Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25

February 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2024.

McGar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same case as skarmbliss two entries below, minus the "there are sources" part. i found nothing cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obscure term from niche PvP Pokemon battles --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. This is a surname, and several people with it get passing mentions in various articles, but none of them get anything significant enough to merit a DABMENTION. Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I guess Gengar does look a bit like McDonalds' Grimace character. Steel1943 (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above rationales. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:32, 3 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).

Flemi

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i actually have no idea what pokémon this is supposed to be for. results seem torn between flaaffy and torchic, but... nothing suggests that that might be a possible name for either of them. not even bulbapedia gave me anything concrete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even the redirect itself knows what a Flemi is supposed to be, lol. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find what this is supposed to be is in my Gsearch as well. --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minor correction: it seems to be a misspelling of torchic's german name, flemmli. what it's doing in the gen 2 list and why it seemed to be related to flaaffy aren't things i think are worth questioning cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:10, 28 February 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).

Skarmbliss

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

technically not an implausible search (good god the gen 2 and 3 metas are Extra Wacky™), but not mentioned at any of its possible targets. initially started as an article for the strategy in question, but was turned into a redirect for having no sources. currently, i've seen the strategy mentioned in one (1) source. would it be better off deleted, redirected to a note in the competitive pokémon article (assuming the source is even remotely reliable), or just kept as is? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the source, by the way. i'm not sure if linking works with twinkle cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:01, 25 February 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).

Fruit cup

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 Fruit salad. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 22:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion at Talk:Fruit cup (cocktail) stated that many people consider a "fruit cup" as a form of fruit salad. However, the redirect fruit cup still goes to fruit cup (cocktail), effectively negating the purpose of the move discussion. Retarget to fruit salad if it can't be reverted to the article about the cocktail. JIP | Talk 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The hatnote at the top of Fruit cup (cocktail) serves to redirect anyone looking for the personal-sized prepackaged fruit salad. That said, I can also see us reversing this situation-- Weak retarget to Fruit salad with a hatnote to Fruit cup (cocktail) instead. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fruit salad: There was consensus for a page move, and the clear intent was to have Fruit cup redirect to Fruit salad as a result of that move; otherwise, the (cocktail) disambiguator would be completely unnecessary. RfD is not the proper forum to override the consensus established at RM. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fruit salad as the drink isn't the primary topic. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:13, 27 February 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).

Irikku..M.D Akathundu

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 18:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be used as it’s a rare misspelling and the search system should pick up such a misspelling. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: is listed as an R from page move and was at this title up until just an hour ago, linked on pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irikku..M.D Akathundu (which closed as no consensus). Utopes (talk / cont) 20:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Delete (I moved the page today). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per {{R from move}} it was at this title from creation in July 2023 until shortly before this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see redirects like this one (misspellings, typos, etc.) tagged CSD G6 all of the time by page patrollers. I think we have to make it more widely known that you want these redirects Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I would be in favor of deletion if not for the fact this was the title of the article until yesterday. We should keep it for at least a little while until internal and external links are updated. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I will amend the links in the Main. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (NB- in the Afd linked above, I had suggested the new name but forgot to move the page then.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz:, I saw and meant to ask this earlier, but could you expand on what types of "redirects like this one" that get tagged by patrollers? Had this page have been instantly moved after creation based on its history, I think it would definitely apply for CSD G6 as an error. However, this was moved just before the nomination occurred. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I think as a general rule, totally harmless weird spellings etc such as this which were the title of an article (which still exists) for more than a month should always be kept. Unlikely as it may be that someone would search this, it is at least completely unambiguous, harmless and deleting it could break external links for no benefit whatsoever. A7V2 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 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).

Wiimmfi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Wiimmfi

Viennoise

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Viennoise

Lake Surikiña

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Lake Surikiña

Graffiti S

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Graffiti S

Middle School S

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Middle School S

CCFL inverter

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 History split and No consensus to take any other specific action * Pppery * it has begun... 19:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Used to point at "Piezoelectric Transformer" after a page move, which was BLAR'd a few days later. Neither that nor this title are mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the CCFL inverter was an article since 2004 possibly? The title changed after a RM/TR, so all the history is now at Piezoelectric Transformer which seems to be deep. Nevertheless, not a mentioned variant at the current target. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history? (Most of it is at the title Piezoelectric Transformer now.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a title in use for 20 years, which used to get ~50 views a day until the move. Revisit a year or maybe 6 months from now. Jay 💬 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fluorescent lamp. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article has some mentions of inverters, but they don't really help the reader understand what a CCFL inverter is. The CCFL section Fluorescent lamp#Cold-cathode fluorescent lamps doesn't mention inverter. Jay 💬 17:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think between the two, "CCFL inverter" is a far more reasonable redirect title than "Piezoelectric Transformer", as the page itself does talk about inverters, even if "CCFL" isn't mentioned. After 20 years at this title, the page was seemingly hijacked in November 2023 to talk about Piezoelectrical Transformers, which also aren't mentioned at the target.
In the end, there are now two unmentioned redirects, but only one has valuable history. I don't think we need both for this, if the history is only at one. I'd also be in support of reverting the move and bringing the history back to "CCFL inverter". Even if unmentioned at that point, at least the history is still where it used to be 20 years ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 articles in the page history. If the history is to be moved back, the piezoelectric hijack has to be reverted first. Jay 💬 07:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: That can be done? (about separating history). I knew that histmerges could combine two histories, but I guess I never thought that part of a history could be moved back (to a different title), if that's what you're saying. I feel that'd be a good first step to avoid confusion. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:HISTSPLIT. Jay 💬 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! That's what I'm looking for then. Hist-splitting seems to be the appropriate first step here to get the histories in the correct locations. It's my intention to RfD the Piezoelectric title after-the-fact. That said, I'd think it'd be best to only go through with this after the histories are returned to their rightful spots, to ensure the respective histories can be accurately considered. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:11, 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).

