Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

April 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2024.

Moira Sullivan (Smallville)

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. Jay 💬 18:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While not directly mentioned with the surname, the character Moira is mentioned at Smallville season 6#ep128, though only appears in that one episode. The character's name in full is listed at Lynda Carter#Filmography and Superman (franchise)#Recurring cast, so I would suggest retarget to that episode description or to Lynda Carter's article, though leaning closer to the episode description as it does offer more details on this character and Carter's role than the other two sections do. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Trailblazer101, as the character is mentioned at the target. Given the disambiguator it makes more sense to target the TV season article than the other suggested targets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth discussion where the (currently salted due to someone else with the same name) Moira Sullivan should point, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:59, 18 April 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
).

Linda Baldwin (Coronation Street)

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.
(non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Linda Baldwin is an alternative name for Linda Sykes listed at the target article. While the name was updated at some point in the list (it used to say Baldwin), the redirect was not. Now updated. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, maybe refine target to the Linda Sykes section. This didn't need to be relisted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:44, 18 April 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
).

Jeez

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.
(non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

When I nominated this title in 2015 (

WP:G4 since the redirect did not target Wiktionary back then, but no participants, besides myself, had voted for retargeting to Wiktionary. For this reason, I'm bringing this up for discussion to see if the redirect should be re-deleted, kept in its current form, or something else. (For consistency's sake, I support the previous consensus ... "delete".) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; seems harmless enough and gets you to the right target. I'm unsure why Wiktionary lists "Jeez" as an alternate spelling of "Geez", and then turns around and defines "Geez" as a minced oath for "
Ge'ez, aka Classical Ethiopian, with not a single mention of a minced oath (though it does hatnote to Geez (magazine).) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As long as Template talk:Wiktionary redirect is extant, I see no reason to delete this. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 18 April 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
).

Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26#Oncotype DX Colon Cancer Assay

Superhero landing

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page has no (non-tangentially) relevant content. If someone can find a page that talks about these then I'd support a retarget, but for now, I'm leaning delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm most familiar with the term from the Deadpool films but none of our series of related articles mentions this, and it's not specific enough to this franchise for a {{
    R without mention}}. The phrase appears in Carrot and Stick, an episode of Better Call Saul, but doesn't describe what it is at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Carrot and stick? I don't think reliable sources analyzed the title. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Carrot and Stick (capital S). The phrase is quoted in a description of a stunt performed on the TV show. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know, but I don't think reliable sources analyzed that part to be about the expression, and we have a link to the expression anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:REDLINK someone can write an article on the stereotypical landing position found in comic books for superheros -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 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
).

Drama Juniors Marathi

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25#Drama Juniors Marathi

Jau Bai Gavat Unseen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25#Jau Bai Gavat Unseen

Basilan Unity Party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25#Basilan Unity Party

I luv u

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
(non-admin closure) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

With multiple pages on the I Love You page that spell love as "luv", someone's anal tattoo is certainly not the primary topic for a shortened version of the most common phrase in the English language. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:48, 17 April 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
).

Hornless unicorn

Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general

WP:SYNTH explanation for horse. Unicorn, Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with Unicorn and Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is
original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.
  • Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
  • Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead
If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a description in Unicorn article: "depicted as a white horse-like or goat-like animal with a long straight horn with spiralling grooves, cloven hooves, and sometimes a goat's beard" and often "an ox tail". Far from a horse; closer to cattle. If someone wants to know what a "hornless unicorn" is, they can go to Unicorn and figure it out. Going to Horse won't help them at all, since horses don't have cloven hooves, horns, beards, or tails like that.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Huh. That's... not usually what I think of when I think of unicorns. In the modern day, unicorns really are depicted as "just slap a horn on a horse"-- after all, if you need a live-action shot of a unicorn, getting cloven hooves and an ox tail is a tall order, and the thing people notice first has always been the horn anyways. There's also the My Little Pony franchise, where unicorns are simply ponies with horns, but given a pony is just a horse with dwarfism...
My point is that that article needs some work, clearly-- it completely fails to talk about contemporary understanding/depiction of unicorns. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOTFORUM. This RFD is about whether or not to delete or change the redirect Hornless unicorn. You're welcome to edit Unicorn to add whatever you can appropriately source, but based on your edit history you don't actually do any content editing, but just post comments on RFDs. I can't even imagine being holed up here. You really should branch out and get more experience around Wikipedia. It's much more fun.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think this falls under NOTFORUM, as people's impressions of unicorns are indeed relevant to the deciding factor of this discussion. Though I agree that one might have a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think My Little Pony ponies are horses either: they have no separate hooves at all, and you can't really distinguish if that's an ox tail or a horse tail, so you can't see if they're unicorns that fit the article's description. I agree that you should probably get a really reliable source that says that hornless unicorns are just horses. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since any other action appears to be ambiguous guesswork. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A unicorn is a horse with special features, so when you eliminate those features it reverts back to its original state. The whole unicorn belief is based on the supposed magical powers of the horn. In fact, the horn is what makes the unicorn, not the horse. I rest my case. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misunderstanding about this subject which is not supported by reliable sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, you just have to apply
common sense here. Not everything has to be used/supported by reliable sources. Urban terms are a thing. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't take your word that unicorns are perceived as just horses with horns, and most people above seem to disagree. Evidence much? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To suggest that people will search for a member of an empty set such as a hornless unicorn is laughable. Incorrect search term that no is remotely likely to search for. TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath: Laughable is an obviously extreme interpretation. I might avoid disparaging others with comments such as these. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:NN

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Honestly, I have no idea how this

