This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic
redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged.
Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases,
place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a
requested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See
§ When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of
Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The
G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or
from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in
"What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on
Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (
Speedy deletion criterion G10 and
G3 may apply.) See also§ Neutrality of redirects.
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (
Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
It is a
cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the
pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "
MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of
namespace aliases such as WP:.
Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under
speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a
novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular,
redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are
candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for
G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to
page movers and admins), perform a
round-robin move. If not, take the article to
Requested moves.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see
Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid
accidental linking and make the creation of
duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{
R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "
Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the
Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including
CamelCase links (e.g.
WolVes) and old
subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See alsoWikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the
wikishark or
pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
Just as article titles using non-neutral language
are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but
verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{
R from non-neutral name}}.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate →
Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the
words to avoid guidelines and the general
neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not
established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under
deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream
reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that
RfD is not the place to
resolve most editorial disputes.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
Enter this text below the date heading:
{{
subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}~~~~
For this template:
Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{
subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}~~~~
If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{
Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
STEP III.
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.
To find the main contributors, look in the
page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template
may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.
Please consider using
What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
Doesn't appear to be a useful redirect. Has previously been tagged for
R3.
BangJan1999 00:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: It is sold as Raindrops on the Open Road (ROTOR) on
Bandcamp - but not as Raindrops on the Open Road (ROTOR) - EP. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 00:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Tentative Keep as {{
R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and {{
R from incorrect disambiguation}}. While HOTmess is correct in that it's not *sold* as such, I'd like to point out that this is an EP, as stated by our own article on it. Thus, I can totally see someone unfamiliar with how disambiguators work on Wikipedia using the Bandcamp title for the EP and then tacking " - EP" on the end. (Unfortunately, this was created yesterday, and so, page views won't be a helpful metric here.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable game announced at the show and just mentioned as an item of the list in the target page. If it becomes notable,
WP:RFD#DELETE #10 would still apply.
Викидим (
talk) 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable game announced at the show and just mentioned in the list of the target. If it becomes notable,
WP:RFD#DELETE #10 would still apply.
Викидим (
talk) 22:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Most likely, a result of a typo fixed by a move and not used anywhere else.
WP:RFD#DELETE confusion. The target also has an apparent typo in the text, "NA-231".
Викидим (
talk) 22:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirects assumes that the typo is in the Arabic digits. If Roman digits are involved, the correct target would be
NA-222 Badin-I (old name). This redirect may make an effect of a typo even worse. So,
WP:RFD#DELETE #2.
Викидим (
talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Either one of these is a valid target, with equal pull. This is thus an
WP:XY situation. I'm not sure a Dab page would work here... might need to let search do its thing.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 22:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirects assuming the typo is in the Arabic digits. If Roman digits are involved, the correct target would be
NA-223 Badin-II. Thi sredirect may make an effect of typo worse. So,
WP:RFD#DELETE #2.
Викидим (
talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sama, Chile
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Withrawn by teh nominator
This meaning predictably is not used for a particular decease. Outside of this redirect it is typically just a swearing, similar "cancer is a bitch".
WP:R#DELETE # and #3. A 10-year old discussion
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 8#Ass cancer yielded no consensus, but
Asshole cancer redirect was provided as an illustration of ridiculousness of the
Ass cancer. In 9 year, the idea was implemented by a now-blocked editor. Listing the original
Ass cancer, too.
Викидим (
talk) 21:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Steel1943's rationale in the original discussion. "Asshole" and "Ass" are synonymous, layman's terms for the
anus and
buttocks respectively, which is the exact affected area of this disease. I can easily see a layperson using either of these redirects.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 22:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Empire not typically referred to in this way; Google gives a mix of restaurants, modern Mongolia, and the desire for a pan-Mongolian nation (see e.g.
Khorloogiin Choibalsan)
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Confusing target - the page doesn't actually discuss the first edition of the conference beyond mentioning that the 2nd infinity forum is, in fact, the second. There doesn't seem to be an article for the Infinity Forum overall, either. My preference would be to merge 2nd Infinity forum to such an article and then target this redirect there, but I don't understand the subject well enough to do this myself and this redirect should not be pointed at the current target in either case.
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:RLANG as a translation of the title into Chinese, with no particular affinity to the subject, not mentioned in page.
