word in a programming language. IF ... THEN ... ELSE works because the compiler or interpreter expects those keywords. If I decide my program would look prettier written with WHEN ... CONSEQUENTLY ... OTHERWISE instead, the computer is going to say No. Certes (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should always fix the tools to deal with the encyclopaedia as it exists for the benefit of the readers, and never degrade the user experience just to make it easier for tool authors/maintainers. I don't encourage the mass creation of pretty much any redirects, because that's not generally the best use of resources and it's usually very easy to cause problems (c.f. EU bot), however I generally don't oppose well thought out creations either. Redirects that are intentionally created demonstrate a utility for that redirect, sometimes that utility is not high enough to counter the problems (e.g. 2028 elections in India below), but that does not apply to (Disambiguation) redirects that lead to a relevant disambiguation page as they are (in almost all cases) completely harmless. Comparisons to programming languages are irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a programming language, and redirects like this exist for the benefit of readers not compilers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree readers come first but that only really applies if the redirect(s) is actually likely to be useful to them rather than being COSTLY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of people going out of their way to create a redirect they want to use is evidence of it being useful - we automatically assume that other {{R from other capitalisation}} redirects are useful (because they are) and there isn't any difference between capitalising something inside and outside parentheses from a reader perspective. As for COSTLY, this is given way too much weight in general, but in this specific case there is no cost to readers and the only cost to editors comes because some people have arbitrarily decided that it is better to inconvenience readers than fix some their tools. So on balance, this redirect is not COSTLY. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this type of title provides no benefit to readers, and makes life harder for editors that will have to keep track of the history of twice as many titles, half of which being difficult to access. Utopes(talk / cont)05:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the previous RfD. The reason why I supported keeping the old redirects was because most of them had some history. But this one is different (since it was created barely a month ago), and I don't understand why anyone would find it useful. CycloneYoristalk!09:31, 2 April 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 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 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.
Hi, thanks for pointing this out! I edited the target page Constraint_satisfaction_problem#Decision_problems to add an explicit mention of the conjecture. The paper introducing the conjecture was cited >1000 times and the expression "Feder-Vardi conjecture" occurs in over 100 papers according to Google Scholar, so I would say it's an established term in the (admittedly specialist) area of constraint satisfaction problems. --a3nm (talk) 21:39, 26 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.
Delete This was ABS-CBN's term for its evening primetime block and is not necessarily notable outside the company's marketing initiatives. --Lenticel(talk)00:25, 27 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.
"Sahrang" has no mention at the target article, and the three mentions it has on Wikipedia are within the same citation used three times, not related to Iran. Utopes(talk / cont)06:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back when the redirect was created, the article did list that "sahrang" (Persian for 'tricolor') was an alternate name for the flag. This was changed in January of this year, and now simply states that Tricolor (not the Persian word, the English word, which is a little odd to me considering this is literally Iran, aka Persia, we're talking about) is the alternate name of the flag. Gonna attempt to flag down the editor who made that change, maybe they have some input here... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RLOTE. Google Scholar searches do not suggest that the term is readily recognizable in Persian as necessarily referring to the Iranian tricolor in particular. signed, Rosguilltalk21:17, 5 April 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.
Concur with Delete - this was a common discussion board nickname in his playing days (ankle biting midget of death). Now outdated. Xsmith (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a mention is added. I have no opinion whether one should be added, just that more than 30 seconds on google is needed to make that decision. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 26 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 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 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.
This is a book anthology that does not appear, nor is it ever alluded to at the target translator's article. It's currently linked via a hatnote on the Bridge of Words article as the only incoming link to this redirect. Utopes(talk / cont)02:47, 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.
Was at this title for about a day. This is a Russianization of the name which as far as I can tell is not used anywhere; Google gives zero hits for this form. I have been able to find one instance of "Heydar Ilkhamovich", used by a commenter on a newspaper article. Rusalkii (talk) 23:32, 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.
@Lunamann: I only support keeping if all of the incorrect links that currently point to the British company are removed, or changed to different (red) links if a future article is planned for the American company. J3133 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this redirect is in plural form, is it really a common way to refer to the target? Especially given the existence of the other company. I would suspect someone searching "Cinebooks" is more likely looking for information on the American company than the British one which uses the singular form. D2 and D10 seem to apply here. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I find with simply outright deleting is that the names are still so similar that I could easily see this issue continuing to occur without SOME sort of explanation. ...Is there precedent for a redlink hatnote?? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:06, 11 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 word "ecological" is not present in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target potentially unclear. In addition, the article Land reclamation seems somewhat indistinguishable from the target article's subject, meaning that even if the redirect somewhat could refer to its current target article, there may still be potential confusion since Land reclamation is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 26 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 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.
To the best of my knowledge, the idiom is not as much about putting down the silver medalist, as it is a way to say that in sports the winner takes almost all of the tangible rewards (unlike the case in many other professions). Definitely has nothing to do with ranking, and I do not think that 2nd place would be a good equivalent either. It is not hard to find the expression in serious works in the fields of ethics ("winning at all costs") and psychiatry (effects of losing), but I did not find anything with deep enough coverage for a separate article. Soft redirect to wiktionary is possible, but why do we need it? Викидим (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No incoming links, no usage anywhere. The Wikt page is good, but I would reiterate nom's question why do we need it?. Jay 💬13:11, 3 April 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.
rm ubufox: After some digging, it turns out that in September 2008, a chunk of the Ubuntu article was forked out into Ubuntu version history-- and the only mention of Ubufox in the entire article went with it. However, while the reference to Ubufox is still intact in its 2008-era entirety in Ubuntu version history, it's no more than a namedrop, nowhere near enough to support the redirect. Delete! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:50, 26 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.
Noting also that there appears to be the C Ring of Saturn (not sure whether that redirect should be retargeted once the disambiguation page is created, considering the similar term in chemistry). 1234qwer1234qwer401:01, 27 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 April 5#Differential algebraic variety
