Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 12

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2025.

Eastern beringia

[edit]

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 Beringia. (non-admin closure) Cremastra talk 13:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes little sense redirecting to wolf. Should probably redirect to Beringia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Beringia, the title "Eastern Beringia" obviously refers to a region. The current target of Wolf is nonsensical. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2025 (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).

Have you tried turning it off and on again

[edit]

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. Multiple opinions were in favour of either deleting, or retargeting to Power cycling, with more favouring delete. Jay 💬 16:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the phrase isn't just limited to the show; whether to dabify, hatnote, or retarget to Power cycling is debatable. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 02:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only opinion after the previous relist was of an IP who is now blocked. Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:11, 12 April 2025 (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).

Redirects to Template:Translation and Template:Transliteration

[edit]

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 all. Multiple editors have made a convincing argument that these are ambiguous on their face and potentially or actually confusing to editors. The responses that in some contexts the meaning might be recognizeable or that editors should read the docs of their tools are not as strong. I see no rationale for making things harder for some simply due to inertia or recognizeability by others. Templates do not work as well with hatnotes and primary-meanings because they often do not provide links to themselves at their point of use. That makes a harder workflow to discover that what one tries first isn't the correct choice and what to use instead. Several comments seemed to be (partially?) about what is recognizeable to readers, but this discussion is about wiki-source not display.
This discussion for the current use of these redirects as redirects has run its course. Having a disambiguation at some of these names appears to have some support but was not proposed until well after discussion was underway. An actual technical implementation has not been proposed, so no prejudice against someone creating such a thing and future discussion about them.
Concerns about the underlying templates (behavior or whether they should exist at all) are off-topic for this XFD.
The actual deletion will take a bit, due to existing uses and requests for pings about it... DMacks (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TM:Translation produces the text "transl." upon use. As such, for the average user TM:Transl. and TM:Transl naturally points towards TM:Translation, instead of TM:Transliteration. This view was also supported by editors at Template talk:Transliteration/Archive 1#Requested move 22 February 2022. Furthermore, both "translation" and "transliteration" share the first 6 letters. Due to the ambiguity, it seems best that "Transl", "Transl." as well as "Trans", "Trans." are all standardised to point towards a single template, or deleted altogether. Note that TM:Transliteration also has the shortcuts TM:Translit, and the 33% shorter than "transl", TM:Tlit. So, if someone thinks that transliteration is too large to type, we already have alternative options. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Edited 20:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Neutral, just look at what this does to Tomoe. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: Existence of a malformed RFD notice is not a valid reason to oppose the RFD. Irrespective of the eventual result of this RFD, that template will be there for the entire week. FWIW, I have discovered how to fix the RFD notice and the relevant edit has been performed. Tomoe is already fixed. And all other affected pages will be fixed in some time if they aren't already. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the template itself (Template:Transliteration) is unnecessary. It says "This template is important for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY, as it invisibly tags text with the correct language, allowing for screenreaders to use the correct style of pronunciation.", but this is not really convincing. Most screen readers handle text written in the native script of a language only; they don't care about romanized text. 172.56.54.3 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting Template:Transliteration is out of the scope of this RFD. Bring it to WP:Templates for discussion should you feel it should be deleted. mwwv converse∫edits 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And no one cares if some rando anon doesn't like a particular reason for a template existing, since there are multiple reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Template:Transl to Template:Transliteration per nom. mwwv converse∫edits 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mwwv: That is the status quo. You may have meant TM:Transl. or TM:Translation? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, whoops mwwv converse∫edits 13:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I meant retargetting {{transl.}} to {{transliteration}}. mwwv converse∫edits 14:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely OPPOSE, as this new format wreaks havoc in Yemenite Hebrew. Even the footnotes can no longer be shown! It does more damage than good. Davidbena (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "new format". This is just a notification that the RfD is open. It will go away when the RfD is closed. Nickps (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davidbena: Again, this is just the RFD notice that's causing this. Irrespective of the outcome of this RFD, that notice is supposed to stay there for a week. We are not discussing any new format of template here, we are discussing whether the redirects follow guidelines or not. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that the RFD notice was causing the page to hit the post-expand size limit. I have overriden that by replacing {{transl}} with {{translit}} for this one specific case. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget {{transl.