Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 16, 2023.

Wikipedia:Zionism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 23#Wikipedia:Zionism

(Continuous) nowhere differentiable function

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 Differentiable function#Differentiability and continuity. Apologies for a prior incorrect close due to ctrl-c not grabbing the text of the redirect target, leading to the redirection of these pages to the result of a prior discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the Weierstrass function are misleading, as they imply that the Weierstrass function is the only function that is differentiable nowhere. The only related information on the topic within the article is the density of the continuous everywhere differentiable nowhere functions. Some other continuous functions that are differentiable nowhere with that being stated in the Wikipedia pages are the

Absolute value of a complex number
(with complex differentiation, the real derivative does exist for x != 0).

In regards to

WP:RDELETE#10 applies: the target has virtually no information on the redirect ("differentiable" is defined, but nowhere differentiable functions are mentioned only as the Weierstrass function), and this topic certainly can be expanded into an article. Randi Moth TalkContribs 22:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This nomination is not good. The Blancmange function is not nowhere differentiable, and the Koch snowflake article has precisely one (uncited!) sentence about nowhere differentiability, and absolutely no one ever talks about the property of being nowhere differentiable for complex functions. Meanwhile the article on Weierstrass function has information about one particular example and about the general class (which makes sense because, as is clearly explained there, the individual example was constructed specifically to illustrate something about the general class). If you want to write an article about nowhere differentiable functions, go ahead, but until you do, these redirects are all fine. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Blancmange function is nowhere differentiable,[1][2] and the Koch snowflake has also been constructed as an example of a curve that is continuous everywhere and differentiable nowhere: the lead of the original article talks how he sought to find a curve that is similar to the Weierstrass function but can be constructed geometrically, if Google Translate is accurate enough. Redirecting to the Weierstrass function may still be misleading with implying that it's the only nowhere differentiable function, so it may be best to move Weierstrass function § Density of nowhere-differentiable functions to Differentiable function and retarget each redirect there. Randi Moth TalkContribs 19:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that the contents of Weierstrass function § Density of nowhere-differentiable functions (i.e. that nowhere differentiable functions are typical among continuous functions) are already present in a more concise form at Differentiable function § Differentiability and continuity, so that move would mean just removing the section from Weierstrass function. So retarget all to Differentiable function § Differentiability and continuity. Randi Moth TalkContribs 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll: What do you think now that this has turned from a deletion nomination to a nomination to retarget / refine? Jay 💬 17:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: thanks for the ping. In my opinion our most detailed content about nowhere differentiable functions (and their history and significance) is still at Weierstrass function, so I would hope that if someone does a retargeting then they also do enough editing so that readers are not missing out on the content we do have. --JBL (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://mathworld.wolfram.com/BlancmangeFunction.html
  2. ^ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-blancmange-function%3A-Continuous-everywhere-but-Tall/ff7fb4cd2fa365f3b3c75c618e8ab38b36921876
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Equ

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. Consensus is for keeping the same target and pointing a hatnote at the newly created
(non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not quite sure why he just goes from directional to a less obvious word and starts with EQU? I think it should be turned into a DISApage and built in EQU and then retaget this page inward to EQU. Q𝟤𝟪 21:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Equ is the astronomical symbol for the constellation Equuleus. If any other meaning does exist, then, and only then, should the redirect become a disambig page. I could find no other meaning on any Wiktionary or Wikipedia page. There is no equ ISO 639 language code, for instance. Urhixidur (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur, But I see a lot of words beginning with Equ, The abbreviation for some of these words is Equ. Q𝟤𝟪 00:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Dillaby

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 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a hoax. "Dillaby" was added to Patagonian mara as another common in 2012 by an IP with no other edits. I haven't been able to find any sources for dillaby as a common name that weren't clearly scraped from Wikipedia, and I removed it from the article. The redirect should be deleted as well. Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The database says I created this iteration of it, but that was basically just a restoration of someone else's creation. Just chiming in to say that I don't have an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiable evidence or any stated etymology/origin. I note that I can find sources stating that it is a surname (albeit a rare one) which might explain the original vandalism. Anaxial (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Excalibur (make a separate article)

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 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created two years ago by a new user, seemingly as a request to have a second article on either the target topic or on