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Well, EasyEnglish
does exist, and was produced by MissionAssist, an associated organization of Wycliffe Global Alliance, so I can understand the rationale behind this redirect existing. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 01:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also tagged the redirect as an "R from merge". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete to encourage possible article creation. Most of the other
Indian Premier League teams have team articles for the 2023 season, but this redirect inhibits people from knowing that no article exists.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 13:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't find much information about what to do in this situation, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to discuss this, but essentially, this was a draft article that was moved to mainspace, then redirected to
War in Donbas, then deleted in
another RfD discussion, but leaving this cross-namespace redirect intact. Should this draft redirect be deleted as well in accordance with that RfD discussion? It seems like a lot of the same arguments would apply.
HappyWith (
talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Given that the article this draft become has been deleted, there are no attribution or similar issues with deleting the redirect. [
[1]] closed as delete due to lack of coverage in independent reliable sources, if that changes then we may want an article on it in future and this redirect would make drafting one harder. In the mean time it doesn't lead anybody to any useful content.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This was created as a standalone page 2 days ago.
Spleodrach made the right call in converting it to a redirect. I’d go further. There are currently no links to this page, and I don’t see what we gain by creating pages or redirects to every event discussed in detail elsewhere. While
WP:ATD would ordinarily suggest a redirect is preferable to deletion, I’m not sure that holds for such a new page with no history within the project.
Iveagh Gardens (
talk) 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Inaugurations are significant events, he has had more than one of them, and there is content about it at the target. This means that this is a plausible search term that leads people to the information they are looking for. For future reference though, if you disagree with a
WP:BLAR then the correct course of action is to revert the redirection. If your objection is that it should be a standalone article, then leave it at that. If your objection is that it should have been deleted rather than redirected, you should nominate it at AfD.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The Arbitration Committee is not a court. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or retarget. Someone using this redirect is plausibly looking for Wikipedia's court, and they should be taken to a page that explains that we don't have a court (or at least not a court of law) but the closest thing is the Arbitration Committee. The current page sort of does that, but not perfectly -
Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration doesn't use the words exactly but does state "Arbitration is not a legal process", so would make an equally good target I think.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's confusing and misleading.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
0 uses is kind of damning. The other redirects of the same sense have similarly low use
[2][3][4]. (What the heck is
[5].)
Izno (
talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's only existed for five weeks, and lack of incoming internal links is explicitly not relevant to whether a redirect should or should not be deleted. As for your "what the heck" this was redirected after the original content was moved to
User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius, which is effectively an essay that emerged out of the discussions that created the Arbitration Committee. Basically it is saying (in attempted(?) legalese that an arbitration case can be requested either directly or by or via Jimbo, that Jimbo can direct a case to be opened and that Jimbo can investigate matters on his own if he wants. The first part is obviously still true (anyone can request a case directly), the second is also technically true (Jimbo can request a case in the same way as any other editor, including related to disputes he is asked to look at). Jimbo can't direct that a case be opened (anymore?). He can investigate a dispute if he chooses to do so, although he is very unlikely to do so and is very limited in what remedies he could impose (he renounced the right to unilaterally ban people in 2022 and gave up other advanced rights in 2023).
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Of the other examples of links of this sense, the first is a decade old, the second well on its way to that, and the third a year and a half old (and was previously deleted at MFD an eternity ago). That this one is only 5 weeks old doesn't inspire.
Izno (
talk) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The other redirect's
aren't relevant to this one, and the age isn't really relevant either. The redirect is not doing any harm - indeed as it serves to correct misunderstandings it's the opposite of misleading.
Thryduulf (
talk) 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Usage of the redirect in discussions would increase confusion, not reduce it. It's good that it's not being used and it should be removed before it is.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 20:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Well if anyone did use this in a discussion, the context would make things clear. However, redirects like this are much more useful as search targets rather than for linking - for example a relatively new editor would plausibly search this, and be taken to exactly the page that explains what he have instead of a court, rather than unpredictable search results (sometimes several clicks/taps away) that may or may not be relevant.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - agree that it's misleading. In the unlikely event that a user entered this in the search box, the search results would be more useful than this redirect. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: There's no good single redirect; there are several WikiProjects that deal with courts and law, so none of them are a great option, and ARBCOM is not a court.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The target does not need to actually be a court in order to be helpful. Coincidentally, I recently watched a Youtube video titled: "The Court That Settles Wikipedia Editor Drama" from Half as Interesting. Now, is ArbCom literally a court? I suppose not, but it's a widely popular misconception to the public based on several journal stories which have covered influential ArbCom cases. Pageviews might not be there as this was made recently in 2024 and people were hitting
WP:Court instead. The lowercase title is what searches default onto, and has existed since late 2022 with 100+ pageviews since its recent-ish creation.