}} to {{transliteration}}. {{transl}} without the dot is widely used but {{transl.}} is not. If consistency is desired, we should be changing the one people don't use so we don't WP:RASTONISH any editors that already use the established shortcut. Nickps (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually {{transl}} was the original location of {{transliteration}}, which is why it is in use at many pages. That can, however, be fixed by a bot run. Furthermore, for new editors {{transl}} naturally points towards {{translation}} as this template actually outputs the text "transl", whereas {{transliteration}} doesn't. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively {{transl}} could be a template dab page pointing to both possible avenues. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are just proving my point. If {{transl}} was the original location of {{transliteration}}, that's where experienced editors expect to find it. As for new editors, they should be reading the documentation of templates before using them and previewing the page before saving. I guess it's unfortunate that "transl" does not redirect to the template that outputs "transl." but it's far from a unique case. For example, {{d.}} does not go to {{died in}} (but {{b.}} goes to {{born in}} so you'd expect it to). There is also no expectation that redirects with and without a dot target the same page. {{c.}} and {{c}} are different. So are {{b.}} and {{b}}, {{d.}} and {{d}}, {{m.}} and {{m}} (neither goes to {{married in}} btw.) etc.. People just have to learn this stuff. In this case, they'll have to learn that "transl" refers to translation in the encyclopedia but to transliteration internally. It's weird sure, but it's a lot better than forcing everyone who already knows it to unlearn it. Nickps (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will change my vote to Oppose changes to {{transl}} Neutral on the rest. I've been convinced that having {{transl.}} go to translation is a defensible choice. Nickps (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that template-space redirects are rarely ever cleaned. All of these are very clear cases of ambiguity that would rarely be kept if it were in any other namespace. Things should be standardised enough so that a newbie stumbling upon {{b.}} immediately figures out that {{d.}} should go to "died in" by pure logic, instead of having to frantically search for which template gives the output for "died in" (a newbie doesn't already know). Otherwise, we should be looking at other shortcuts. This is especially true for templates that are used in mainspace. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Things should be standardised enough so that a newbie stumbling upon {{b.}} immediately figures out that {{d.}} should go to "died in" by pure logic I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, when I recreated {{b.}}, part of the reason was that {{c.}}, {{r.}} and {{fl.}} already existed. But that is a change that has zero impact on editors that are not using it. On the other hand, changing {{m.}} or {{d.}} for consistency with the rest would break an established convention and disrupt the workflow of other editors who are using the templates with their current meaning. Backwards compatibility is important. We should make our template-space self-consistent when possible, but only when this doesn't mess with what our editors are doing. To bring it back on topic, {{Transl}} is very widely used. People know what it does and they expect it to keep doing it. If anything, I feel that changing the meaning of established templates/template redirects is a very good way to discourage people (especially editors who don't care about the technical parts of WP) from learning how to use them. Nickps (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and a few more data points these should probably be noted: wikt:transl. (mentioning "translate", "translator" and "translation"), Template talk:Transliteration/Archive 1#Requested move 22 February 2022 (discussion about the move from {{transl}} to {{transliteration}}). As well as the current potential for things like this that currently still exist: {{#invoke:lang|transl|...}}; I am aware few want to directly use parser functions in this way, in much the same way few want to invoke templates like: {{msg:transl|...}}. Also, x86 instruction listings lists an XLAT instruction described as: "Table look-up translation". I personally like {{xlat|...}} and {{xlit|...}} but I am not sure those would be particularly popular among editors here. —Uzume (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Trans.}} and {{Transl.}}, they only have resp. 16 and 1 transclusions. Definitely Keep {{Transl}}, which has been in use like that since 2007 and has >30K transclusions, no good reason to cause disruption there. No strong opinion on what to do with {{Trans}}. --rchard2scout (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFD notice was causing WP:PEIS issues on some pages, so some templates using {{transl}} were modified, for example {{RTGS}}, and more. The number of transclusions are now at just 13K. Meaning that the vast majority of its usage actually came from indirect template calls. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The English Wiktionary generally uses the parameter names t for translations and tr for transliterations. xlit is also used for transliterations; this suggests xlat for translations, though that isn't used AFAIK. The English Wikipedia's tlit for transliterations and tlat for translations seem ideal to me. Trans(l)(.) are all both too ambiguous and too long to be particularly useful and therefore shouldn't be used at all, IMO. 0DF (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree with the idea that these 4 template redirects don't exist at all. However, I do not agree that any ambiguous redirect, especially {{transl}}, be kept just because it was in use historically. At the very least, {{transl}} should be modified to {{tlit}} as a part of AWB's general fixes. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this is that the AWB template name-change maintainers don't believe in shortcuts (or site-wide consensus, and don't listen to any criticism) and try to expand every template name to the maximally long and distracting possibility for each template. I don't think it would be possible to get them to adopt "tlit". –jacobolus (t) 21:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacing all uses of {{transl}} with either {{translit}} or {{tlit}}; transl is ambiguous and could refer to either translation or transliteration. {{transl}} is either transcluded or directly linked on over 23,500 pages, so this would be a perfect bot task. I do not believe this replacement would be disruptive since a bot could complete the task very quickly and the changes would generally be transparent to the public, with only the edit history to indicate that the change had been made. Once complete, I think {{transl}} should be deleted. I also believe that the 12 pages that use {{transl.