Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

6 May 2025

Read how to nominate a redirect for discussion.

May 6

[edit]

Durre Menthor

[edit]

This is (probably) a fake name originating on Wikipedia. In any case it's not mentioned at the target. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main Article

[edit]

Could also refer to {{Main}} (which produces a "main article" hatnote); google search also gives me a bunch of random unrelated stuff too Duckmather (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unconvincing nomination (mainspace titles aren't ambiguous with templates), but then the redirect's existence is itself unconvincing (I don't see this as a plausible search term for the main page). Weak delete I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your claim that mainspace titles aren't ambiguous with templates is quite correct, though. For example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 12#Multiple issues ended in deletion. Nevertheless the phrase "multiple issues" is still a highly enwiki-specific phrase, and I would guess that {{multiple issues}} is the main way many, if not most, ordinary people would ever see that phrase in the wild. Duckmather (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main Article as sensible. Do not keep MAIN ARTICLE, as it is implausible, probably a joke, and will likely get G7 anyway. Oreocooke (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oreocooke you are the creator of MAIN ARTICLE, is this a request for it to be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not exactly. Oreocooke (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted MAIN ARTICLE by G7 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I technically didn't request yet but I was going to anyway so it isn't really a problem Oreocooke (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrism

[edit]

I'm not sure whether "electrism" is a real word; google search gives me a random mix of stuff, which suggests it isn't. Maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard this word in any context. Constant314 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only significant thing that comes up is a Huffington Post article about Carmen Electrism, relating to Carmen Electra. There's no use of that term anywhere else, though, so that redirect target also doesn't work. Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! A Google Books search comes up with numerous pieces of evidence, for instances this that this is in fact a real, if perhaps archaic, word, whose meaning is 'electricity'. JayCubby 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JayCubby: Good catch! Consider my initial nomination struck then. Duckmather (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zldksnflqmtm

[edit]

per WP:RFOREIGN. I am sure this was enthusiastically created by curious people after watching a recent viral video on the subject (which I sympathise with). Juwan (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Googlovic

[edit]

No idea why this would be a synonym of Ivan Gašparovič, googling doesn't help. Sounds like just a newbie mistake (made by a user with 7 edits) that should have been deleted in 2009. --Joy (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward on a Chair

[edit]

Target article no longer mentions "Squidward on a Chair". loserhead (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karyolysus lacerate

[edit]

The correct name of the species is Karyolysus lacertae, and I think "lacerate" may be an "implausible typo". Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-asphyxiate

[edit]

This isn't the only reason for autoasphyxiation out there. Also potentially ambiguous to the blackout challenge, the choking game and a semi-popular form of self-unaliving. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blae

[edit]

"Blae" means blue in Scots, but blue isn't an especially Scottish topic (as compared to many other countries that have blue in their flags), and there are no other good targets, so I suggest deletion per WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue, as it links only to Early Scots (ignoring RfD, XfD, and stuff like that). SeaDragon1 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your proposal is that the Blue article doesn't tell me what "blae" means, which is exactly the sort of situation that WP:FORRED is designed to avoid. (If someone can add a sourced mention of "blae" or even find a decent source that can be used for such a mention, however, then I'll retract my comment.) Duckmather (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, with only mild opposition against retargeting. results gave me a type of artificial fly, a surname, and... fucking fortune tiger (pt article, what can you do), how the hell does that tumor keep spreading itself like this? anyway, the funny puddle took a few seconds of scrolling down to find, so i don't think it's what most readers would be looking for consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TAG

[edit]

Suggest converting the numerous hatnotes at the target to a disambiguation page. Looking through uses of this redirect, even experienced editors are often using it for something other than file copyright tags - most frequently maintenance tagging, sometimes also tag-teaming. For example, WP:V currently links this in a context in which maintenance tagging is intended. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syriacs

[edit]

Proposing a new retarget to Terms for Syriac Christians, as the reasoning is outlined in the proposed target article: "Syriac Christians of Near-Eastern (Semitic) origin use several terms for their self-designation. In alphabetical order, the main terms are: Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Syriacs." This indicates that the term is not solely associated with Assyrians. Academically, Syriac and Assyrian are distinguished, with Syriac often used as a synonym for Aramean. Syriac functions both as an exonym and an endonym for Aramean Christians. For reference, see this source, which states: "genocide of the Assyrians, Syriacs, and Chaldeans." Until a modern Aramean people article is established, this redirect would be more fitting with Terms for Syriac Christians as the target. Note: I was unable to place the RfD notice on the redirect page; if someone could do so, it would be appreciated.

Keep as is - Today, the modern Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group is covered at "Assyrian people" and is named so per WP:COMMONNAME. Modern scholars consider them to be the same ethnic group. The disamb page would also be a better alternative than the proposed target article. Shmayo (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Common name or not, Syriac is used to refer to multiple groups, not exclusively Assyrians. Terms for Syriac Christians speaks of this term being applied to various people, it is the most fitting one. Modern scholars do not apply "Syriac" to "Assyrian", they keep them separate, hence often speaking of Syriac/Chaldean/Assyrian, as the source I referenced. Keeping as is, would according to me, seem to be WP:POV, to only limit it to the Assyrian people and not the broader Syriac Christians which Terms for Syriac Christians is for and speaks of. Wlaak (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=1141812774"