WP:Wikicourt has existed since 2013, and ArbCom being a "
WP:Supreme Court" isn't too far off the mark either, according to outside coverage for people unfamiliar with the ins and outs of what ArbCom is and isn't, such as:
[6][7]. Just like how the
WP:Great Dismal Swamp isn't actually a murky wetland supporting sealife, adding redirect support for a popular misconception still fulfills the need for someone that wants to get to Wikipedia's court, but doesn't know what it's technically called. (Those long words'll get ya good! Both "Arbitration" and "Committee" with 9+ letters, who has time to memorize that?) Quite helpful for people who have a basic understanding of Project space, but are unsure of the names of the "complicated noticeboards". Nothing else seems to be more courtlike in WP space than ArbCom, but if there is something strongly-more-associated I wouldn't mind a retarget either. Deletion is not beneficial in my eyes. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Utopes and Thryduulf. ArbCom may not be an actual court, but the ArbCom page literally has scales of justice displayed right there in the center, for cryin' out loud, it's clearly "where justice is meted out". Heck, WP:COURT might even help with a few
WP:ALP issues.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. It basically is a court.
Kk.urban (
talk) 04:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Utopes and Thryduulf.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source would not be a suitable target for the "COURT" shortcut. It is unclear which are the other court-related wikiprojects being discussed. Presence of this shortcut does not prevent editors from searching for "court" or "courts" in the search box, for which they would need to select the Wikipedia namespace anyway. Jay 💬 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as original creator, but I would like to redirect it to a section that explains why ArbCon isn't a court. //●
→█2003LN6█→●// 05:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try, given consensus is still not clear. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep the Arbcom pages make it clear what they are and aren't. Plausible search term, as they are the de facto "court"/"judges" of Wikipedia and some other sources do refer to it as Wikipedia court, like the video Utopes mentioned.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. If you asked me what the court of wikipedia was I'd answer ArbCom and be confused by any other answer; it's a fairly unambiguous redirect that does no harm and may help with project space navigation. Nop objection to redirecting to an essay about why it isn't a court, if such exists.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
First thing that is wrong is that the second and subsequent words should not be capitalized unless its a proper noun. But anyway, the thing is
Newcastle often refers to the city in
UK or the one in
Australia so I am not sure if this could either serve as a redirect to
Newcastle or a new dab page. In case of the latter, the article title needs to change to 'Public transport in Newcastle'. I am leaning towards creating a dab page btw. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JuniperChill (
talk •
contribs) 14:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know if it's verboten, but a disambiguation page that consists entirely of section links isn't typical. This may be an instance where it's better to let the search engine do its job. -
Eureka Lott 15:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Transport in Tyne and Wear (which includes Newcastle-upon-Tyne) would make a good entry on that proposed dab page as well I think.
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate: multiple places called Newcastle, and so we shouldn't be assuming people want any particular one of them. And this is consistent with base name
Newcastle being a DAB page.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Eureka. We don't have any articles on public transport in Newcastle. Jay 💬 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete to reveal search results, as we don't have any articles specifically about transport in any of the Newcastles.
Deryck C. 17:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Proposing a retarget to Aliens (film). Although Alien 2: On Earth (apparently a real film) does contain the title "Alien 2", Aliens — the actual sequel to
Alien (film) — is without question more notable and the more likely target when readers search for "Alien 2", seeking to find the sequel to the first film (but perhaps not remembering its title).
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Disagree, no evidence that people searching for this are actually searching for the film Aliens. While yes Aliens is much more notable than the film Alien 2, it hasn't been shown that that is where Alien 2 should redirect to.
Canterbury Tailtalk 21:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry was replying at the same time. Yes, understood your point. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Much more notable, undoubtedly, but.... with an actually different name. So I still think a DISAMB page is helpful. However, if everyone agrees with you, no worries. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) If something is a redirect or doesn't have an article, it means it is likely not notable. Which means we should only be concerned with the two films, one of which is an FA and the other a stub. Which one's the obvious primary topic?