}} and the 27 pages that use {{trans.}} can easily be updated by hand to use {{trans}}, then they can also be deleted. Of course, the documentation for both {{translation}} and {{transliteration}} would have to be updated to reflect these changes. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 17#Template:Translit closed as delete, after replaced or subst all 473 transclusions, but there are now over 500 transclusions now. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Template talk:Transliteration#Requested move 5 April 2024, the shorter template shortcut the better, so I'm going with {{tlit}}, which has 381 transclusions and is about to have a lot more. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: As noted by Wbm1058, {{translit}} was previously deleted targeted and marked for deletion, so all of those transclusions should be changed to {{tlit}}. I have updated my !vote appropriately. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I FIXED the over 300 cases which were disrupting talk page {{error}} detection, as it was obvious this discussion would take weeks to close. Someone else, who thinks it's importatnt to fix things that aren't broken, should step up and do the ones in mainspace. My time is still oversubscribed with fixing things that actually are broken. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFD tags have been removed from each of the nominated redirect shortly afterwards, so it would no longer cause an issue. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the shortened form of transliteration of translation are both the same, wouldn't that create ambiguity as for which one it should mean? I think a good idea would be to have translat be shorthand for translation and translit be shorthand for transliteration to make it much more clear about whatever it should mean when the shortened forms are used. -GeniusWorkbench4622 00:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget {{transl}} should definitely point to {{transliteration}}, and {{transl.}} should either also point there or be deleted; {{trans}} should definitely point to {{translation}}, and {{trans.}} can either also point there or be deleted. Deleting either {{trans}} or {{transl}} would be incredibly annoying and disruptive. Feel free to get a bot to auto-replace the abbreviation {{transl}} with {{tlit}}, but please don't replace it with anything longer than {{transl}}. –jacobolus (t) 06:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. They are all ambiguous, and there is no reasonable way to determine or decide which one(s) should point to "translation" and which to "transliteration". Only unambiguous shortcuts for these two words should be used. Case in point: I just fixed an incorrect use of {{transl.}}, which is targeted to {{transliteration}} but which was being used to mean {{translation}}. (ETA: I was confused; {{transl.}} is targeted to {{translation}}. A different illustration of the problem, I suppose.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting all of these would be incredibly disruptive for no practical benefit.
    Words of any kind (not just abbreviations) are always ambiguous or even meaningless until they are known to speakers/listeners, and they only become known through practical use.
    The real problem here is not that "transl" is ambiguous per se but that "transl." and "transl" point to different places, when the only difference is the trivial addition of a ".", a symbol not obvious enough to imply a difference, and very easy to get confused about.
    The obvious solution is also the minimally invasive one in this case: get rid of "transl." and/or redirect it to point the same place as "transl". –jacobolus (t) 20:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{transl}} pointing to {{transliteration}} and delete the others, or just delete them all. But I definitely oppose retargetting. These names were poorly thought out and are inherently ambiguous. But they are well established and understood by editors. Changing from one ambiguous redirect to a different just as ambiguous redirect is not an improvement. Retargetting would only surprise everyone increasing confusion and misuse without any clear benefit. – MwGamera (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion has wrecked havoc on thousands of pages, turning "transl." into "‹See RfD›". WP: space discussions should not impinge upon main article space in this way - it's deeply confusing to readers. Could something be done to ensure that this does not happen in future? Furius (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Not really. You being here means the note did its purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    which is what, to disrupt the normal use of the site due to administrative disagreements? 95% of users (myself included) don't care at all about which leads to what. This discussion has been significantly more disruptive than the issue it attempts to address. Ryderd93 (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a problem with it, discuss it on the proper page and possibly start a WP:RFC. Ironically, you are also here because of seeing a notice, so yeah, the fact this notification is almost everywhere means "...the note did its purpose...". Steel1943 (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would reduce similar incidents in the future if someone changed the text of {{high use}} to link instructions for how to non-disruptively nominate for deletion or other discussion. -- Beland (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (well, bypass all existing transclusions first) per Jonesey95. It's obvious these redirects are ambiguous, so we cannot expect those who transclude these titles to expect one target over another. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fix small number of transclusions of Trans. and Transl. because we don't generally use abbreviations with periods as redirects to templates, and they are ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These tags are super invasive and adding too much unnecessary filler on pages on non-English subjects. Just a few examples, so many sumo pages and sumo-related pages have these riddled all over the place, and it ends up making the articles harder to read and messier. