Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31

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 00:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nu variant → SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article that it links to doesn’t mention a single thing about the nu variant 48JCL^TALK 21:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per Variants of SARS-CoV-2, "Nu" and "Xi" do not exist, these Greek letters were skipped -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-existent variant per anon. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Misleading These redirects implies that these varieties exist, causing confusion. A red link would show that these varieties does not exist. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Variants of SARS-CoV-2#Nomenclature as noted it doesn't exist but it is discussed there as well as at the current target but the variants article seems more appropriate though I'd also be fine with leaving it where it is as people may look for it because that's what it would have been named had it not had confusion with the word "new". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ignore my comment above - This is a better idea; it gives information about why those names are non-existent. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's not just that the variant does not exist, but this redirect does not expressly state that the searcher is looking for covid variants in particular. Recentism applies as "variant" could be applied to many different things, any one of which could potentially have or not have a Nu variant given that greek letter naming is such a common thing... yes, there is no covid nu variant. There is also no flu nu variant. There is also no chess nu variant. There is also no nu variant of a stellar object. There is no nu variant of a Ford Focus. There is no nu variant of linux (unless you count Nushell :p ). The list of things that have variants yet don't have a nu variant is endless, I see no good reason to focus on covid for greek-letter variants that don't exist for that thing. Fieari (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Fieari. They're right-- this redirect doesn't specify that it's talking about any specific disease, or indeed, any specific thing. Nu is merely a greek letter, and it can also be plausibly used by something to indicate a "new" variant of some preexisting something. Redirecting this to anything specifying Covid-19 would be a bad call. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Lunamann, Fieari. Note that "Xi variant", which also doesn't exist, has a similar redirect and is also listed in rfd here. BugGhost🪲👻 13:35, 7 June 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 00:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sangerpedia → Citizendium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Procedural nomination following the closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 24, which overturned a speedy deletion and mandated listing at RfD. Daniel (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This nickname is not mentioned at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Some people call it that, and should be able to use the silly nickname as a search term. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I get 8 hits when I google "Sangerpedia", which suggests this is not a common search term. Of those hits, three are Wikipedia discussion pages or reports, or mirrors thereof. One is a Wikipediocracy post referencing Citizendium. The other four are references to freely shared encyclopedia articles authored by Sanger and posted on his website, which he calls "Sangerpedia". Even if we didn't delete, it would be unclear what the best target is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many hits do you get for Citizendium? 7? Keep, BTW. Redirects are cheap. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, you can try it too. It gives me "about 580,000". Also, those 8 include 2 on Wikipedia, one on Wikipediocracy, 2 on larrysanger.org, a mirror of larrysanger.org, and a SEO blog. —Cryptic 22:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It's only been viewed 84 times up until its preposterous R3 tagging on April 15 this year, going all the way back to when stats started being collected in 2015. That's about what you'd expect from people looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Citizendium, seeing this, and wondering what it was. Not in use, on Wikipedia or off. —Cryptic 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not even clear that it actually refers to Citizendium and not to this thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would be a surprising redirect for anyone who actually stumbles upon it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be an unlikely search term per Google results as explained by Firefangledfeathers above. Frank Anchor 15:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obscure synonym at best per Firefangledfeather's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not the worst redirect. In the context of Wikipedia, Sangerpedia is obviously a nickname for Citizendium. Some Wikipedia users have used this nickname (Ctrl+F: Example 1, Example 2, and Example 3 taken in the context of this). Still, seeing how these few examples only show that the term is rarely used (however, its meaning is intuitive; someone knowing about Sanger and Citizendium and encountering the term for the first time in the context of Wikipedia/wikis would probably, even without an explicit reference to Citizendium, understand that it refers to Citizendium) and how something else, however also obscure in itself, later became actually named "Sangerpedia", I feel like WP:RFD#D8 should be understood to be fulfilled and the redirect deleted.—Alalch E. 01:28, 3 June 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. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Face cancer → Devil facial tumour disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

John Campbell died of facial cancer according to the article on him. So "face cancer" or "facial cancer" is not limited to Tasmanian devils. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Head and neck cancer. Seems to be the closest target for this term although I usually get skin cancer among the top hits in my Google search. I'm also fine with deletion if we cannot find an agreement with each other. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between the different cancers (in both humans and Tasmanian devils) that have been referred to as "face cancer" or "facial cancer". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Delete? Disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, optionally with a hatnote; the human cancers seem to be the primary topic by far and I would exect almost everyone looking for DFTD to include "Tasmanian devil" in their search. Rusalkii (talk)
• Disambig while human cancers are more common as a group, no single human cancer seems to be primary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig appears to not have one specific primary topic. Frank Anchor 15:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm also fine with a disambig. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:28, 3 June 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. Consensus is that the current target is the WP:PTOPIC for "Astounding". Please add a hatnote if desired, thanks. (non-admin closure) feminist🩸 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Astounding → Analog Science Fiction and Fact  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect, similar to astonishing. I propose retargeting this to either wikt:astounding, with Surprise (emotion) as a second choice due to it being much less of a good match for "astounding". (There are lots of partial title matches by the way.) Duckmather (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect exists because the magazine was called Astounding Stories (and later Astounding Science Fiction) for thirty years. The magazine is frequently referred to in histories of sf magazines as just Astounding, and it's plausible that a reader of those histories would type in "astounding" if looking for the article on the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget with hatnote. I wouldn't be opposed to Astounding Stories or Astounding Science Fiction redirecting to Analog Science Fiction and Fact, but I sincerely doubt that this magazine is the primary target for "Astounding" as a single word. Target instead to Surprise (emotion), with hatnoting to direct those who wanted a link to the magazine over to Analog Science Fiction and Fact. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think "astounding" is a search term likely to be used in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary) by someone who's never heard of the magazine, so I think it's possible it's the most likely target. But so long as there are hatnotes enabling someone to get to the magazine if they type this in, that's the main thing. I'm not sure surprise (emotion) is a good choice, though; are we going to add that as a target to the existing dab pages startling and amazing? Those dabs link to magazines too: Startling Stories and Amazing Stories If there's a plausible other search term perhaps astounding should just become a dab page like those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The magazine appears to be the WP:PTOPIC for the word. There are over 100 articles linking to the nominated redirect, and I think they all refer to the magazine. - Eureka Lott 16:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per EurekaLott. A month or so back I was reading the foreword of a SciFi book written, I think, in the late 50s that referred to the magazine as Astounding. If I'd chosen to look up the article I'd have used "Astounding" as my search term expecting the magazine or a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After a little research, it definitely looks like this is the WP:PTOPIC here. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 5 June 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 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• イ・エヌ・ブロンシュテイン → Ilya Nikolaevich Bronshtein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RFOREIGN. The target has no mention of Japan or the subject's relation with it. Nickps (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia, Engineering, and Mathematics. Nickps (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to #P as, at the very least, a plausible typo. Frank Anchor 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you intended to place this !vote on P♯'s RfD. Nickps (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, thank you! Frank Anchor 10:09, 3 June 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 06:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Connecticut Book Awards → Literary award  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target Rusalkii (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or mention. It's not immediately clear to me whether the awards are notable enough or not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK seems to be an actual book award that might be potentially notable according to my GSearch. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 2 June 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 06:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• New England Book Awards → List of booksellers' associations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, though the possibly related "New England Independent Booksellers Association" is Rusalkii (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK the awards look to be more notable than the association. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:10, 4 June 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 Articlefy * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oggcast → Podcast#Oggcast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Whatever mention that was in the podcast article was removed in 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=942832128 Okmrman (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Google says that this term is strongly related to/correlated with the Ogg file format... top result says that oggcast is an RSS equivelent for ogg-format podcasts specifically, while other sources state that it is a streaming protocol for ogg format audio (of any sort). I suppose the google top result is why this redirect was created. I wonder if this term is notable enough to get a brief mention on the ogg page, and then we could redirect there... but I'm not sure, so I'll refrain from !voting at the moment. Fieari (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ogg or Vorbis and add mention per Fieari. Enix150 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dan Bloch: can comment further. While the removal mentioned in the nomination said ..no longer notable. The only third party source is from the Internet Archive., just one day prior, DanBloch had reduced the multi-sourced 3-4 paragraph section to a single liner (alongwith removing sections such as Political podcast and Podguide). Jay 💬 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what sort of comment you're looking for from me. Per the nom, oggcast is no longer mentioned in the article (nor should it be, per WP:BALASP), so this isn't a great redirect. Redirecting to Ogg would probably be better, especially if someone added a mention there. But mostly it doesn't matter because no one uses it. As far as I'm concerned either solution is fine, or even leaving it is fine. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What I was looking for was comments or explanation regarding the removal I mentioned, of 11,446 bytes where the edit summary only said Variants: cleanup. From your response I now see that you removed it as per WP:BALASP. Jay 💬 11:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try... Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article-ify using information that ended up removed from the Podcast article by user:Danbloch in 2020 as per the edit pointed out by user:Jay. The reason that the section on Oggcasts was removed from the article was due to WP:BALASP, not because the information was non-notable. I also wouldn't be opposed to using said info to add enough information to Ogg or Vorbis to justify a Retarget. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also non-notable. It may have been of more interest when the content was introduced in 2011, I don't know. But there are no recent mentions. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does recent mentions have to do with anything? Usually wikipedians prefer older things to be written about, rather than WP:RECENTISM... Fieari (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but as I see it, it's the 2011 flurry of edits that was WP:RECENTISM and WP:TOOSOON. Oggcast did not take the world by storm. Note that it started out as a standalone article, and it had a "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline" tag then. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Articleify per Lunamann, without prejudice to an AfD or merge. A "May not meet..." tag is one editor's opinion, not a consensus and sources may be available now that were not available 13 years ago. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 8 June 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 retarget to 2024 in Germany. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Germany 2024 → UEFA Euro 2024  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Discussion about target of redirect, UEFA Euro 2024 has a hatnote on it to address possible uses, but the term is not associated with the current target in many sources. Would a disambig page or a redirect to 2024 in Germany be better? Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 in Germany would be better Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 2024 in Germany as more plausible target --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 2024 in Germany as not everyone will be looking for the football tournament that isn't really branded as Germany 2024 anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Joseph2302 JoshuaAuble (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 2024 in Germany per above. UEFA Euro 2024 is obviously a major event, but is just one of many major events in Germany this year. It is listed under "scheduled events" in the proposed target (in case anyone typing this title was actually looking for the football tournament, they can find it that way). Frank Anchor 13:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above. GiantSnowman 17:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. Not everyone is a football fan. Fieari (talk) 00:01, 6 June 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).