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 00:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Most likely the one that is actually called that way. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, I never doubted that Aliens was more famous than Alien 2: On Earth. Still, that is not what the film is actually called in English, is it? I'm sorry but I've understood your point, and if things need to be changed, I still would prefer a DISAMB. I have no further comment. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems to be a R from move with a long history and incoming links. Also, per Canterbury Tail and the further examination by InfiniteNexus. Finally, there's already a disambiguation for
Alien making a duplicate rather unnecessary. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Respublik (
talk •
contribs) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or disambiguate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Aliens (film) "Alien 2" was intended as an unofficial sequel, therefore it automatically has less prominence than the actual sequel it was trying to mimic. If it were entirely unrelated, my opinion would be different.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Drafted a disambig with no primary at the redirect. If Aliens is the primary, the draft may be copied over to a
Alien 2 (disambiguation). The Alien 2 entries may be removed from the
Alien dab, and the Alien 2 dab be added to its See also. Jay 💬 13:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, I see that 65.92.247.66 created a disambig draft after the relist, but before I created my draft, and I was not aware of it.
DrowssapSMM accepted the draft as
Alien 2 (disambiguation) which was a REDLINK when I had suggested it. I see that the IP's dab also has no primary, hence the dab may be merge-and-redirected to Alien 2 or moved. Jay 💬 09:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to disambiguation page
Alien (avoiding a duplicate list at a different disambiguation page).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Wow, the !votes really are all over the place here.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the existing DAB
Alien#Films (a refinement of the proposed retarget by Shhhnotsoloud). That said, there really doesn't seem to be much consensus here yet...
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel like this should be a BARTENDER close. There seems to be almost no support for the status quo.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 19:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is no consensus for the status quo, but no consenus on an alternative yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Alien#Films and let the reader decide which one they want to look at. --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Aliens (film) as suggested by the OP. Aliens is "considered among the greatest films of the 1980s" according to our article and must be very widely seen, I strongly suspect that the number of people searching for it who can't quite remember the title is still far greater than the number of people looking for the current target, which is very obscure. None of the other entries at the dab page are relevant to this search term. Hut 8.5 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I prefer a separate disambiguation page so someone searching the term will only receive relevant entries without the need to scroll. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll note once again to the eventual closer that although the !votes above are all over the place, there is near-unanimous consensus to move away from the status quo, so if there ends up being no consensus on which page to retarget, the closer should use their best judgment to perform a
WP:BARTENDER close.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Aliens (film) Aliens is definitely the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A quick search on several search engines for Alien 2 comes up with it and I often hear the movie called that in real life (though I know that's not the best argument here). StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
An editor who thinks
Aliens (film) is the primary topic may fix
Alien 2 (disambiguation) to add the primary topic, or the closer may do it if there is consensus. Otherwise, as of now, Alien 2 (disambiguation) doesn't indicate a primary per
MOS:DABPRIMARY. Jay 💬 07:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more time... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not a correct spelling without diacritics (which will be Muehlhausen). This is not a popular misspelling either, Mullhausen is usually a family name.
WP:R#DELETE #8 or #2.
Викидим (
talk) 04:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Mühlhausen (disambiguation). I think such a misspelling is plausible but it's not clear to me that the primary topic (Mühlhausen, Thuringia) is necessarily overwhelming when one is inclined to forget the H. --
Deryck C. 16:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is supposedly another name for this fire. I could not find any evidence of this externally. Onwiki did not particularly help, as not only is this title not mentioned at the article, it is also not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia! I did a search and almost all my results were for "Comozant"; gave this a look on Wikipedia and got nothing. From there I refined my search to just "Comazant", and the only thing I got for all of the first page of my search engine was Comazant being the publisher of a book titled "Captured" by India Blake. Nothing about the fire. And at the end of the day, with zero mentions on Wikipedia including at the target, this title would not be helpful to readers who are left confused about the relationship between St. Elmo's fire and Comazant, as no connection is established between them. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Appears to be a misspelling of comozant, which is apparently a D&D monster made of St. Elmo's fire. Implausible search term, and violates
WP:LEAST regardless (if I was searching for comozant, I'd probably be wondering if the D&D monster was lifted from real mythology and want info on that... lacking real mythology, I'd probably expect a list of D&D monsters).