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

11 Piscis Austrini

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 List of stars in Piscis Austrinus. signed, Rosguill talk 04:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the redirects from stars I found for this constellation, but it is not listed at List of stars in Piscis Austrinus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a second star with a similar problem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it becomes clear that these stars do not exist, I am fine with deletion and they should be removed from Template:Piscis Austrinus. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been found. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they exist, they are both in SIMBAD: 11 PsA, 20 PsA. Most of the data that would be included in the list is also in SIMBAD (distance can be derived from parallax). SevenSpheres (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 07:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Information has not been added to the list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the list. They probably aren't notable enough to ever be mentioned in the article about the constellation, but both probably should be in the list as near-naked-eye stars. Certainly more notable than some other stars in constellation lists. Lithopsian (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    talk) 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to the list and tag as {{
    R without mention}}. The list looks complicated, otherwise I would have attempted to add then entries myself. Jay 💬 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Gran Matador Brandy

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.
(non-admin closure) J947 † edits 01:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This page title is not mentioned anywhere on the target page Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep added cited info in the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: That info has been removed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 07:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in that case. RfD should not be used to force content that the editors of an article do not want to appear. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a product of the company, as shown by Lenticel's citation that was added. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Scottish Trans

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.
(non-admin closure) J947 † edits 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Could feasibly be misleading to suggest an article about transgender people in Scotland, or the like. Not certain to what extent that it could reflect the STA that it is redirected to. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "Scottish Trans" is the current brand for "Scottish Trans Alliance". There was rebranding in 2017. However, I couldn't find a source that explicitly says that "Scottish Trans" is the new brand for "Scottish Trans Alliance" and if I recall rightly there were some more recent articles that referred to it as STA. So I'd argue not to delete the redirect. AndyGordon (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as primary topic. The website uses "Scottish Trans" as its main name. Was there another group this could refer to? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in target. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mentioned in the reference as its official website to support the staff members count. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

February 6 earthquake

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 31#February 6 earthquake

Kloreen

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 07:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Highly implausible redirect, seems to be a phonetic joke. 141Pr {contribs} 18:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly phonetic, but it's not a joke. Creation edit summary: Created redirect. There was a mass discussion, but literally only two people argued this one should be deleted. While awkward, it IS a plausible phonetic spelling, and there's no harm in keeping it. Old RfDs added. This is perhaps not completely implausible either. J947 † edits 21:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nomination and per the last RFD, which was unanimous: [1]. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches point to non-notable entertainers. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a repost of what was deleted on 2019 September 29. Even aside from that, the votes for the 2019 September 20 discussion can be ignored: most of the voters (including me, but I don't remember participating) either wanted to keep one or two particular items, or wanted to keep everything on procedural grounds. The latter option basically says "this is a messy nomination, so keep everything and renominate a few individual items at a time". (It's not an argument for keeping any particular item.) Since that approach won the day, someone followed the instructions and renominated Kloreen a few days later, and it was deleted. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Ben Carlton

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Ben Carlton

Ice Blonde

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Ice Blonde

Alexandrina Victoria von Wettin, nee Hanover

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, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Implausible search term. Estar8806 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as completely unsubstantiated, much less mentioned, in target article. "Wettin" does not appear at all in the target article; Hanover is only mentioned as House of Hanover, not "nee". So at this point this redirect is some sort of POINTy misinformation. If someone believes the details to be true, that should be taken up on the talkpage of the article, not via a subversive redirect. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a search confirms that the name "Alexandrina Victoria von Wettin" is sometimes mentioned as an alternative name for Queen Victoria, but I can't find any evidence of anyone actually using it as her name. Not a plausible search term; doesn't appear in the article. (And see Talk:Queen Victoria/Surname for a previous extremely tedious argument about whether it was her name in any meaningful sense). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Ambrosial

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 23#Ambrosial

Discovery's Son

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, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name in the infobox is unsourced, elsewhere in the article it is just known as "Discovery". Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently meaningless, confusing redirect and never mentioned in target. Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I can't find a good target via a cursory Google Search either --Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Crichy Crich

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 03:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same person; nonsensical to redirect to another artist's discography Jalen Folf (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, retarget, or create article - Crichy Crich performed "
    Army to Your Party" with Orgy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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_May_16&oldid=1158051763"