User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2024.

T[edit]

R Qwerfjkltalk 15:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Potassium heptafluoroniobate[edit]

Target does not mention this other chemical. It's been 8 years since redirect was created as a temp placeholder for an article. No prejudice against someone actually writing it at any time. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Edit-Protected[edit]

These templates were all created before other editing protections were anything other than semiprot was available, but are now vaguely titled and (as far as I can tell) no longer used to actually request edits to fully-protected pages (I have yet to see one after about 2015). I retargeted these redirects to the dab template {{request edit}} and was in the process of updating usage but the action was contested, which is why we're here. I will of course fix extant uses if this goes through. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Just noting that I discovered this RfD through using one of these redirects to request an edit. I know what {{Edit fully-protected}} is though. I don't think these redirects being changed will confuse anybody, unless maybe they're so ancient that they don't know there's multiple protection levels yet. Retarget. Snowmanonahoe (talk ·' contribs · typos) 11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no strong opinion on what should happen here, but the premise of this nom is slightly faulty; When "Editprotected (the original title of the "Edit fully protected" template) was created in January 2006, semi-protection had been introduced the previous month. The separate semi-protection template was created in July 2008. Graham87 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, my mistake. Amended my statement. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Meh probably keep all these -- edit requests are an important check on the protection system; unless there is something actually wrong leaving all these plausible typo's isn't something I'm worried about. — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    Xaosflux, I'm not looking to delete them, I'm looking to replace and retarget them. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm a bit lost then - for example Template:Editrequest goes to Template:Edit fully-protected (and has since 2017); if someone uses it it will get the edit request open -- you want to change it to Template:Request edit which will not enqueue the edit for review, but put more work on the requester? I'm not sure that is going to help get the edit reviewed better. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    If someone uses the wrong template, do we not encourage them to use the correct template? (alternately, if there is a "better" template, should we not tell them it exists?) When {{request edit}} was moved to {{edit COI}} there was a period of transition where folks were using the wrong template, but that has stopped and now the latter template is properly used by folks with a COI (most of the time). Someone asking for an "edit request" should be informed that there are multiple types of edit request; after all, we regularly change {{adminhelp}} into {{helpme}} when the request does not require and admin, and I have on multiple occasions changed a {{TPER}} into an {{EPER}} when the protection level was marked incorrectly. We should have names for templates that reflect what they do (that's why dabs existin the first place), and an "edit request" template doesn't reflect what it does. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure the best in this case, I think these are often invoked by very new editors. Wonder if we have any workflows that are calling the wrong template for them? — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep all Since the target template autodetects the protection level which template used is really a distinctio without a difference. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed ben Issa[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 Closed by nominator. Went for a disambiguation (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple potentially notable Mohamed ben Issa known, both ancient and modern, so the references to al-Hadi do not use this abbreviation. I did not find a single source that had refereed to the target in this abbreviated way. Delete to avoid confusion. Викидим (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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).

Shinichi Tanaka (rugby)[edit]

Suggest deleting per WP:RETURNTORED. Only linked to from its own target. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Windows 8.2[edit]

Windows 8.2 does not exist, and does not refer to Windows 10. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep per previous RfD. I know it was 9 years ago and Wikipedia:Consensus can change, but the arguments made back then are still convincing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per previous RfD listed above. I also agree with the arguments made in said previous RfD. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete unless mentioned: I'm not convinced. It's true that Windows 10 is the next major version release to come out after 8.1, but we don't redirect Windows XP SP 4 to Windows Vista. As for the argument that Threshold (the dev name for Win 10) was referred to in the press as 8.2 before it was referred to as Windows 10... That should really be mentioned in the article (presumably in the sections Windows 10#Development or Windows 10#Announcement) if we're going to redirect mentions of Windows 8.2 here. If we're going to keep this redirect, someone should go into the article and add a mention to it. At the very least it should be hatnoted, the way "Windows 9" is hatnoted in Windows 10#Announcement-- or perhaps added to the Windows 9 hatnote? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/51&oldid=1224965755"