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duyneuzaenasagae: Just FYI, this discussion is not to delete or change these templates, but rather the nominated redirects towards them. In theory, the amount of these tags should not change as a result of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{transl}} as is. This isn't worth the chaos that would be involved in retargeting or deleting it - this RfD has already caused enough chaos as is. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a consistent target, likely transliteration since it is used more. It's confusing to have "transl" and "trans" and etc. going to different places. I support deleting the ones with dots in them since they are disused and we don't name templates or their redirects that way. I really don't care about "xlat", "xlit", etc. This is too much bikeshedding over the plain-English strings "translation" and "transliteration" which can simply be copy-pasted at speed if someone needs to use either of them a bunch of times in the same piece. If people really want "xlat" and "xlit", or "tlat" and "tlit", or both, that's fine. But "t" and "tl" are just too ambiguous (plus at least "tl" already means something else as a template naming string – cf. {{tl}}, {{tlx}}, {{tlp}}, etc.) If some abbreviations are used, just be sensibly consistent with it. PS: If you don't understand what RfD is for and that it is not TfD, please don't comment at either venue until you do, or you just make a confused mess of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: just attempting to read this discussion makes my eyes start crossing and gives me a headache. I think what most people really truly actually want, is a software change/feature similar to what occurs now when people link a disambig page while editing: a popup coming up asking "Did you want translation or transliteration?" I confess I myself don't always recall top-of-my-head which of the two {{transl}} is for, so I go with the tested-and-true method of stick it in, preview my edit, let MediaWiki tell me which one. Since a process like RfD can't somehow directly change the site's running software, though, the conversation gets instead diverted down the bikeshedding pathway of "things the process can do", namely "make this template point at this one or that one", and since there's no objectively true and correct "right answer" (like there's no such answer to "what color is the best color to paint the bikeshed" (it's red, of course)), it comes down to just irreconcilable personal aesthetic preferences: "I want it this way" vs "I like it better that way". "transl" is, after all, a common prefix of both "translation" and "transliteration".
Given that, I think "status quo wins by default simply to avoid creating new messes where none exist" is probably the wise choice, and a different retargeted discussion ought to be opened, perhaps at WP:VPT, regarding "what kinds of things would people like to see happen when reaching for a template whose name is lingustically ambiguous". So anyway, pizza, I'm buying, which toppings y'all want on it? --Slowking Man (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I really truly actually want is parameters on {{lang}} and {{langx}} for translation and transliteration, with appropriate formatting for each combination. For example, {{lang|he|בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע|Be'er-Sheva|Well of the oath}} might render as בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע (Be'er-Sheva transl. he – transl. Well of the oath). Maybe a parameter for IPA as well.
OT: Why does {{translation}} generate transl. twice? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask its creator: Template:Translation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Originally it was what's now at Template:Translation info! Then after the move it redirected to the move target until 2019. --Slowking Man (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate {{transl.}} with {{transl}} by retargetting {{transl.}} to {{transliteration}} despite wikt:transl. based upon historic usage of {{transl}} and very sparse historic usage of {{transl.}} (currently zero actual transclusions) for {{translation}}. —Uzume (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for closer: If the meaning of {{transl}} is changed or the template is deleted, please ping me. I have spell-checking scripts that depend on this to know which language is being used in a given span. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep {{transl}}, {{trans}}; Strong Delete {{transl.}}, {{trans.}}. The period/dot versions don't need to exist, we don't do that with almost any other templates. Existing {{transl}} is well-established, no need to rock the boat or move deck chairs for supposed consistency.  — sbb (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus against the status quo, but everything else is unclear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep {{Transl}}, delete {{Translation}} and everything pointing to it (after replacing all instances with the term in single-quotes (single per MOS:SINGLE, so {{transl.|foo}} → 'foo'). If we have a foreign term in another script it is obviously not English; if we have a foreign term in italics next to that other script it is relatively obviously a transliteration (though I'd prefer a less ambiguous template name); if an English term appears in quotes after it (or in the same parenths) it is relatively obviously a translation of the foreign term and I find it unlikely many users would need "transl." before it in order to make that clear. Is al-Jazāʾir (الجزائر, 'the islands') really much less clear than al-Jazāʾir (الجزائر, transl. the islands), for example? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that {{Translation}} can be deleted here as it is not a redirect. It would need to be TFDed. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replace usages with the full name templates and delete redirects. I've dealt with language related templates for the past few years and when looking at the nomination had no idea which one lead to where without checking. Those names are incredibly bad and I'm not surprised some of the usages are meant for the other type. Gonnym (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2025 (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).

