Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 16, 2022.

FSOK[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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FSOK not located in article,( should be deleted) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: What's the target page? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that I forgot to include it...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention of how this acronym came about. Maybe they mean BSOK, but even that one is not mentioned. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC) updated 05:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep add without mention or add abbreviation at first mention in article and former abbreviation for Fox Sports Oklahoma [1] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
however FSOK is not in the article, it is presumed the article creator should have included it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google doesn't appear to return anything about Bally Sports Oklahoma though the redirect does show up and there is an option to see results about Bally Sports Oklahoma which could partly be due to this redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Crouch, Swale's observation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Crouch, Swale. Prior to the most recent relist, I was considering posting a delete vote for the exact same sort of reason. This seems like a "chicken/egg" scenario; it seems that third-party websites think that this acronym means something just because it's a redirect on Wikipedia, but the other way around was never established by any other source. Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with having the redirect even if ambiguous on Google if it was at least covered in the target but it isn't and generally redirects need to have the topic mentioned in the target per WP:R#PLA however as mentioned Fox Sports Oklahoma does seem to be known by this per AngusWOOF's source so I'd say weak keep but per WP:DABABBREV it should be mentioned in the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. These comment traps, whether unintentional or not, get old. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the term does appear to be widely used (on Wikipedia at least). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's why I stated "delete" because it seems though that is true, it is not found widespread anywhere else. It is like the acronym is an invention which started on Wikipedia and then third-party sources used Wikipedia as a source. Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have found mention of Fox Sports Oklahoma (the predecessor to Bally Sports Oklahoma) being called FSOK in The Oklahoman which is a WP:RS.[1]. As this article is from 2012, but the creation of this redirect is more recent than the date of publication, i would argue that this is not citogenesis. TartarTorte 17:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "OKC Thunder: FSOK studio analyst Stephen Howard appreciates Thunder's work ethic".
  • OK, I've but "FSOK" in the section in bold so we should probably be fine to keep and if other uses come along it can become a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2022 (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).

Simón Bolívar Day[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simón Bolívar Day is a day celebrated in a number of South American countries, but is not mentioned at the target. It seems like this could probably be its own article anyways, so with the lack of appropriate target and the potential for this to be its own article, I think this should be deleted under WP:REDYES. TartarTorte 13:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Legacy section of the target article mentions that his birthday is celebrated in various South American countries, so I've modifed the redirect to go to that section. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While mentioned in the section that Colonies Chris refined the target to, I feel REDYES applies here. A public holiday in (at least) two countries seems like a plausibly notable topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 16 November 2022 (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).

Ver.1.01[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 00:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very ambiguous name; hardly specific to Nikon. The reason this redirect was created was because of some file metadata links in Commons (eg here). {userpage! | talk!} 22:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too ambiguous to retarget anywhere and could easily be confused with anything that uses version numbers (googling it returns results for a Sony firmware update, an update for a Square Enix game, another firmware updates, etc.) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unspecific to Nikon. If Commons wants to link to an article from the metadata, it should qualify that software with the manufacturer to give it context. And..... we would have to have an article on the software/firmware to link to. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too much of a generic term. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:14, 19 November 2022 (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).

Kriyayoga[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 consensus against current target; very rough consensus to restore previous target. Discounting arguments about backlinks, which are not a reason to avoid retargeting, I do see a very rough consensus where Steel sees no consensus. But it is rough enough that, for purposes of reconsideration, this is better treated more like a no-consensus. That is to say, a new RfD in a few months' time, to determine whether Jay's proposal or any other would be preferable to Kriya (disambiguation), would be fair. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected Kriyayoga to Kriya (disambiguation) as I consider the term to be ambiguous, consistent with Kriya Yoga which also redirects there (because I swapped Kriya (disambiguation) and Kriya Yoga). @The Banner: reverted so that it points to Classes of Tantra in Tibetan Buddhism#Nyingma classification (an entry on the disambiguation page) with edit comment "linking to a disambig page is not a good idea". So, is "Kriyayoga" ambiguous and/or where should the redirect target? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least the creation of 200+ links to disambiguation pages is not a good idea. The Banner talk 18:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Due to perhaps hundreds of links going to this redirect. I switch my vote to Neutral since I am not sure either to delete or keep. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just because many links link to Kriyayoga does not mean it's at the right target. If this were to be retargeted, someone (I could do it if the decision goes that way, just ping me) can use AWB to replace [[Kriyayoga]] with [[Classes of Tantra in Tibetan Bhuddism#Nyingma classifiation|Kriyayoga]]. Having said that, hundreds of links to the specified target is generally rare when it is not WP:PTOPIC, but not unheard of. TartarTorte 22:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try again?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 21:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore previous target to Kriya (disambiguation) per nom, which is consistent with the other similar redirect at Kriya Yoga; and I concur with the nom that this redirect is rather ambiguous, so it's better to have this target there instead. CycloneYoris talk! 22:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget this and Kriya Yoga to Yoga Sutras of Patanjali#Kriya Yoga? Ideally this should be a standalone article though. Jay 💬 15:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page. The current target is a rather obscure topic in Tibetan Tantrism. Kriya Yoga school alone is several orders of magnitude more popular and could have easily been the primary topic itself if weren't for the broad article at Kriya. – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After the 2nd relist, multiple different options for retargeting were presented. At this point, consensus is still unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2022 (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).

