Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18

< September 17

September 19 >

September 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 18, 2022.

All The Tropes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#All The Tropes

TorSearch

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#TorSearch

Noitaton Hsilop Esrever

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 00:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noitaton Hsilop Esrever → Reverse Polish notation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. CiaPan (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A sibling redirect reported at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_17#Noitaton hsilop esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And another one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Noitaton Hsilop esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't necessarily target the right target as the joke doesn't make sense with reverse in reverse as well making this "Reverse Reverse Polish Notation". Nothing in WP:RPURPOSE says to explain esoteric jokes. TartarTorte 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, we don't need a redirect here just because a few people have made a joke once. Highly implausible. (Also per previous discussions.) eviolite (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Using capitals and including the word "reverse" written backwards does not make this sufficiently different from the twice deleted Noitaton hsilop; all the same reasons apply here. – Scyrme (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unhelpful joke redirect. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a stupid joke is not by itself reason for deletion, but when there is nothing more to it than the stupid joke, I don't think this serves an encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Noriyuki Shimoda

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noriyuki Shimoda → Border Break (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Japanese video game producer that redirects to Border Break, where they are mentioned once. Shimoda produced at least also Virtua Fighter 5. Not a sensible redirect. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Labors of Magik

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 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labors of Magik → Marvel Comics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target or elsewhere on Wikipedia, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to just be a short arc from early 2022. TNstingray (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Banner of War

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Banner of War

Velaric

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Velaric

Thunderbird (disambiguation)

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 13:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird (disambiguation) → Thunderbird (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Thunderbirds (disambiguation) → Thunderbird (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Thunderbirds (disambiguation) → Thunderbird (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This page currently redirects to a disambiguation page. However, as you can see, the names seem to be reversed. What do we do in this situation? The target page should be entitled "Thunderbird (disambiguation)" and the term leading into it should just be "Thunderbird". How do we switch around this redirect? TNstingray (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep I do not see a problem here. When there is a primary topic, that topic gets the non-dab article location, and the dab page gets the "(disambiguation)" parenthetical. When there is no primary topic, the dab page sits in the non-dab location. Am I wrong on this? I moved this page from the dab location back in January 2004, and it's held this space ever since. If anything, the dab-tagged pages can be deleted. Or is that what you are wanting? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These appear to be perfectly normal examples of primary redirects (WP:PRIMARYRED) with intentional disambiguation link redirects (WP:INTDABLINK). For future reference though, if you want to move a page over a redirect, then you want Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM) rather than RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just confused is all. I guess I thought the main page should be the one tagged as the disambiguation page. TNstingray (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

IPod idog

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#IPod idog

I do not think that means what you think it means

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 soft redirect to Q:The Princess Bride (film). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that means what you think it means → The Princess Bride (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Apparently, this is a line from the movie. The section that says the "The film is widely regarded as eminently quotable." does mention "inconceivable!", which is the word to which this line is the response. Without more background, this redirect is just confusing. MB 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not distinctive enough to send to one specific work. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a relatively widely used meme, and I think as {{R from quotation}} would be fine. The issue with Princess Bride is there are a number of famous quotes from the movie and it is widely referenced in pop-culture so even if there is not an appropriate place on the page to mention this, I think the quote's popularity as a meme would make this a useful redirect. TartarTorte 20:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also ok with Thryduulf's solution. TartarTorte 17:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as Template:R from quotation – very popular quote that's famously associated with this movie, and a plausible search term for someone who knows the quote and wants to know where it comes from. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikiquote q:The Princess Bride (film) where someone can find the full quote and its immediate context. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wikiquote per Thryduulf. The least confusing option is to point somewhere that actually mentions this quote. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikiquote, if this is to be kept it should at least go to a place where the quote is actually mentioned.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wikiquote per Thryduulf. I'd like to see more redirects of that nature (for iconic quotes, that is, not every phrase that happens to be mentioned on WQ). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Medication of children

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 retarget to Pediatrics. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medication of children → Child and adolescent psychiatry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Children are medicated for much more than psychiatric conditions. Delete has too vague. MB 06:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pediatrics where we have content about this and also links to specialities including the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pediatrics. This seems like a plausible search term, and we have relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Republic Of poland

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 13:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Of poland → Poland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible miscapitalization with upper-O and lower-P. MB 01:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TNstingray (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Republic Of Poland and Republic of Poland already exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.