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 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 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.
Either disambiguate or just delete given that it does not seem to be a very common nickname for any of the locations it has been used to describe (less than 500 pageviews in nearly a decade of existence). Regardless, it shouldn't redirect specifically to Florida, as dictionary.com has quotations ([1]) indicating that the term has been variously applied to Qatar, Baja California Sur, and North Korea. Anonymous21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ambiguous as nom points out, and otherwise too vague and WP:UNHELPFUL for a dab, which are for concrete titles/words/names/etc that share multiple topics, rather than vague descriptions that could refer to multiple topics. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google returns lots of different places such as in Spain and India. Cornwall could be described as a peninsular state and note that some people want Cornwall to be a separate country (though probably not a sovereign state) rather than a state like a US state in being a sub national division of England like Florida. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2025 (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).
Women will be having more sex with ROBOTS than men by 2025
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 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.
If that's where the content is, then yeah sure, retarget per nom. I think this type of retargetting would have been fine to do boldly rather than via RFD. BugGhost🦗👻18:10, 4 January 2025 (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.
Weak keep -- weak because it's an unlikely search term with the disambiguator slapped on, but keep because it is in fact, perfectly correct as a term for inverting the sign of something. Mathworld is quirky and shouldn't be relied on as a sole determiner for this kind of thing. See e.g. this doc page at MDN, referencing the unary negation operator, which is arithmetic in nature, and not logical. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is programming slang. But this redirect is explicitly about the term in mathematics, where "negation" is used only for the logical operator. You're welcome to prove me wrong with an authoritative mathematics encyclopedia/dictionary ref. All definitions of negation as additive inverse I could find were about the programming use. I did do a little due diligence before editing. Paradoctor (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I've now sourced the term "arithmetic negation" citing a mathematical book issued by a reputable publisher. The redirect had been created to make more explicit its use in Negation (disambiguation), where the redirect target was already listed. Finally, please note Unary operation#Negation also mentions the term (now linked to the redirect). fgnievinski (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2025 (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 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 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬06:48, 4 January 2025 (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).
"Zhukov" is not mentioned at the target article, and this is a completely separate ship in-universe. This was redirected in 2006, apparently failing even that era's notability standards. It was pointed at a target that then got redirected into the article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek Starfleet starships, but this redirect got pointed elsewhere somehow and didn't get deleted with that content. This can be safely deleted. Hog FarmTalk04:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it can be deleted - the parenthetical registry number makes it an unlikely search term. If there's an inclination toward a more appropriate redirect direct, Data's Day fits the bill, as it's the first time this particulars ship appears on screen. That said, the Zhukov' trivial appearance is not mentioned at that article, either. --EEMIV (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬06:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. There was not much support for the deletion nomination. Multiple targets were suggested for retargeting. The current target would have been useful if refined to the #By function section provided the subject of melee was covered there. As a compromise, retargeting to List of premodern combat weapons#Melee weapons, a target that continued to get support even though there was opposition to it, as narrow in scope. Jay 💬16:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page was apparently deleted, so I'm not even sure why it remains a redirect. But that said, it being a redirect raises issues about its target, which is vague and could be weapon, melee, or even Role-playing game terms (since it's almost entirely a term used in gaming, not real life). I'd personally rather just see it deleted entirely and the search function being able to be used, but my second choice would be the glossary of RPG terms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't even know that existed, but it's pure WP:OR nonetheless. Their articles and history texts don't mention these being "melee weapons" nor was that part of the original classification. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oxforderefence.com includes the article "Weapons, Hand-to-Hand" and Britannica includes a "list of weapons" within which is the section "hand-to-hand combat weapons". If it's OR, then nominate List of premodern combat weapons for deletion. If we can maintain the current page in current form, we can maintain the current redirect to it. Removing the words "melee weapons" from the page won't do it because the purpose of the redirect would still be satisfied as its a very good search term, and also, we have Template:R from incorrect name. —Alalch E.01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Melee I guess - the listing of premodern combat weapons is too narrow of a target. For instance, this topic would cover weapons designed for close quarters trench fighting in WWI, or in various roleplaying games. Hog FarmTalk04:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at the current and suggested targets. The AfD of Blunt instrument closed as No Consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬05:46, 4 January 2025 (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).
Oppose I don't see what the inconsistency is. People talking about "Western civilization" might mean the western world or western culture or the other options on the dismbig page, so the disambig page is a good place to send people. It also encourages people linking to "western civilization" to choose the appropriate concept rather than assuming that linking to western civilization will magically go to the version of the concept that they have in mind. Furius (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the nom's retargeting proposal? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!08:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬05:13, 4 January 2025 (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 no consensus. There was only one participant despite two relists and an extended wait after the second relist. There was a suggestion to retarget to Censorship by Google#YouTube, and having seen no opposition, I will be retargeting to that. Jay 💬12:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬05:03, 4 January 2025 (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 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 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 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 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 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.
Odd mix of German and English (should be "und", not "and") that is never used. Was at this title for all of two minutes, appears to have been an error by the creator. Rusalkii (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2025 (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 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).
General term that shouldn't redirect to this particular form of shady job. Quick google suggests vast majority of English usage isn't referring to the Japanese concept. Rusalkii (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
The reason I created the redirect from Shady job to Yami Baito is that in the Japanese version of article , it was written as (英:Shady job). I was going to suggest renaming the article, but as I usually use the Japanese version, I did not know how to suggest renaming the English version, so I created the redirect.
Since the other party's opinion stated that it was about Japan, I would appreciate it if you could suggest renaming it to "Shady job in Japan".
"Shady job in Japan" doesn't have as much of an ambiguity problem, but if you do a search there are only three results, and none of them refer to Yami Baito. I don't think the article should be renamed, since it looks like English-language articles use the term "yami baito" without translating. Rusalkii (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to soft redirect to Wiktionary yami baito. "Shady job" is not really an English-lang idiom—a term whose meaning is more than the literal sum-of-its-parts. A typical native en speaker "gets" that "shady job", outside of the Japanese context, just means "a job which is shady". However the translated term from Japanese is idiomatic: "a fraudlent job offer, or an offer of a job involving criminal acts, which persons typically are recruited for online, particularly on social media, with alluring promises of lucrative compensation for easy work". (The literal translation from Japanese is "dark part-time job": see entry. "Yami" means "dark" with much the same semantic range as English "dark", both literally "the absence of light" as well as the various figurative meanings of "distasteful", "concealed", "perilous" etc.)
Nope. Both articles use "shady job" merely as shorthand for "shady part-time job". When yami baito is mentioned, it is always translated as "shady part-time job". Paradoctor (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't disagree that they repeatedly use the phrasing "shady job", with the contextual understanding that the more complete phrasing is "shady part-time job". But dropping parts of phrases to shorten them, and use of the contracted varieties in preference to the full uncontracted phrase, is quite common in English. One random example that comes to mind: "to eat one's own dog food" getting frequently contracted to just "dogfooding" or "dog-food": "we're dog-fooding that product on a regular basis". I am skeptical that people are overly concerned about observing a strict distinction between part-time and full-time work, when employing an idiom taken from a foreign language. --Slowking Man (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument requires that "shady job" is used alone in some of the sources, independent of "shady part-time job", like "dogfooding" and "dog-food" are. Otherwise it is no more than local shorthand. I couldn't find any, maybe you can?