This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2024.
National culture
"National culture" is mentioned on the target page, but it isn't a subhead, and this seems to me to be a strange article to redirect this to. I'm not sure someone who searches for "national culture" will understand why they're on this page. I'm not excited about any of the alternatives I considered (Nationalism?), maybe someone here has a better idea? asilvering (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freeze, everybody clap your hands!
The addition of "Freeze" means that it can't be confused with Live at Tokyo Dome, but despite that, without a mention of this lyric, we don't have anything for readers that search the specific lyric of "everybody clap your hands" instead of the song itself. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an ((R without mention)). This line is basically the only one in the entire song, and I don't see any other likely target. FWIW, I didn't know the title of the song for several years but knew this line. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
basically the only one in the entire song
Wa-huh?? The Cha Cha Slide is basically nothing BUT lyrics, associated dance moves, a backing beat, and after the line Cha-Cha now, y'all, a short funky sting. Have you been listening to the same song I have??The main issue is that the song isn't referred to as the "Cha-Cha Slide" in the lyrics-- it's referred to as the Casper Slide Part 2.
...Wait, why isn'twasn't THAT a redirect...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. In addition, tagging a redirect with ((R without mention)) places the redirect in a maintenance category, Category:Redirects to an article without mention, that is cleared by adding a mention to the target article, deleting the redirects via WP:CSD, or nominating the redirects for WP:RFD ... meaning tagging the redirect as so then "keeping" the redirect is akin to kicking the can down the road, which is unhelpful since we are literally having the discussion about the redirect right now. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'know, maybe we should edit R Without Mention to more clearly state "hey, this is a maintenance category akin to ((template:Citation needed)), it's not meant to be kept on a redirect that intentionally doesn't have a mention on the target, don't tag it as this and then keep". Seems like I see quite a bit of people erroneously using R Without Mention's existence as an rcat as proof that Rs without mention are Okay in certain circumstances, akin to ((template:R from non-neutral name)). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe the maintenance category should be seperated from the tag, because there are plenty of situations where we don't need or want a mention at the target, but the redirect is still helpful to have. Incidentally, I agree with Presidentman above that this should be one such. Imagine if I get knocked down didn't redirect to Tubthumping... how would people find it? (yes I know Tubthumping does reference the line, but even if it didn't I'd hope this redirect would exist!) Keep. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue with that is that there would be nothing left to populate said maintenance category. ...Maybe there should be two separate rcats? ((R without mention)) and ((R intentionally without mention)), perhaps. (also rq: editing my first comment here to link to a relevant essay) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fil d'Ecosse
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]
Factor through
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 Factoring or Factorization are appropriate retargets. Those appear to mainly discuss decompositions as some sort of explicit product, which cannot in general be done for quotient objects (unless you count a short exact sequence as a "product"). Moreover, they focus on integers and polynomials. If I have ever heard the phrase "factor through" applied to numbers, I do not remember it. On the other hand, I may have heard distribution in 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]
Larissa Hodge
Not discussed at target with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]