Curved line & Linear curve[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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between the two targets mention in these redirects, it is not clear which one of the two targets these redirection target. The article Line (geometry) states that a line can be "straight" or "curved". However, the article Curve states that an alternate name for the subject is "curved line". For these reasons, it is unclear if these redirects should target different targets, target the same target, or just straight up deleted per WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Curved line and delete Linear curve: The first one occurs in the first line of the target article; the second one does not appear in any of the targets, and, as far as I know, is not used in mathematics. I guess that some editor has been confused by the fact that the graph of a function is a curve, and the graph of a linear function is a line. D.Lazard (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. A curved line is a curve. A linear curve is another term for a straight line (see e.g. doi:10.1063/1.463178 [2]), which redirects to line (geometry). It's a term mostly encountered in curve fitting contexts, where a first degree curve is a linear curve, second degree curve is a quadratic, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. In pure math, specially in the last century, a "line" is strictly rectilinear while a "curve" may be rectilinear. To add to the confusion, some non-rectilinear curves are considered linear functions, such as polynomials (e.g., linear regression). But in older texts, the distinction is not as clear cut, hence the historical need for the terms "straight line" and "curved line". In applied math, however, "linear curve" (a straight line) and especially "non-linear curve" (curves that are not lines) are very common in the context of curve fitting and computer-aided design (CAD), e.g.: Linear Bézier curves, piecewise linear curve, etc. fgnievinski (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2022 (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).

Human energy field[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 Energy field#Pseudoscience. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vague redirect. For one, auras are not limited to humans. Also, humans may also have and/or generate other "energy fields" listed at Energy field at various times, including Electromagnetic field and Gravitational field. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better target? As near as I can figure, the aura is a visible manifestation of the human energy field. (Note that both are fictive religious concepts, but that's a different discussion. I just want to make it clear I'm not a believer. I don't want my reputation or scientific credibility endangered.) The HEF suffers from a "lack of evidence to support the concept of the HEF as a phenomenon".[3] The same could be said of the aura. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue I'm stating in my nomination statement. What I'm stating is that the phrase could be considered ambiguous, and thus has no specific target. In other words, I believe deletion is the best option for this redirect so readers can figure out what they're trying to look for it they search this term. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Electromagnetic field and Gravitational field are about scientific concepts, not paranormal, spiritual, alternative medicine, or religious concepts. They should be ignored. The "energy fields" listed at Energy field are what we're talking about, and Aura (paranormal) is the one most closely related, so, as a directly related topic, the redirect serves a purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Electromagnetic field and Gravitational field are about scientific concepts, not paranormal, spiritual, alternative medicine, or religious concepts". That's good to know, but the statement is sort of a red herring to the issue I stated since the title of the redirect does not make it clear it is supposed to exclude anything in particular other than anything non-human, and I've already stated that Electromagnetic field and Gravitational field could be related to humans as humans have those as well. (Humans' "fields" may not be a strong as other objects' electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields, but humans do have them.) Without there being any evidence that the phrase "human energy field" is a term that specifically refers to anything, the phrase as worded is vague for the reasons I already stated. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Energy field#Pseudoscience as an {{R from ambiguous term}}. Seems pretty vague...any of those seem like reasonable targets, and this at least gets the user in the ballpark. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I prefer deletion over this option per my aforementioned statements, it would probably be better to scrap the section redirect on this option and retarget straight to Energy field since the linked section doesn't contain all aforementioned articles/subjects, but rather supports the current status quo. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect to the section would be the most accurate, and we do this all the time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost like the entire point I made went right over your head. I'd recommend re-reading what I stated. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just accepted the "retarget" suggestion, thus not accepting your suggestion. It would be more accurate to say that your point went right through my head, and while passing, it found no nesting place and was allowed to continue its journey. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Valjean. I disagree that "human energy field" is ambiguous and that it would be confused to refer to electromagnetic or gravitational fields. Sure, humans do have an electromagnetic field, but is that what someone using this search term is looking for? As an alternate, I would be fine with a redirect to Energy field#Pseudoscience. Natg 19 (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I had suspected that this phrase could also refer to a subject such as aura, and sure enough, it does: the phrase "Human energy field" could also refer to Qi. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I'm not mistaken, Qi refers to invisible internal forces/energies, rather than visible forces outside/surrounding the body, described as a HEF. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the text of the article, it seems to define the subject as a field of energy that can be generated by humans. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is, without any scientific evidence, described as "a colored emanation said to enclose a human body or any animal or object." This is, as implied by the "said to," all "imaginary fantasy castles in the sky" stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          So ... what you are saying is that a concept cannot be fictional at all for it to be a valid search term? That's just ludicrous. A concept is a concept, regardless if it's fictional or fact ... and even then, I could claim that the whole concept of Aura (paranormal) is also fictional. What is important is if a concept can be described ... and from what we are both stating at this point, the phrase "human energy field" could refer to Aura (paranormal) or Qi. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I have no idea where you got any of that impression. I was only responding to your comment and did not mention redirects at all. You should strike everything before "What is important..."
          Now to your latest comment... No, HEF, something allegedly outside the body (because it is allegedly visible), would not apply to Qi as that pseudoscientific concept is allegedly internal, not outside the body. I don't know of any claims that Qi is external or that HEF is internal. They seem to describe two different things. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Fair enough (not striking anything though since that's how I read it) ... but the point here is to explain that either of the topics Aura (paranormal) or Qi could be described as a "human energy field". The aforementioned phrase "human energy field" does not contain any word that makes it clear it is supposed to represent something "outside" or "inside" anything, thus the phrase "human energy field" can be considered ambiguous in describing either concept. Steel1943 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're fumbling in the dark here as we aren't currently discussing an HEF article with sourcing, hence the redirect to an article that is at least tangentially related.

