Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21

November 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2023.

You can get a great tan with an electronic Minolta

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#You can get a great tan with an electronic Minolta

Toro Inoue

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 29#Toro Inoue

🏴󠁭󠁭󠀱󠀶󠁿

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. After discounting arguments on the basis that the emoji is not the correct flag at all (as opposed to it just not rendering as such for various users), there is consensus to keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A subdivision flag emoji which is not Unicode-official, which according to Emojipedia, is not implemented by any significant platform. Xeroctic (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I use Safari as a browser and all I see solid black flag which is is not even close to any of the flags shown in the target article. --67.70.103.160 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Firefox on linux and in Wikipedia Android app I see a waving white flag with a light blue question mark on it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      On Firefox/Mac, I also get the black flag. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As the OP, I use Chrome on Windows 10, which is a black flag with nothing after it. Xeroctic (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is not a precomposed character and we don't need to have redirects for all compositions that are not implemented. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking about this further I have changed my mind and now recommend keeping the redirect. It's unambiguous and anyone who doesn't know what the flag represents (e.g. because they see a white flag with a question mark on it or other placeholder, or see the correct design but don't recognise it) they will be taken to the article that explains what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd think, "neat!" and click on it, expecting to find out who's using an all-black flag (similar to Libya's green one from 1977-2011). Flag of Rakhine State would be an awful disappointment. Understandable if it's just me whose system didn't display it right; less so when it's essentially everybody's. List of black flags is no better, since not everybody sees just black, either, even among those who can't display the Rakhine one properly. —Cryptic 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are no links to this redirect: the only way it will be accessed is through someone searching up the emoji for Flag of Rakhine State, in which case the redirect serves its use. J947 † edits 23:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too May browsers are displaying images that look nothing like the Flag of Rakhine State.--67.70.103.160 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obscure but accurate. J947 † edits 00:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It just looks like a solid white flag for me so this is also confusing. --Lenticel (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how it's confusing to the reader? J947 † edits 02:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A Quick Look at the discussion would show that the confusion comes from the fact they multiple browsers are displaying the redirect image in a way that makes it look nothing like the flag in the target article. In fact different browsers are displaying completely different wrong images (solid black flag, white flag with a blue question mark, etc) so I would not call this accurate. Also I’m an the same person that posted as an IP earlier, my Internet recently went down changing my IP address.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently, this redirect targets where it is supposed to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it's a bit of a weird scenario where doesn't display properly for most people, but the display issue is unlikely to be relevant in the utility of the redirect. The redirect just for the Black Flag glyph (🏴) continues to redirect to List of black flags, so this would only be relevant for the people who have this subdivision flag emoji, even if it's not in the unicode standard, to get to the target they need to get to. I wouldn't necessarily advise creating more emoji like this, but I don't think it's ultimately harmful as it does help people and I can't see it as being terribly confusing. TartarTorte 16:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. This is probably why every other emoji redirect discussion brought up this year has concluded in a keep/retarget decision. (See prior discussions here: 🤭, 👩‍💻, 🛋️, ⏫/⏬, 🫸/🫷, 🤪, 🙀, 👯‍♂️, 🫥, 👾, 🧑‍🦳, 👏, 💨, 😶‍🌫, 🤗, 😬, 🏚️, & 🔥) Enix150 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia Although this redirect uses emoji characters, no designs for it are mentioned on Emojipedia, so it is not an official emoji that a notable emoji set implements (compare unofficial emojis implemented by major platforms such as 🐱‍👤 (Ninja Cat by Microsoft before the Fluent redesign), which do have redirects. Category:Redirects from emoji does list several other non-offical subdivision flags, but those are US state flags (which Emojipedia once created hypothetical designs for) and several UAE subdivisions (whether those get deleted might depend on whether this one get deleted, but all of them are also non-implemented unofficial emojis). All the emoji RFDs listed above are official so it would make more sense to keep or retarget them than delete then entirely (although this could change with the ongoing village pump Emoji RFC, which I have not seen mentions about potential scenarios such as this one). Xeroctic (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found information for this emoji on Emojipedia here and here. The second link's See also section contains a whole list of flag emojis for the other states of Myanmar too. Enix150 (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those other flags are unlikely to be implemented as well. Clicking on a few of the other Myanmar state flags states they are non-RGI emoji (not officially recognised by Unicode) and with no implementations. Xeroctic (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are quite a few flags that are not RGI-approved yet. 🏴󠁭󠁭󠀱󠀵󠁿 (Flag of Mon State), 🏴󠁭󠁭󠀱󠀷󠁿 (Flag of Shan State), and 🏴󠁭󠁭󠀰󠀲󠁿 (Flag of Bago Region) also have redirects to their State flags, and each of the 50 US State flag emojis have redirects to their respective flags too. Enix150 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2023 (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).