Allied angles

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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Allied angles" seems like a vague phrase (for me, it conjures up images of the Allies in WWII for some reason). However, googling it suggests that two angles (in the geometric sense) can be considered "allied angles" if their sum or difference is 90 or 180 degrees for the purpose of doing trigonometry. This is definitely a useful mathematical concept, but I don't know where we've really discussed this in detail (List of trigonometric identities#Reflections, shifts, and periodicity sort of does so but doesn't use this exact phrase). Any thoughts? Duckmather (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a term nowadays only used in India (e.g. Bharadwaj 1989). It can be found in some older English sources though (e.g. Hall & Knight 1893, Bowley 1913, Briggs & Bryan 1928). Looks like any pair of angles whose sum or difference is a multiple of 90° (π/2 radians) are considered "allied". –jacobolus (t) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conceivably we could make a new article entitled Allied angles and redirect Supplementary angle, Complementary angle, etc. to there. I have long thought those should be their own article instead of a redirect to Angle. –jacobolus (t) 21:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, there's a apparently a second meaning of "allied angles", which is consecutive interior angles ("co-interior angles") of a transversal; if the two lines transversed are parallel, two such angles are supplementary. (Example sources: Durell 1939, Hislop 1960). –jacobolus (t) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - taking into consideration the multiple meanings, the lack of clear explanation of these meanings on a single Wikipedia page, and the relatively archaic nature of the term (with the most recent source cited in this discussion apparently being from 1989). signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. Recreate in future as an article, or redirect once we have content. Jay 💬 08:37, 6 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).

Pointy S

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Pointy S

LIGAS

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 12:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LIGAS → wikt:Appendix:Internet slang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Relisting "weak delete" nominations from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#ILYM. Still not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quoting my comment from the original nomination: Weak delete LIGAS. "Ligas" gets lots of hits as the plural of "Liga", mainly in relation to Peruvian football, but everything is a partial title match and not rendered in all caps. The Liga dab page does offer a link to search results for "Ligas" but none of the main entries have the S, and doesn't offer the Peruvian or Spanish leagues so while I wouldn't object to retargetting there deletion is my slight preference. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts from anyone other than Thryduulf?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Given the page this is supposed to redirect to, I did quickly check Urban Dictionary (yes, yes, I know, entry right below WP:UNZ, but at least it gives a window into what the original contributor might've been thinking in this instance.) Urban defines it as an abbreviation for "Like I Give A Shit", although said definition has mere double-digit likes and dislikes despite being posted all the way back in 2005. (Admittedly, I don't know what the average engagement a given definition might have on Urban Dictionary??) Either way, I wouldn't even know where a good source for this would even be, lol. Any keeping of this redirect will require someone finding a good (read: non-Urban Dictionary) source, first, and then adding the entry to the list. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:04, 26 February 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).

TAR

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 procedural close. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TAR → Tár  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not convinced that Tár (depicted in upper case in the poster as TÁR) is the primary topic for "TAR". I suggest redirect to Tar (disambiguation) which lists several uses of "TAR" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud we don't need a formal discussion to simply revert the last bad unexplained edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TAR&diff=prev&oldid=1126322732&title=TAR&diffonly=1 --Joy (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the revert. If anyone still thinks we need to discuss this, please let me know. --Joy (talk) 13:44, 25 February 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).

Not real

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Not real

Peppa Pig TM

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 💬 06:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peppa Pig TM → Peppa Pig  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Totally unlikely and unnecessary, page discusses nothing about the trademark or "TM". Created last week. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The TM (for trademark) is an implausible search term, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete™. say goodbye to tm©, that design's rejected™. no one would look that up cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term, but also, WP:UNHELPFUL-- if someone DID search for "Peppa Pig TM" without that redirect in place, the search function would point them right to Peppa Pig anyways. What I wouldn't give for a better essay/redirect to point to for the "Our search function actually works" argument. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (tm) as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 05:37, 28 February 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).

Long film

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Long film

Wikipedia:PUFF

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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery and keep those that already target there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this here mainly because there seems to be a pretty big can of worms regarding WP:Puff, WP:Puff phrases, WP:Puffery and several similar "peacock" titles having different targets. At the moment, even if some are used as shortcuts and others are used as stand-ins for MOS redirects, it does not feel super clear exactly which should go where, as without the prefix of "wiki"-puffery, to me these all appear to be basically interchangeable. At the very least, the discrepancy between "Puffery" and "PUFFERY" was what initially prompted this nomination, and I don't think "PUFF" is a great shortcut due to it being just the word puff, which is what what the MOS-words-to-watch do. My initial reaction would be to retarget all of these to the MOS/Words-to-watch page, which is the more important target between this and the WP essay. If anything, WP:WIKIPUFF can be used as a shortcut to the essay in its stead.. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:59, 25 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_25&oldid=1214240380"