Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2020.

Lydia Barrett

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. -- BDD ( talk) 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no mention of "Lydia" at the target, making this connection tenuous. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (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.

Xemone

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 speedy keep. Withdrawing, justification provided. signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target, a Google Scholar search doesn't suggest that this is an alternative name for the subject. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Source: Ḳasmunah (sometimes called Xemone), Jewish Encyclopedia 7, p. 451. Kyuko ( talk) 23:49, 9 December 2020 (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.

11th millennium BC

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 Timeline of human prehistory. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I would like to nominate a range of redirects to RFD. Since they have different targets, I would like community input on the best target for the redirects. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (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.

Toc Chien

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. -- BDD ( talk) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a case of WP:RLOTE, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 9 December 2020 (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.

List of weapons in Perfect Dark

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. -- BDD ( talk) 20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

No list of weapons exists in the target article. Dominicmgm ( talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (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.

Perfect Dark"

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 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The out of place quotation mark makes this implausible. Dominicmgm ( talk) 17:35, 9 December 2020 (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.

Ring action

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 Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory. I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the subject matter to deal with any content additions that should follow this closure. Courtesy ping to D.Lazard and Quondum signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

"Ring action" is not mentioned in the target article (the target section has been removed since several years). "Ring action" is not defined elsewhere in WP, so there is no available target. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will this be acceptable as an {{ R without mention}}?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In response to the relisting comment, I do not believe that this should be a redirect without mention: the term should be introduced into the target section (a variant of it is already there). A notification could be posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and at Talk:Module_(mathematics) to generate more input. It has already been posted at Talk:Ring (mathematics). — Quondum 17:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I see that Module homomorphism uses the term "ring action" and variants of it (e.g. "R-action", "right action of a ring", and the like). Ring (mathematics) uses the term "action of a ring". Similar terms (e.g. "field action", "the ring acts") can also be found in some abstract algebra articles. It seems reasonable that the redirect exists, but I am not tied to its existence: it gets used only a few times per month, and as the exact term "ring action" seems to be rare in the literature. However, WP:Redirects are cheap, and we have three candidate target articles. I would like to see comment from people who are more familiar with the topic, such as D.Lazard, who removed a clear definition of the term that the redirect originally referenced and who nominated this redirect for discussion, and who is more knowledgeable than I am on this topic. I see that it was I who created the redirect, but since I appear to be the only person who was pinged, I feel like I am talking to myself in a vacuum. — Quondum 23:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that the term "ring action" is rare in the literature, and I do not know of any reliable source that defines it. I believe that the terms has been introduces into WP by fans of universal algebra that were reluctant to consider algebraic structures involving two sets. The recent discussion at Talk:Algebraic structure#The explanation of "involving multiple sets" has become misguided. may explain this. The fact that a "ring action" may be used for defining modules is clearly explained in Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory. However, the term of "ring representation" is used instead of "ring action". As far as I know, the term "ring action" is WP:OR. In any case, it is certainly never used for defining modules. One witness of this is that nobody uses a "field action" for defining a vector space. Another reason for not using "ring actions" for defining modules is that this would make cumbersome to define module homomorphisms.
So, except if a reliable source is provided, I consider the term "ring action" as a WP:OR concept, and I consider that it sould be removed from Wikipedia. However, as redirects are cheap, I suggest the following. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Module (mathematics)#Relation to representation theory, an add to the target section: A representation R → EndZ(M) may be called a ring action ring action of R on M. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This certainly seems to be a good way to go, essentially to treat the redirect as a way to get to what is likely meant if this unusual term is encountered. We might, however, want to avoid appearing to define it as a term, and so might want to remove the bold. — Quondum 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
OK, I have corrected my suggestion. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (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.

Closing Act

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#Closing Act

Luv Is Rage songs

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 Luv Is Rage. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Former redirects to Luv Is Rage before that page's redirection; not mentioned in new target. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:56, 9 December 2020 (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.

Big Freeze

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. There's broad agreement that, while both the old and the current target are reasonable, Heat death of the universe is more specific to the "freeze" aspect and remains the primary topic. ~ mazca talk 14:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect changed from Future of an expanding universe to Heat death of the universe. Both use the term conspicuously. Not sure if either is a better target or if the two articles should perhaps be merged. MB 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The two possible targets are not equivalent. The future of an expanding universe has several different outcomes, only one of which is the Big Freeze, the heat death of the universe. There's also the Big Rip, and other more esoteric results. "Big Freeze" should target "heat death". "Future" should remain a separate article from heat death, as there has been much research and commentary on heat death, while "Future of an expanding universe" has other possible outcomes. It is also about the future of such a universe, including what comes before the heat death, and other paths of an expanding universe. Bear in mind there's also the article Ultimate fate of the universe, which also has the Big Crunch, and Big Bounce, etc. -- 67.70.26.89 ( talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (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.

History of the Jews in Svalbard

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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

While understandably Svalbard articles usually redirect to Norway, there's nothing about Svalbard in the article at all. This link is appearing on some templates as a blue link, and that seems misleading. CMD ( talk) 11:07, 9 December 2020 (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.