Edward Bosco

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 article and nominate at AfD. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bosco does not voice act for Hazbin Hotel anymore, so his name redirecting to the page makes no sense. There was no mention of him other than a simple voice credit on the page before he stopped voice acting for Hazbin Hotel in the first place. Blubewwy (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bosco is still mentioned at List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters, but with no detail other than the characters he voiced; he is also mentioned as a voice actor in several other articles. None are obviously more useful than any of the others; we should let the search do its job here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and draftify pre-BLAR version. It was not sourced and can be improved in draftspace. Jay 💬 14:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore without prejudice to AfD but do not draftify - this is much older than the 90 day maximum noted at WP:DRAFT. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was created as a redirect in 2021 and became an article on 19 April 2023 but the redirect was restored a few hours later. That seems well under the 90 day limit as it stayed a redirect after then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the 90 day note which I was not aware of. WP:DRAFT says articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue. (emphasis (mine) on "another suitable venue"). While it is not clear what is the venue other than AfD, I don't see why RfD can not be that venue. Jay 💬 09:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per WP:BLAR --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2023 (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).

Resemble

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 Resemblance. ✗plicit 14:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resemble → wiktionary:resemble  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:SSRT does not represent the current consensus regarding soft redirects, which is a lot less rigid (see the talk page). Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab at Resemblance, which is probably the best we can do here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the creator of this Wiktionary redirect... yeah, I agree, retarget it to this related word or phrase. I didn't know the page existed at the time. 1033Forest (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Resemblance {{R from verb}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Resemblance as R from verb per Shhhnotsoloud --Lenticel (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2023 (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).

Unit normal vector

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 point both to Normal (geometry). Jay 💬 09:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:06, 21 November 2023 (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).

285 (Number)

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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of 287 (Number), to my knowledge, no other xxx (number) page has a variant with a capitalized N, and a redirect pointing to the proper page. I believe these were created in error, and don't need to be kept. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This was created by me via a move. I'm fine with deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to this, in response to @Hey man im Josh and Thryduulf: I believe r from alt caps is super common from the main portion of the title, but is super rare for the disambiguation portion. I expect one reason for the rarity is that deletion of them is super common. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment below (it might actually be worth combining these nominations). Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fix ping; you miscapitalized it. Clyde [trout needed] 16:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Redirects from other capitalizations are extremely common (see Category:Redirects from other capitalisations) and are WP:CHEAP. I don't really see how deleting these would be an improvement. I also wanted to note that, for the range of 1–500, there were two additional redirects that exist: 13 (Number) & 22 (Number). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey man im josh. These are completely harmless and take anyone using them to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not seeing a problem here. If anything, the deletion rationale suggests we ought to create a lot of similar redirects with a capital N. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point I was trying to make is that:
    Out of some 516 number pages, only 4 of them (285, 287, 13 and 22) have an additional with a redirect and a capital N. That's less than 1% of the number pages with an additional page with redirect.
    And only 454 have the word "number", which leave 58 without the word "number", which in my opinion should be the normal name for a number page. There is no reason to favor a particular thing like a year (e.g. 2020) over anything else. So the word number should not even be there in the first place, and we shouldn't even discuss capitalization.
    In any case the reason for the delete would be consistency. So either all pages have a redirect or none. The way it is now with 4 exceptions to the list is quite inconsistent. And I understand that redirects are cheap, but what's the real point of keeping the pages? I understand that in some cases, for pages other than number pages, one might capitalize a word or not, and we might want a redirect to the other page. But in this case. If someone search for any number xx in the search box, one of the earliest option to choose from is "xx (number)", so one can just click on that. Another way to get to a number page is from some other number page (which always uses the lower case 'n') or some math page, which also point to the proper page. These pages (285 & 287) have also recently been created so there is no long history from some other website to be worried about. I really don't see a reason to keep the pages with a capital 'N'. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much everything here is an argument to create "(number)" and "(Number)" redirects for those articles that don't have them, not for deleting the ones that exist. Search suggestions are only available for a subset of methods of finding Wikipedia content, all of which are equally valid. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dhrm77: Would you mind changing the "Delete" portion at the beginning of this comment? I'd probably just change it to "comment", but it looks like you're voting twice in this discussion (since the nomination itself is counted as a vote towards deletion). Hey man im josh (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not benefit Wikipedia in any particular way as a malformatted disambiguation, which should be deleted and discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects which take readers from the search term they used to the content they are unambiguously looking for are, by definition, beneficial to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't malformed, it's differently formed. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: clearly of net benefit. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's a reason the redirect category "Redirect from other capitalization" exists. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB, it was only at this title for a few hours last month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. J947 † edits 02:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – my method of searching is through the URL bar most of the time. It's easy to hold shift for too long and end up accidentally capitalizing the N. That's not the only way you'd get to this title, either. I'd look at usage numbers here, but these redirects have been around for under a month when the discussions were started, so it's hard to get anything conclusive yet. Maybe if in say six months this is getting about a view every three months or something, I'd reconsider, but even then the possibility of it being helpful is larger than the harm its existence has on Wikipedia. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 November 2023 (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).

