Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 7, 2024.

• Pi1 → Oryza sativa#Pi1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently also refers to Yudo Pi1. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Margaretville Railroad Station → Margaretville station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Margaretville Station → Delaware and Northern Railroad  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Margaretville station → Delaware and Northern Railroad  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target. Perhaps there's a better target? Redirect is a result of an AFD discussion but I can't see the logic in redirecting to an article that doesn't contain any material on the search term. TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of why I originally nominated the article for deletion. It is completely uncited, which makes merging a non-option. despite it being closed as merge. Thus, I used the other consensus, and redirected.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, but does the station even meet WP:NOTE? The only notable thing mentioned is an AMWAY and it's an WP:EASTEREGG. Unless I'm missing something it's a long demolished train station in a tiny town. This isn't really relevant to the official procedure, but I've got family in the area and Margaretville is lovely but tiny, even when the station existed it probably wasn't particularly notable. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 20:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also bundle Margaretville Station and Margaretville Railroad Station with this. Jay 💬 11:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects, as suggested by Jay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiplicities → Multiplicity (mathematics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear that this plural form would not be ambiguous the same way as Multiplicity. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The term is used in other disciplines but mathematics is by far the primary topic in my search results. A hatnote to the dab will suffice for those looking for other things. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is its use in other disciplines a carefully defined technical term belonging to those disciplines (as it is in mathematics) or is it just an ordinary word used in English? If the latter, then Multiplicity (mathematics) seems like the right target. Unless the page is to be moved to Multiplicity, in which case, if necessary, a hatnote could either direct the user to a disambiguation page or say "For the number of belly buttons a person has, see Multiplicity (omphalology)." Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested potential target Multiplicity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how "multiplicities" is used in other disciplines, but equally I don't know how that is relevant? The primary topic for the plural is very clearly the mathematical use, but that topic is correctly titled in the singular, therefore the status quo is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB, the term "multiplicities" only appears once in Multiplicity (mathematics) but also appears in Multiplicity (chemistry) and in a footnote at Multiplicity (philosophy) and while Google does return the mathematics Wikipedia article first it also returns the philosophy article and I don't think like Orange v Oranges there is much of a difference between the singular v plural to have different targets per WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does seem like the mathematical use in the primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, add a {{Redirect}} hatnote to the dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ETDA → Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created as an obvious typo of the common name of the chemical, EDTA. However, "ETDA" has two legitimate meanings - the Electronic Trade Documents Act (2023) (see UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records), and the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (see Surangkana Wayuparb). Neither of these has its own article, but the UK legislation, at least, has the potential to merit one. A standard {{redirect}} on the EDTA page is a possibility, but the resulting text will be long and potentially disruptive. My suggestion is therefore to add an ETDA section to EDTA (disambiguation) with entries for the UK law and the Thai government agency, but I don't know if this is fully compliant with our rules on DAB pages, and would like to discuss it before taking unilateral action. Tevildo (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I think it should be redirected to one of the two article's subsections, with a {{Redirect-distinguish}} template added to the other article. I would rather this than maintaining the continued redirection to EDTA/Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid that I had originally set up in 2007, 17 years ago when there were fewer overall articles on en.wikipedia, and there was a greater need to redirect such typos. My preference would be for Electronic Transactions Development Agency, as it actually uses the 'ETDA' acronym within the article (and as a section heading), while Electronic Trade Documents Act (2023) does not use 'ETDA' as an acronym within the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records article. Wiz9999 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Surangkana Wayuparb#ETDA and add a {{Redirect-distinguish}} hatnote there per Wiz9999. In the spirit of MOS:DABACRO, this target is the only use of ETDA as an acronym on enwiki, so it should redirect there for now. Another option is a dab page, but I don't think we should weight a valid use and a misspelling equally for disambiguation purposes, unless there is evidence the misspelling is usually prevalent so as to rival the correct use. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]