Fieari (
talk) 07:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of a "Hall" at the target article in capacity, much less a "Food Hall", even much less a "Central Food Hall" no less. Currently not a helpful redirect to a target that is already twinkle-tagged to the brim, even after securing an illustrious central title. Has a couple other unmentioned redirects too from a presumably removed section. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Tops Supermarket as an avoided double redirect to Central Food Retail, which operates the brand, and remove the circular link that would result. Don't know what the "securing an illustrious central title" bit is supposed to mean; Central Group is simply the name of the subject. As for the article issues, those concerned may just want to revert the article to the last good version before the extensive COI edits on 24 January 2022. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Was making an offhand comment about this topic being "central", I'm sure there's a lot of groups/food halls that are central but this just happens to be the central and it's actual name, yea. None of that actually matters to the RfD so I've now strucketh, was interested in the central organization topic/idea. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The suffix of "ness" does not appear at the target article, and by extension neither does "Bitness". Without a definition this term does not currently feel like a great fit as a redirect. "Bitness" has mentions across wikipedia in various scenarios, and also a
Wikt:bitness entry, but perhaps staying on WP-side is more preferable for this term. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My guess had ben the bit numbering used in the documentation (1-wordlength, worlength-1, 0-(wordlength-1), (wordlength-1)-0), but that's not how
Wikt:bitness defines it. I would say tha either
bitness should redirect to an article or section that defines bitness, or the redirect should be removed. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no
ness in the whole article. Seems to me that
bitness is short for
Bit endianness which is a redirect to
Bit numbering#Order. Since redirects aren't supposed to redirect to a redirect (though I am not sure why) seems that it should redirect to
Bit_numbering#Order. I will let someone else actually do it, though.
Gah4 (
talk) 22:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A term not mentioned at the target disambiguation page. In an effort to possibly boldly retarget, I confirmed that "antiscarp" was not mentioned at any of the pages listed at the dab. It was not. I searched onwiki for any mentions of "antiscarp", and the only related definition I could find was two pages that said "antiscarp, or an uphill-
scarplet". Great! So I just have to target
antiscarp to wherever scarplet points! I search that, and "scarplet" is an unmentioned redirect to the same disambiguation page. No use of "scarplet" at any of the linked pages either. Basically, this is a circular cross-definition of scarplet and antiscarp, only used to refer to each other, point at the same disambiguation, and are unmentioned everywhere else on Wikipedia. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Crosswiki to wiktionary -
[12] is more useful than anything we currently have on wikipedia, I think. Google also says that antiscarp is the name of a record label, presumably a small non-notable one. If it becomes notable, the wiktionary link could become a hatnote.
Fieari (
talk) 07:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would it be feasible to soft redirect both to Wiktionary? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a creature / alien that is not discussed at the target page for list of creatures and/or aliens in the Dr Who franchise. We have nothing dedicated to this topic apart from mentions on three various Dr Who pages, none of which seem eager to pull this redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Two Doctors where the Androgums are one of the episode's central antagonists. It's also their only on-screen appearance, so this seems like a plausible redirect for anyone curious about them.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk) 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A neologism not mentioned at the target article. External searches for this term do show use in the context of growing economies, but from a literal perspective this is a term not mentioned at the target that can be interpreted as anything "becoming Asian". The only use of this term anywhere on Wikipedia is in the references for
Pentecostal Saint Thomas Christians, and is one character off of a different redirect that leads to a topic ending in "zation". Nothing else appeared in my onwiki searches. The definition of this term according to the free dictionary is: "The act or process of making or becoming Asian in character, culture, or outlook." Utopes(talk / cont) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on soft redirecting to Wiktionary? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect Nothing local to redirect to. Google Scholar returned 3.6k hits, Google Books ~300, so the term is in use. How many idioms these hits represent I have no idea. Sooner or later, it will filter in, but right now, it means nothing to us. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Paradoctor (
talk •
contribs) 07:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore article without prejudice to AfD. Given the 2011-12 AfD was trending keep before the relist and then withdrawn with no consensus between that and merge, we definitely should not be deleting it at RfD.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or restore? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 06:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore article as per Thryduulf. There was never a consensus to redirect in the first place.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No hits for this string. Note that this is one of many redirects created by this user pointing to Bangladesh.