287 (Number)

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. Rough consensus that the redirect is harmless. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of 285 (Number), to my knowledge, no other xxx (number) page has a variant with a capitalized N, and a redirect pointing to the proper page. I believe these were created in error, and don't need to be kept. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This was created by me via a move. I'm fine with deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like this one actually didn't involve you @UtherSRG, it involved @Idoghor Melody. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I think I was about to hit it when they did. Either way, I support the deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to this, in response to @Hey man im Josh and Thryduulf: I believe r from alt caps is super common from the main portion of the title, but is super rare for the disambiguation portion. I expect one reason for the rarity is that deletion of them is super common. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deletion is super common" does not make the redirects harmful or otherwise refute the argument why they should not be deleted. Many times capitalised disambiguators are nominated I've argued that they are exactly as useful to readers as other redirects where other words in the redirect are plausibly but unnecessarily capitalised. I've yet to see any coherent refutation of that argument. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've yet to see any coherent evidence for that argument. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you mean the argument that readers are equally likely to miscapitalise a disambiguator as they are other words in a title, then the fact that even though many of them get deleted they keep getting created should tell you something. These redirects are too new to have reliable page view evidence available (the first several days after creation and any time at RfD are not representative), but many of them do get views as well. We don't require readers to know the exact capitalisation of the first part of article titles in order to find the content they are looking for, so requiring them to know the exact capitalisation of the second part doesn't make any sense. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Redirects from other capitalizations are extremely common (see Category:Redirects from other capitalisations) and are WP:CHEAP. I don't really see how deleting these would be an improvement. I also wanted to note that, for the range of 1–500, there were two additional redirects that exist: 13 (Number) & 22 (Number). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey man im josh. These are completely harmless and take anyone using them to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not seeing a problem here. If anything, the deletion rationale suggests we ought to create a lot of similar redirects with a capital N. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not benefit Wikipedia in any particular way as a malformatted disambiguation, which should be deleted and discouraged. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't malformed, it's differently formed. I would say that both {{r from other capitalisation}} and {{r from other disambiguation}} apply, so we have it coming and going. I strongly believe this should be kept as it is harmless, unambiguous, helpful, and of net benefit to this project. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed in regards to violating MOS:AT guidelines as much as broken disambiguation redirect would be. "Number" is not a proper noun, nor should it EVER be referred to as such in a page's clarifier (in an effort to maintain clarifiers in sentence case). While it is true that redirects are not required to abide by the same standards as regular article titles, there is a level of reasonableness and unreasonableness. Capitalized clarifiers existing for zero reason for a word that has no affinity for being capitalized (as a disambiguator) makes it not worth existing, and aligns with the spirit of WP:RDAB more than the R-template combo proposed above. The "R from other capitalization" template is for the actual title and not the disambiguator, and "R from other disambiguation" works for reasonable synonyms which apply as a disambiguator; not for inexplicably capitalized WP:PANDORA versions of any word in existence. Utopes (talk / cont) 10:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that explains why we keep all sorts of capitalisations of the first part of redirects, whether they are proper nouns or not, but don't do the same for disambiguators. In the first case we impose no requirement on readers to know the exact title or capitalisation of the article they want to read before they read it, in the second case we are happy to keep other plausible disambiguators but insist that people know how it is capitalised - which is illogical and actively harmful to our readers.
    Oh and WP:PANDORA is actively misleading - we judge redirects on their own merits and there is no evidence that keeping or deleting any redirect encourages or discourages the creation of similar redirects nor is there any evidence that it is even desirable that such should be true. If a redirect is good we keep it, if it's bad we delete it, regardless of what we did with a redirect of any given similarity. There is not a finite number of redirects that can or should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Hey man im josh. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. J947 † edits 02:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – my method of searching is through the URL bar most of the time. It's easy to hold shift for too long and end up accidentally capitalizing the N. That's not the only way you'd get to this title, either. I'd look at usage numbers here, but these redirects have been around for under a month when the discussions were started, so it's hard to get anything conclusive yet. Maybe if in say six months this is getting about a view every three months or something, I'd reconsider, but even then the possibility of it being helpful is larger than the harm its existence has on Wikipedia. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 November 2023 (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).