Space jail

[edit]

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 14:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too generic. The name "Space Jail" was also used in e.g. Revolution of the Daleks, see [1]. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a generic name. without an associated article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:27, 13 April 2025 (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).

Owel

[edit]

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) Cremastra talk 14:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current target is obscure, if someone types in "owel", it's probably much more likely a misspelling of "owl". (Edit: my suggestion is to disambiguate as per 65.92.246.77, because of the numerous other uses.) 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2025 (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).

State song

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 21#State song

Deligne motive

[edit]

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 07:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is only listed as a passing mention and should not be discussed in detail in a biography article anyway. Does not seem to be a helpful redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:50, 12 April 2025 (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).

Fire in the hole!

[edit]

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 Fire in the hole. ✗plicit 07:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable meme which does not have coverage at all in reliable sources (and so is not mentioned in the target article), and would not be a plausible redirect to Fire in the hole or whatever. Mori Calliope fan talk 01:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Fire in the hole per BD (no, not that one), Beefaloe and Thryduulf. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:04, 13 April 2025 (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).

Equine monochromaticity theorem

[edit]

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. Participants were split on whether the redirect term is obscure. There was more discussion on using the redirect term and other titles as the article title, but that is beyond the purview of this RfD. Jay 💬 15:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure joke; not an actual way to refer to this. A web search essentially only brings up a single YouTube video with "Equine monochromaticity" in the title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly move all horses are the same color to IT but that's a different issue entirely)
For some context, this is the youtube video qwer is talking about. 5.8K views on that video means that it's somewhat popular amongst the recreational maths community. Therefore, thanks to the process of elimination, we can assume that SOMEONE must've used the term "equine monochromaticity theorem" to refer to the project - probably in their private discord DMs or something. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an obscure but a standard fallacy for induction and often taught in classes and textbooks. While I can see that the current name might not be the best choice i don't get the alternative suggestion if it barely used as suggested above. Just pick one of the names actually used in literature for it, one of the would be horse paradox (see for instance [2]) Having said however literature (at least more recent one) also uses the the same title as wikipedia (see [3], [4])--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you think that 1234qwer1234qwer4 is proposing to move the All horses are the same color article to a different title? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kmhkmh could have been referring to Someone's move suggestion. Jay 💬 09:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not likely to be a term that someone would use in a search for this induction fallacy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2025 (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).

Moglinsters

[edit]

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 07:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of these in any of enwiki's articles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page histories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, even those AdventureQuest's species that I located in Fandom pages are considered as WP:FANCRUFT and too implausible.
✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 21:29, 17 April 2025 (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/2025_April_12&oldid=1287673984"