< August 9
August 11 >

August 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2022.

Nightmare Alley (upcominh film)

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. WP:SNOW applies. ✗plicit 14:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target not upcoming, upcoming misspelled. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:GIF

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 00:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect; I'd expect WP:GIF to be a shortcut for a page about GIF animations on Wikipedia, not a DYK nomination. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 10 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Target subjects no longer "upcoming"

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. WP:SNOW applies. ✗plicit 14:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming. In addition, none of these redirects have any incoming links from the "article" space. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is probably obvious, but please make sure there's no older content in the histories of these redirects before deleting. (If they are the result of page moves, that's unlikely the case but you never know). Any redirects that have significant content entries should be history merged into the main film article. Masem (t) 14:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirects like these should be added to WP:G8, in analogy to Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted. As soon as the target is released, no upcoming film of that title any longer exists, so the redirect becomes misleading. Paradoctor (talk) 23:05, 13 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Unknown Pollutant

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. GedUK  20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown" is not mentioned at the target, nor does the target suggest that it is a term for unknown pollutants. Google Scholar searches don't suggest that these terms are used interchangeably. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense! Sorry about that. I thought it may be of use as that is a word i searched when i was searching for "Contaminants of Emerging Concern" after forgetting the exact term, so i thought it would be of use as a redirect. Although given the precedent doesn't exist, and that Wikipedia is more official than the wiki work i am used to, and that "unknown" doesn't necessarily make sense ( "unknown potential" would be accurate i guess, but that makes even lese sense as a redirect) that's fine, do what you need to do. Eric Lotze (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Lotze No need to apologize. You didn't vandalize or anything. Cheers! TartarTorte 20:18, 17 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Supreme Bowl

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 00:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results are mostly for a Newark restaurant by this name. Delete unless evidence of use or another justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 10 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

14 Commonweatlh realms

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#14 Commonweatlh realms

Constitution of Afghanistan

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 Procedural keep. Nominator was blocked as a sock, and there are no participants in favor of their proposal. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan and 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, see Draft:Constitution of Afghanistan. Waltermaid (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 10 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

🃠

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) 18:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what emoji or symbol this is… I only see an empty square. It's also unclear what connection it has to The Fool card. Therefore, I suggest deletion, unless someone can prove its meaning and what affinity it has with the article it currently targets. CycloneYoris talk! 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling the character 🃠 brings up (amongst others) our article, Playing cards in Unicode, explaining 🃠 (U+1F0E0) is The Fool card in Tarot. Also, https://unicodeplus.com/U+1F0E0.
According to https://unicodeplus.com/U+1F0E0 , this character displays on MS Windows (untested), so on those systems it may not be unusual for people to right-click search Wikipedia to find its meaning.
Maybe The Fool (Tarot card) should mention the Unicode character, but I'm not sure an appropriate place for that info (since it has no infobox nor sections on representations thereof).
Llew Mawr (talk) 11:25, 10 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Ææ, Öö

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#Ææ, Öö

C. difficile

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. Also changed C.difficile and C difficile to the same target. There has to be a discussion on similar redirects with respect to the target of the organism or the disease. Jay 💬 12:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other redirects of the form C. diff (there are many: [2] ) point to Clostridioides difficile infection rather than Clostridioides difficile. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least the redirect C.difficile should be handled the same as this one for now, though. All others abbreviate to "Diff". Mdewman6 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C difficile should also be bundled, as a group of three redirects. Both C.difficile and C difficile should be tagged as ((R from avoided double redirect|C. difficile)) and target Clostridioides difficile -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are more too that target the infection article that I previously missed. The issue is that the article about the organism was created much later and the original article was left to focus on the infection, so there are many redirects that need to be reconciled. Not sure if the abbreviated versions should remain pointing to the infection article or not. We could have a new bundled nomination of all the redirects, but that's cumbersome since there are so many. Perhaps we should just reach rough consensus on what should target the organism article and which ones should target the infection article, and someone can then just do the cleanup as appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:00, 16 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

AnCap Dave Smith

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#AnCap Dave Smith

Indian filmmakers' next [films, without the last word]

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 💬 11:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are also their respective creator's "next" (what?), which will keep changing for as long as they continue to work in cinema, like with the consensus with the other discussion last week. Not sure why we still need these, so I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss. Regards, SONIC678 06:20, 10 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Ext

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. Leaning towards keep, I see no reason to relist. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could equally well refer to Template:Extant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just found what "Extant" actually is. That redirect does not seem to be particularly useful either; still not sure about this shortcut though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:34, 10 August 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 the appropriate discussion page.

List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#List of USAF Troop Carrier Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

Soul2Sole FC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Soul2Sole FC

More