No-one knows what it's like

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 no consensus. Editors are divided on whether this phrase primarily refers to the song, with keep !votes noting Google search results suggest that it is, despite also being a normal English phrase. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, appears to be a verse from the song that's quite ambiguous. (Here's my really weak WP:OTHERSTUFF argument: Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss doesn't exist, so this one certainly shouldn't) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have Template:R from lyric, but this specific line is not mentioned in the article. For a random valid example see The world is a vampire.—Alalch E. 14:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not ambiguous at all, it's one of the most well-known lyrics from an album widely regarded as the best work of one of the most popular and influential bands in rock history. This is more in line with Teenage Wasteland being a valid redirect to Baba O'Riley in the sense that it could be popularly known (incorrectly) as the name of the song: it begins each of the song's three verses and is repeated in the first verse (sung four times total in the song) while the title is sung only twice. Google is no help for competing uses (owing to how ubiquitous this association is) and the only other I can think of is Limp Bizkit's horrible cover of the song, which is also covered in the same article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One obvious ambiguity is with To Love Somebody, and I'm sure there are other examples which make this lyric non-distinctive. Tevildo (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ambiguous: the Bee Gees sing "you don't know what it's like", which is ambiguous with the unrelated Econoline Crush song You Don't Know What It's Like, but not with the lyric this discussion is about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, I've corrected my post. However, it still goes to show that the phrase is not at all distinctive, so my opinion is unchanged. Tevildo (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone can show actual ambiguity. Google results suggest this is by far the most common usage of this phrase. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 07:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—not ambiguous—and add {{R from lyric}} to explain. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects not mentioned at their target do not deserve to exist. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, R from Lyrics are for pages that actually discuss the significance of the lyric AT the page, with quality sourcing. Redirecting every lyric of a song to the song itself defeats the purpose and creates confusion to uninitiated readers who don't know why this redirect exists if they aren't familiar with the source, and this one appears to fall into this camp. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no statement at the documentation page Template:R from lyric or at Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry that states what you say. Lyrics are protected by copyright and are notoriously difficult to quote. I don't much like redirects without a mention at the target, but anyone landing on the page thinking "why am I here" can (in this case) go listen to the song. This redirect is helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment re above, listening to the song for a Wikipedia article should not be a requirement in figuring out why a redirect points to the place it does. I agree that it's not super out of left field; it is a lyric, after all. However, it being a lyric does not automatically qualify as grounds for inclusion as a redirect. The following IS stated in the description of Template:R from lyric: "This is a redirect from a lyric to a song [article] ... that describes the lyric." For all valid R from lyrics, the lyrics themselves must be described at the target page. Most of the time, this is an easy pass for noteworthy lyrics, which get either mentioned in the lead or discussed in the body. As it pertains to this case, this does not appear so in the article's current state. In the meantime, I find it hard to believe that anyone searching this would use this title as a synonym to the subject, instead of just the title of the song. If they don't know what song it is, that's not Wikipedia's responsibility to account for, as Wikipedia is not a search engine. We can't and shouldn't be expected to randomly have unmentioned lyric redirects for a surprise-box selection of music articles. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unmentioned in the article. --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin and the convincing arguments of Ivan. Agree with Utopes' interpretation of R from Lyric, however someone should go and look at the ~200 redirects at Category:Redirects from lyrics and see how many of them don't have mention at their targets. Jay 💬 14:53, 28 November 2023 (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).

Competent woman

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 💬 06:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Competent woman → Mary Sue  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, completely unnecessary (and offensive) and was only linked from one article and one user page. Ausir (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think they were trying to be offensive. AGF, I think the creator wants to make a counterpart to the The Competent Man. With that in mind, we don't have referenced info on this type of stock character. --Lenticel (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect seems mostly pointless to me. But why is it offensive?SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2023 (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).

Contestant

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 💬 06:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Target term not mentioned in article, but the word itself means a participant in a contest, competition or game show. Was the subject of an AfD early last year. I'm considering either retargeting this to a Wiktionary redirect, or deleting. 1033Forest (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A intitle:contestant search found two articles called The Contestant which are plausibly ambiguous here, so I drafted a simple disambiguation for this instead. --Joy (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1033Forest is it okay by you that we proceed with disambiguation and resolve this discussion? --Joy (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Disambiguation looks good so far. 1033Forest (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Joy. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Joy. 20:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Joy --Lenticel (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2023 (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).

Myanmar at the 2020 Summer Paralympics

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 Myanmar at the Paralympics. (non-admin closure) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country did not compete at the games. Redirect target also does not discuss the topic. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2023 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_21&oldid=1187738596"