We can safely eliminate Electromagnetic field and Gravitational field as targets as no RS that I know of connects them to purported HEFs of the religio/philosophical type. That leaves us with the current Aura (paranormal) target or the target suggested by Natg 19 at Energy field#Pseudoscience. We are at least in the ballpark with them.

Your original comment ("For one, auras are not limited to humans. Also, humans may also have and/or generate other "energy fields" listed at Energy field at various times, including Electromagnetic field and Gravitational field.") is fringe OR speculation, so, without sources, it doesn't help us.

Another option is to create a properly sourced article. You are welcome to do that. It would fill an existing hole in our poor coverage of the topic. Whether it's a fictive idea or not is irrelevant as we are supposed to document all types of human knowledge that is mentioned in reliable sources.

Until then, we should keep the current target or change to the suggested one. I can go either way. Do those three options make sense to you? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requirements don't apply to redirects, so I'm refusing to debate this non-point. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:N is not a requirement for a redirect, and I never mentioned N or asserted it was a requirement, but the target should still be on-topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ... and there seem to be multiple "on-topic" options, especially Aura (paranormal) and Qi, which is why I believe deletion of the redirect is the best resolution. I think what I'm getting at here is that I think I truly have exhausted my ability to explain this further as I seem to be repeating myself. Steel1943 (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Energy field#Pseudoscience per IP35, Natg, and Valjean. Oppose the unrefined retarget suggestion to Energy field, most of which are generic, and not human specific. If we had targets for the electromagnetic, gravitational concepts relative to humans, then this could be made a WP:BCA. My issue with Qi is that it's not about a "field". There is one minor sentence that is about a Qi field, but I don't think ambiguity can be justified based on that. The description at Prana has similarities to Qi, and a dab or a BCA would have been fine for Human energy as well, but here we are discussing the energy field. If there are more suitable entries, they may be added to Energy field#Pseudoscience, or create a section Energy field#Human, in which case I would agree with the non-refined redirect. Jay 💬 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Energy field#Pseudoscience. It is better than the current target. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:17, 25 November 2022 (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).

Home Video Computer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Home Video Computer

List of ancient Jedi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#List of ancient Jedi

MOS:DIALECT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#MOS:DIALECT

Juvinile Orion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Juvinile Orion

Hitler's dinner[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 03:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term. The article is about Hitler being a vegetarian near the end of his life, not about any specific dinner or meal. MB 03:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It was created a couple of months ago and most days it doesn't get a single hit(ler). Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful --Lenticel (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term and unclear target. Jontesta (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and possibly send to WP:DAFT. Hitler was only a vegetarian during the end of his life. There is also no article nor subsection on what Hitler’s diet was for the majority of his life. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:15, 22 November 2022 (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).

2022 congress election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#2022 congress election

Mud monsters[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. Jay 💬 02:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mentioned in target. Delete per WP:ASTONISH. "Mud monster" is used in various articles, I think mostly to refer to a monster made from mud, but I don't see a better target. MB 02:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It has no specific meaning in this show. I wrote the main series article and I have no idea what this refers to. Fieryninja (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are some hits on mud monster but I don't think it's useful to target this redirect to those articles. --Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more functional as a search term than as a redirect or disambiguation. Jontesta (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2022 (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).

Horizon (IT system)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Horizon (IT system)

Liangpiao[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. Jay 💬 01:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. Term means "ration coupon", not specifically for grain ([4]). Recommend Delete. MB 01:03, 16 November 2022 (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/2022_November_16&oldid=1125653667"