Rusalkii (
talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The title "Benevolent Rectangle" does not appear at the general article for Paramount Television, nor at
Paramount Television Studios where it used to point. That is because "Benevolent Rectangle" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and is currently not a helpful or useful redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - Google confirms that this is apparently a term used to describe a particular historical variant of the Paramount Television logo, in use from September 1968 to December 20, 1969. All their logo designs apparently have cute nicknames. I see this as being an unambiguous target as nothing else seems to be called a "benevolent rectangle", and the fact that it's not mentioned in the article is irrelevant-- it's a bit too trivial for wikipedia inclusion, but redirects are
WP:CHEAP, and anyone using this as a search term is not going to be surprised at where it takes them, so it passes
WP:LEAST. Inclusion in the article text is not a hard requirement for a redirect's existence. It's only a weak keep because I don't think this is going to be a common search term, as, again, anyone using it likely already knows what it refers to... but it's harmless and unambiguous, and that's enough to not touch it for me.
Fieari (
talk) 07:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's confusing that a page for a person redirects to an application, especially since this page is only linked to by 1 other article (
Ken_Manheimer).
MajesticRZ (
talk) 03:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or retarget. The page history has some potentially useful content, and it's not clear whether any was merged in the process of redirecting. See
[13]Tito Omburo (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 09:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tito Omburo Just merge that content into Hilbert spaces if you think it is useful. I do not: no references.
Johnjbarton (
talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, ok, changing to delete.
Tito Omburo (
talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Bundle with
Hilbert Spaces and Fourier analysis, then retarget/refine both as per Presidentman. These need to be judged together, given how close they are to each other-- either they need to target the same place, or both should be deleted. As for target/deletion, we have a place where the intersection of the two concepts is discussed-- therefore, as per
WP:XY, we should target there.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
One of these redirects has a history, while the other is a redirect left upon a move (and can harmlessly be deleted without much further discussion). So they aren't exactly the same.
Tito Omburo (
talk) 12:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not a likely redirect term.
Tito Omburo (
talk) 09:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Bundle with
Hilbert spaces and Fourier analysis, then retarget/refine both as per Presidentman. These need to be judged together, given how close they are to each other-- either they need to target the same place, or both should be deleted. As for target/deletion, we have a place where the intersection of the two concepts is discussed-- therefore, as per
WP:XY, we should target there.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention at target, so I propose deletion.
Veverve (
talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of
Irl A. Gladfelter? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, this is an interesting one. The
Irl A. Gladfelter page used to be an article on the man, until it was
submitted to AfD in 2016. The verdict was to redirect to
Augustana Catholic Church, which had a mention in... the list of leaders?? That's not a feature in the page where it stands.So, now diving into the history of
Augustana Catholic Church, it at the time was a much more extensive article, which had, as a section, a list of the church's leadership-- including Irl himself. While at one point an IP editor removed his name from the list, another editor eventually added his name elsewhere-- explaining that he'd left the leadership of the church.Then, interestingly enough, around 2021,
user:Veverve (who, yes, is the one who nominated the redirect to begin with) began... what I can only describe as a campaign of stub-ifying this article?? A project that would be assisted by
user:TheLionHasSeen. Over the years since 2021, the page went from a fairly decently sized article that had a good deal of information on this church, to a near-stub that paradoxically both describes it as no longer existing yet also being currently active in Haiti, Ecuador, and Africa, a process that... while I understand that every step of the way had some sort of explanation or another, I still find... intensely odd.In any case, given previous iterations of this page listed Gladfelter as the founder of this church, I'd say that there should be a mention??
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe there should definitely be a mention. Veverve, who still ironically claims to be retird, seems to be a zealous purist. -
TheLionHasSeen (
talk) 13:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I noticed that too-- Veverve added that "I'm retired" bit to his page BEFORE he started pruning at this article. also, rq, I know I mentioned you "assisting" with the pruning, what I meant by that was that around February, you made... one edit, that removed 6257 bytes worth of info. By contrast, Veverve has made 21 edits to the article since December 2021, over 4 discrete days, that total up to... hold on, lemme get my calculator... 16,727 bytes worth of info.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You're quite fine. I understood what you were stating. -
TheLionHasSeen (
talk) 19:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
a campaign of stub-ifying this article:
WP:BURDEN, and please refrain from personnal attacks, I have nothing else to say.
As for mentioning this person in the article: if you can provide any
WP:RS for this information, I would not oppose it being in the article. But I have checked, and there is no RS on this person.