Plowback retained earnings

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. While it seems like the nominator did wait long enough between discussions for it to not be tendentious, there is still no consensus as to whether this redirect is appropriate or not signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect:
  • 1 (no consensus)
  • 2 (no consensus)
  • 3 (no consensus)

Plowback retained earnings is a made-up nonsensical phrase of considerable length and thus not a conceivable search term. None of the reasons for creating/maintaining redirects from WP:POFRED apply to it, and it fails the categorization test, i.e. none of our redirect categories apply to it. Wikipedia has no use for this page; its deletion is long overdue as per WP:RFD#DELETE #8. The only reason it dodged WP:R3 is that it was originally created as a stub. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The target of this redirect is a fundamental business principle; it hasn't changed in centuries (certainly not in the four years since the most recent discussion) and isn't likely to change any time soon. Relitigating this again is nothing but disruption, this discussion should be speedy closed, and the nominator should be topic-banned from discussing this topic indefinitely to finally put an end to this complete waste of time.
Also, in what I'm sure will be a futile attempt to preempt the nominator's inevitable and relentless badgering, I am declaring now that this will be my final comment on this matter. I am unwatchlisting this page and will not read any replies to this comment. Enough of my time has been wasted on this over six damn years and I have better things to do. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion recommends a two-month waiting period before restarting a discussion closed as "no consensus." I had waited not two but four, and not months but years. You accuse me of "disruption" but the only disruptive activity on this page is your unbecoming attempt to derail the discussion. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand why this is inherently disruptive. The last discussion was 24 January 2016, in other words almost five years ago. See ArbCom and ArbCom #2 (+ the principle below) on such conduct. Particularly, Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree and As consensus can change it is usually not disruptive to renominate after a reasonable period of time has passed. And, most importantly, Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. Reading just this RfD so far, the DRV and the latest RfD, I cannot see any points of substance being made other than, mostly, saying the nomination is disruptive. Is it not acceptable for an editor to ask the community, after five years, to hold another discussion to see if consensus has changed? Maybe it hasn't, but I don't see why the editor should be shamed for asking. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    FWIW, I don't know redirect policy enough to comment on substance, but I think I've read enough to say this request doesn't seem obviously frivolous. Multiple uninvolved admins in the DRVs recommended deletion. One comment sticks out at me in particular: No one in this discussion has explained why this redirect is useful and should be kept, and many have explained why it is implausible and should be deleted. The closing administrator should have given the latter arguments greater weight and deleted the redirect. [...] It's comical, if Kafkaesque. We're binding ourselves up in knots to save a redirect no one can justify. So I think it's a little unfair to imply the nominator is acting in bad faith with frivolous deletion requests. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    There is no way to defend this redirect on its merits as it's clearly bad. Thus, those in favor of keeping it have no choice but to resort to... well, the things you can see them resorting to above. Hopefully, the admin that closes this discussion will have enough common sense to see what's going on. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 06:03, 11 December 2020 (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.

Watch Doges

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. While there's an acknowledged Doge->Dog connection in general, participants unanimously feel that there's no specific enough connection from the Doge meme to Watch Dogs to warrant keeping this particular redirect. ~ mazca talk 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not used in the target article and I generally suspect it's not an actual alternative title but instead some petty vandalism... Izno ( talk) 04:23, 9 December 2020 (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.

Villa record

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. Although there is not a strong consensus here, the arguments against disambiguation are clearer and stronger than those in favour. That leaves just keeping or deleting, and overall as there is a consensus against the status quo which produces a consensus in favour of deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s), could also refer to records set by people named Villa. I think that deletion is the best option here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
No, what a Villa fan searching for records would possibly search for Villa records or Aston Villa records, not this. Giant Snowman 23:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, so a Villa fan searching for a particular record would possibly search for Villa record or Aston Villa record. Firstly, you are using the No true Scotsman fallacy - I can assure everyone here that I am a true Villa fan. Secondly, as a "per nom" voter, can you not see the illogic in quite happily using Villa records while claiming Villa record could cause confusion for people looking for Villa Record(s)? @ Woody: You created the redirect Aston Villa records, I would appreciate your input here. JorgeLaArdilla ( talk) 08:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (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.

Cytopharynx

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 Cytostome#Cytopharynx. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ ChristianKl with the reason "Cytopharynx is not a synonym for Esophagus, it's a feature of unicellular organisms" FASTILY 02:01, 9 December 2020 (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.

The man behind the slaughter

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. There's clearly a connection between the redirect and the target, but consensus is clear that this is far too tenuous and ambiguous to warrant a redirect here, and there are no clear better targets. ~ mazca talk 13:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

A line from the fanmade FNAF song "It's Been So Long" by The Living Tombstone, which became a somewhat popular meme in the FNAF community earlier this year. However, the song It's Been So Long does not have its own article, and neither does The Living Tombstone. If they're not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, this redirect should be deleted. And the phrase "the man behind the slaughter" is not an official canon alias for William Afton, but a redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's implies that its canon, which is untrue. ThisIsSparta2007 ( talk) 15:31, 9 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_9&oldid=994816902"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE