Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2

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 Wikipedia#Restrictions. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Extended Confirmed Protection → Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

XNR, Unlikely to be of any use to casual readers of WP. #prodraxis ^connect 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep not really an RfD regular, but my standard for redirects is usually is it harming anything by existing. I can't really see any active harm here, even if cross namespace, and I see some good. Averages around 10 page views a month, so apparently some people are using it. If it can help someone who might not yet be familiar with how to navigate our namespace prefixes, I consider that a positive so I'm fine with keeping it. I also don't really care that much, hence the "weak", but I don't really see all that much reason to delete either. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete articlespace redirect to pipework not meant for the readership. The readership are not concerned with protection levels, as readers are not editors -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia#Restrictions contains a small amount of content on this topic. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R2. --199.76.113.24 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  R2 does not apply here, because the redirect targets a page in wikipedia space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – XNR that sees a decent bit of use. Nobody searching "Extended Confirmed Protection" is going to be searching for anything outside Wikipedia, so it's not going to impact casual readers. The capitalization and lack of hyphenation is a bit awkward, but that's not enough to change my mind. (Also, Extended confirmed protected should probably be bundled.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia#Restrictions, the article section which discusses Wikipedia's protection levels. Article-space redirects should always target relevant article content if it exists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia#Restrictions per Ivanvector. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Skarmory. Only possible usage really is Wikipedians mislinking in a discussion or forgetting to type in "WP:". Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Extended Confirmed Protection and Extended confirmed protected to Wikipedia § Restrictions per Ivanvector. Add hatnote to help the "Wikipedians mislinking in a discussion or forgetting to type in 'WP:'" that Edward-Woodrow mentioned, as is done at articles like Copy editing and Sock puppet account. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 02:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete There's isn't really enough substance at Wikipedia#Restrictions to warrant a redirect there, and the Wikipedians mislinking in a discussion or forgetting to type in "WP:". surely would immediately realize they had done so when the link is red or they end up in mainspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• These are really hard to justify when the more general terms Extended Confirmed and extended confirmed have always been redlinks in mainspace. (And no, if someone goes and creates them now, these'll be even harder to justify.) —Cryptic 03:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ^{Something something} WP:PANDORA _{something something} ^[Humor] A smart kitten (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia#Restrictions as I can't see it used anywhere else. Do not keep as-is this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia#Restrictions per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 5 September 2023 (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).

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) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 🤭 → Laughter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another ambiguous emoji. Redirects to "laughter" but looks more like shock to me. Emojipedia suggests a variety of meanings. Best to delete. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no clear target for this emoji. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible search term. #prodraxis ^connect 19:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect. Personal subjective "Looks like x to me" argument. Every emoji is a valid and likely search term which should not be deleted. If the current target isn't good enough, fix it. Worse case, redirect it to the emoji block it belongs to. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: As QuicoleJR said, There is no clear target for this emoji. That is the reason for deletion. It is vague. WP:REMOJI, the existing precedent on this matter, explicitly states, and I quote, The outcome is usually deletion if the glyph is unclear, its meaning is difficult to determine, or there is no consensus on a target. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are irrelevant. I could just as much write one to say the opposite and it will hold just as much weight. Also, how is Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs not a valid target? In most (or all?) of your emoji deletion nominations you haven't even spent the minimum effort to research the emoji before sending it here. RfD is not a replacement for editorial work. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't have as much weight, because, as I clearly noted, it represents the existing precedent on the matter; the rough consensus. I suggest you understand the context rather than dismiss it out of hand. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, looks like laughter to me! Oops would be an interesting target per Emojipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a hand over a mouth. Veeeery ambiguous. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a hand over a mouth...laughing. Since Hand over mouth as a gesture does not exist as an article, this is the best we can do. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix. As silly as I think WP:REMOJI is, that emoji does seem like laughter to me and I can't think of a better alternative. 〜 Askarion ✉ 22:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs or delete – certainly an ambiguous emoji; is someone trying to cover up laughter? Embarrassed by what they said? Shocked by something? Given that it's ambiguous, the best options are retargeting to the unicode block or deletion. I don't have a strong preference, given there's not much relevant for this emoji at the unicode block, though in the future there may be history entries relevant to it. (The official name for the character in unicode is SMILING FACE WITH SMILING EYES AND HAND COVERING MOUTH, by the way.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs per Skarmory. I've always thought this one was ambiguous with embarassment or boredom; better to direct to an article about the glyph than about one of the concepts it might symbolize. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs per Skarmory. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if this should be kept, deleted or retargeted…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To my understanding, the emoji in question (being 🤭) refers to unambiguous giggling/laughter ever since Unicode 14.0. Before this, this emoji still appeared to be laughing on all devices, with the exception of Apple users, who had an emoji that looked closer to this: 🫢, which is the "shocked" version. A couple years ago though, a new emoji codepoint was created with the purpose of distinguishing the two. The current picture of the emoji has none of the ambiguities described, as the smiling eyes make it hard to argue on the side of shock. The actual surprised-hand-over-mouth emoji had an RfD not too long ago as well, which was closed as keep; as such: WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#🫢. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm... I just see this Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You may want to update your phone it seems, the same character looks like laughter on mine. [1] Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm on web (old Mac, Brave), and it's the old version for me too. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Utopes (and see also this Tweet by Emojipedia). At least for me, this symbol clearly represents giggling (perhaps even from embarrassment??). The emote is only particularly ambiguous when it is used on Twitter or Discord (they use the same emoji), wherein this emote is not blushing and identical to 🫢, only with shut eyes; but elsewhere, it is more obviously giggling. Telegram, Google Messenger and Teams go even further by animating it as laughing, avoiding this ambiguity all together. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget. I'm fine with redirecting elsewhere, but I believe that deleting this page would make it the only emoji without a redirect on Wikipedia. Enix150 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This statement is untrue. There are plenty of redirects that don't have emojis on Wikipedia. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, all of the base emojis have redirects on Wikipedia. I checked. Enix150 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; I think this emoji represents laughter to me as well. Duckmather (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2023 (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).