Veverve (
talk) 20:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fictional element of a book which is not mentioned at the target, or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Woah. Xplicit is right in that that's... a LOT of page history. This started out as an entire page on the Ahoi Tour, created in March 2012 by
user:The True Reality Returns under their original account,
user:Thetruereality. It stayed as an article for the next nine years, until it was BLAR'd by
user:Aspects for failing the notability tests of
WP:GNG and
WP:CONCERT-- Aspects also noted that it'd been tagged as Needs Additional Citations for most of those nine years. From there, its original target was
Rammstein, before it was retargeted to
Reise, Reise two years later without (linked-to from page history) discussion.I don't think restoring the article would help, unless someone can finally cough up the sources that the article lacked for nine years. So, barring that, I'd say retarget back to
Rammstein, as it was originally targeted by Aspects. (Perhaps a refinement to
Rammstein#Live_performances would help?) GAHD DANGIT. Delete this one as per nom, this is fancruft. One second while I move this comment back to where it's supposed to go.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 23:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
With no incoming links or history, and especially the case after the merge of
Agorism, the ".info" page for Agorism has no mention at the target article, nor are there any mentions of this .info page on Wikipedia as a whole. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The word "Ahoi" does not appear at the target in any capacity, and is never alluded to in the form of a tour. In fact, "tour" ALSO does not appear at the target, besides an unnamed "world tour" mention in the 30 thousand byte article. Does not appear to be a currently helpful redirect as we have no content about the "Ahoi Tour" at this page. There are a few mentions of this tour sprinkled around Wikipedia, notably at
Rammstein,
Wiener Stadthalle (the arena it was once held at), and
List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium for list where it is contained in. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Woah. Xplicit is right in that that's... a LOT of page history. This started out as an entire page on the Ahoi Tour, created in March 2012 by
user:The True Reality Returns under their original account,
user:Thetruereality. It stayed as an article for the next nine years, until it was BLAR'd by
user:Aspects for failing the notability tests of
WP:GNG and
WP:CONCERT-- Aspects also noted that it'd been tagged as Needs Additional Citations for most of those nine years. From there, its original target was
Rammstein, before it was retargeted to
Reise, Reise two years later without (linked-to from page history) discussion.I don't think restoring the article would help, unless someone can finally cough up the sources that the article lacked for nine years. So, barring that, I'd say retarget back to
Rammstein, as it was originally targeted by Aspects. (Perhaps a refinement to
Rammstein#Live_performances would help?)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: "Unitary People's Liberation Front" is an alternative translation of the org's native language name (
[14],
[15]). The native language name formally contains what translates to "of Yugoslavia" to denote it refers to the central, federal organization, because there were also UPLF-s for districts. –
Vipz (
talk) 00:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirects are not supposed to promote neologisms. If the historians did not call UNLF by this English name, we should not either.
Викидим (
talk) 20:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I just created it but I'm not sure anymore. I noticed
willingness could mean the same. Or should it be targeted to Wiktionary? --
MikutoHtalk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The personality trait of
agreeableness has very little to do with the transient state of being favorable about something.
Jcbutler (
talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm now wondering if
Attitude (psychology) would be appropriate, because attitude can be defined as some level of favorability or unfavorability.
Jcbutler (
talk) 23:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target article's subject was released over a month ago.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. This isn't as clear cut as the Great Expectations one below, but it's still getting hits in the same pattern as it has been getting for months indicating that it is still being used.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf, non-minimal page views are proof that someone still finds this useful.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete in the spirit of
WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target was released over a month ago.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. I don't know what stats the nominator is looking at, but it can't be the ones for this redirect as it's hits almost every day and often multiple hits a day which isn't anywhere close to "minimal".
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf, I feel like a broken record a bit here, non-minimal page views = proof that it's still useful and should be kept a little longer, let it cook, so on, so forth.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Lyric not mentioned in page (we've had a lot of these at RfD recently).
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep? This is one of those "people might not know the title of the song, but they remember the chorus" songs, partially because it's a song whose title never shows up in the lyrics. Given the second half of the chorus line ("rat in a cage") DOES show up naturally in the article, I can see the article being rewritten to fit the full line in ("Despite all my rage, I'm still just a rat in a cage"). In addition, starting the search with "Despite all my rage..." would arguably be more plausible of a search than simply searching for the ending four words of the line (..."rat in a cage").