CAT:NN has 500+ links. Cat:NN has zero, besides the deletion notifications. If someone wants to campaign for the existence of a new lowercase "Cat" namespace, that should be done before the existence of these redirects. (Which as per Pandora's WikiBox, the existence of one has since introduced two more also bundled). Utopes (talk / cont) 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Misleading, found no kitties inside the namespace. More seriously, having lowerspace variants of pseudo-namespaces would be unmaintainable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only made this two because of the existence of Cat:NN and because using caps lock sucks on phones, you're more than welcome to speedy them under author requests deletion so we don't have to drag this out for a week. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment! I was kind of confused why those two came about. A discussion seems inevitable though at minimum for Cat:NN as that was kept a few months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cat:prod averages about 2 pageviews each day, since it's convenient to just keyboard type lowercase stuff. However the search thing "redirects" capitalization already anyways Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat:prod was created a month ago. I'm not surprised that it gets views because CAT:PROD also gets a substantial amount of views, and people type in lowercase expecting to autocorrect by the software (which it does). If redirects are meant to optimize view-numbers, we'd get rid of capitals entirely. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed adoodie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25#Ahmed adoodie

Democratic Labour Party (historical)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25#Democratic Labour Party (historical)

Heil mein Führer!

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.
(non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Already exists in a similar form at

Heil, mein Fuhrer!, not sure if this iteration would be useful. Deauthorized. (talk) 16:08, 17 April 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
).

Joever

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Joever

Windows 8.3

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 deleted by Primefac. ✗plicit 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent version of Windows, in fact, Windows 8.2 doesn't exist either. Not the first time this happens, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Draft:Windows 8.4 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Draft:Windows 8.25 for previous speedy deletes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 17 April 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
).

Ten News First Late

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 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate names inconsistent with current and former usage. Particularly the combination of "Ten Late News and Sports Tonight", in reality a branded sports segment within the main program. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 13:11, 17 April 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
).

List of lists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#List of lists

Death is a preferable alternative to communism

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 💬 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't mentioned in the slightest in the target article. I assume it's a game quote but given the total lack of sourcing, a redirect such as this is confusing and should be deleted. Try Wikiquote instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's a quote in the game, popular among people who think it "goes hard" and love missing the point and context of lines like this. plenty of hits, though, i won't deny
my opinion mirrors that of the gorbino's quest rfd a few days ago. keep if a mention can be made, weak delete otherwise
for possible sources, i uhhhh
found this? not gonna comment on its reliability because i'm not a fallout nerd (yet) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indeed a quote from Liberty Prime, a giant robot who throws full-size nuclear bombs like footballs while spouting off anti-communist propaganda slogans. Given Liberty Prime is afforded all of one sentence in this article (merely attesting to its existence and role in the story), it's probably safe to delete this. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Compared to "War, war never changes", it's far less known. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:01, 19 April 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
).

Ductal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Ductal

Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer)

Extinct World

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed several redirects at RfD disambiguated with Extinct World - The Lich, BMO, Ice King, Gunter, etc., and wanted to know what this is. However, this too turned out to be a redirect which led to an episode which had no information about the term.

The episode plot has a link to Finn the Human and Jake the Dog which has a mention of extinction of all life, but this too is insufficient to justify a redirect like Extinct World which is a generic term (not considering the caps). Delete. Jay 💬 05:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Jay. The name "Extinct World" is fan-dubbed and is not ever mentioned in the show; even if it was, I doubt the notability and necessity of the supposed redirect and it may too trivial. I believe the name is too general and it is totally possible that it can refer to something more notable. Delete. - George6VI (talk) 00:14, 18 April 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
).

Template:WikiProject Animals in Media

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 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XNR to non-template. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 17 April 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
).

National culture

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#National culture

Freeze, everybody clap your hands!

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 28#Freeze, everybody clap your hands!

Fil d'Ecosse

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
(non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Created with the edit summary of "red". Might've been a solution to a red link at the time? No pages link to this title, and neither "fil" nor "ecosse" appear at the target article. Apparently an alternate language, the only mention of "fil d'ecosse" on Wikipedia is as a cotton variation, i.e. Cotton lisle, or "fil d'ecosse cotton". Utopes (talk / cont) 23:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the term is written in French, so if borrowed back into English, that would make sense if it originated in the French city of Lille (Lisle). This cotton thread is mercerised (gone through mercerisation),[1][2] a process invented by John Mercer, someone of Scottish heritage [3] . This "Fil d'Ecosse" == Scottish thread. Also seems to be used in Scottish cotton goods. So, the correct target would seem to be Cotton lisle. Cotton lisle needs updating to mention mercization [4] -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cotton lisle, where the term is at least mentioned, though that article could indeed do with being expanded. Also note that there is another redirect Fil d'Écosse (with correct French capitalisation of the diacritic) created at the same time as this one and that should be kept in sync with it. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 17 April 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
).

Factor through

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 Glossary of mathematical jargon#factor through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "factor" nor "through" are mentioned at the target article. Hypothetically this seems to be much more plausible as a redirect to Factoring or Factorization, but even then this may not be incredibly necessary for either... Utopes (talk / cont) 21:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Factoring through" is a mathematical English idiom for situations in which the Fundamental theorem on homomorphisms applies. See, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (one site but many users); it likely also appears in standard abstract algebra texts, e.g. Dummit and Foote, or Lang; and some quick Ctrl+F's show that Pete Clark's expositions use the term, although never with a clear definition. It is certainly unfortunate that this usage does not appear on the current target, although I think this is a flaw in that page and not the redirect.
I do not think
polynomial arithmetic
described that way.
A less surprising target might be Glossary of mathematical jargon § factor through, although I personally find that target less useful (for one thing, the phrase is hardly restricted to "category theory"; for another, the definition fails to make the connection to the Fundamental Theorem explicit). Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 17 April 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
).

Larissa Hodge

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Larissa Hodge

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_17&oldid=1221573110"