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 11:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Digital trauma → Nose-picking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a synonym. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• According to this abstract, it seems to be digital refering to a finger and trauma as in injury caused by said finger during the nose-picking. Probably delete for now unless someone can expand the article about this particular injury/trauma. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lenticel. Very niche search term and only tangentially related. Even cyberbullying would be be a better target, IMO. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Broken finger and Jammed finger are both "digital trauma", and there's an article cited at Mean world syndrome: "Digital Trauma: The Reality and The Mean World. Media Coverage of Black Lives Matter Protests during Covid-19 Pandemic in the USA". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – wholly unnecessary. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:57, 7 September 2023 (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).

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Adolf Rizzler → List of Generation Z slang#Rizz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target as it is not discussed by reliable sources, should be deleted. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed before, and it was determined to keep it. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Apparently the term the redirect was created for has since been removed. However, this was done by User:VX712893741, whos only edit is the one, and seems to be out of confusion, and was most likely missed. Im going to re-add the lost information where this redirect came from, Thanks. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was discussed before, and someone re-added the content despite the fact that the term is not discussed in any reliable sources. And you've done the same, so I just reverted your edit. Being new to the wiki or having a low edit count does not make one's edits invalid. If you can find a reliable source that discusses the term, feel free to re-add it. I've done a thorough search myself though and found none. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can remove the redirect. My opinion on this redirect remains the same. Keep it as long as the term is on the page, in which it isn't

As for the single edit, i said it seemed to be out of confusion due to it's summary. I don't believe VX had any bad intentions whatsoever WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 21:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I think it’s fair to keep the redirect, pointed at the slang it originates from. Without an article mention I probably wouldn’t have created it myself, but now it’s here it might as well stay - the base slang is mentioned even if the full term isn’t. Per Edward-Woodrow’s comment in the last RfD. A smart kitten (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See criteria 8 of WP:RFD#DELETE. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure term that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. Redirects are cheap, but they're not cheap enough to point somewhere that doesn't even mention the term. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @FormalDude I wouldn’t go as far to say that this is a novel or very obscure synonym…that is not mentioned in the target. The base of the slang term is mentioned, and I wouldn’t personally call say this redirect goes to the level of a novel or obscure piece of derivative slang. However, I appreciate that reasonable minds may differ on this point. A smart kitten (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that there's literally zero coverage of this term in reliable sources means it is novel and obscure. Minds that understand the definitions of novel and obscure will not differ on this. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would like somebody to explain to me how is this useful in any possible way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Super Dromaeosaurus the term is in use (Urban Dictionary is not an RS but can at least be used to evidence the existence of a phrase), and we have a section of a list that describes the base slang term from which the phrase originates. A smart kitten (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Existence of the phrase means nothing, someone could make up a word in a tweet and it would exist. That the base term is included is also not a reason to keep this. It's really simple: "Adolf Rizzler" has absolutely no coverage in reliable sources, is not included in the article, and therefore it should not exist as a redirect. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment: Given that (from what I can see) not much has changed since the last time this was listed as RfD (though I’m happy to be proven wrong on that regard), are the comments on the previous RfD to be given weight when evaluating consensus? A smart kitten (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At the last RfD, there was no opposition to the re-addition of the mention, either at the target or at the RfD, and which is why the outcome was to keep. This time, the re-addition has been reverted and there has been opposition to the re-addition at this RfD. I would support the delete votes unless the term has coverage in RS. Jay 💬 14:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obscure term not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to avoid a Pandora's box of redirects from obscure, unsourced terms that happen to contain rizz. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 02:15, 3 September 2023 (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).