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete in the spirit of
WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target released over a month ago.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. We haven't left the era of substantial page views for this redirect yet, this is another premature nomination.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
...Premature? The subject was renamed over three months ago!!! Want to see such a redirect that is clearly not a deletable redirect per page views? See One Piece (upcoming TV series); the nominated redirect is nothing close to that.
Steel1943 (
talk) 13:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Time since renaming only one factor, and not even the most important one. These redirects should be deleted only when they have ceased being useful for readers. That a different redirect is getting more page views does not mean that the views of this redirect are "minimal".
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
One, nothing wrong with this redirect as per Thryduulf, nonminimal page views = still useful.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target was released over a month ago.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. We appear to be approaching the end of utility for this redirect, but the stats show we aren't there yet.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Then delete it now. An editor, me, has brought this up to get rid of this redirect when we ... literally are approaching the "end". Right, because editors live and breathe to renominate the same redirect over and over again...
Steel1943 (
talk) 13:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a big difference between approaching the end of utility and being after the end of utility, it is only appropriate to delete these redirects in the latter circumstance. Sometimes it takes only a few days to get from one to the other, sometimes it takes months. Regardless, deleting it prematurely is harmful.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf. If anyone still finds the redirect useful-- and page views reflect that people do-- we need to keep it.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete in the spirit of
WP:UFILM. Low page views, target released over a month ago.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. 59 page views in the last 30 days is not even remotely "low page views". This is a ridiculously inappropriate nomination.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hasn't hit my "10+/day average over the last 30 days" bar.
Steel1943 (
talk) 13:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
And in what universe is inconveniencing nine users per day remotely appropriate!? One a day on average is more than enough empirical evidence of use to demonstrate that deletion would cause harm.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
...And obviously, and repeatedly, my stance is not nearly as strict as yours, and I see the existence of the redirect as harmful due to the now erroneous disambiguator. (It's getting to a point where we should probably just have some long, drawn out philosophical conversation on Wikipedia and then link to that conversation for other participants and closers alike.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm very concerned at all these "per nom" comments when the nomination is factually incorrect.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf, let this one cook for a bit. In addition, and in reply to Thryduulf's concern: I rarely see such being brought up in RfD (we seem to quite blatantly flout this one, actually), but teeeeechnically we're not supposed to give "per nom" comments much if any weight, as per
WP:PERNOM.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Per nom" !votes are completely fine when the nomination is correct, relevant and there are no other factors identified so at RfD we rightly ignore that part of the essay. The votes are not fine when there are problems with the nomination (as in this example).
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target released over a month ago.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Please note that this is an example of minimal page views - very low total number, multiple weeks with no views on most days.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unclear what this redirect is meant to refer to. I am assuming this redirect refers to
Griselda (miniseries), but that has already been released.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete News articles indicate this was a movie announced in 2020 starring
Jennifer Lopez as the subject of the target article. I cannot find evidence it entered into the production stage. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 21:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Whatever it's meant to refer to, people aren't expecting to find it at this title - only 6 hits in the whole of 2023 and none before the nomination in 2024.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Far too ambiguous. This is just French for "the farm", and could refer to any number of things. I got here looking for
Hameau de la Reine. Internet searches for "le hameau" will turn up tourist sites, cafes, farmsteads, etc. Best to just delete this redirect, I think, but it could also perhaps become a dab page.
asilvering (
talk) 19:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support creating disambig if possible.
—KaliforniykaHi! 23:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just realized this redirect has had a slow edit war a few years back between its previous target,
Quotation mark, and its current target,
Empty string. Though I'm familiar with why both targets are plausible, I believe the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target is
Quotation mark since I believe most readers will erroneously type two consecutive apostrophes to find information about the quotation mark since the concept is more familiar to readers since most readers are not familiar with concepts related to coding/computer science. For this reason, retarget to
Quotation mark.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't have any lean one way or the other just yet, but I do bring with me the Old RFD template.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Lunamann: Dang yep, my handiwork from almost a decade ago. I think I spent a few hours compiling that discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not discussed in target. I don't believe Easter dinner is special in some way other than being a dinner on a holiday, if there are some particular traditions around it then they can be added to the target article and the redirect kept.
Rusalkii (
talk) 18:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Easter dinner, afaik, is not special in any way (well, more than 'dinner on a holiday' is special), the way, for example,
Thanksgiving dinner would be.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll take "sentences that could only be spoken by an American",
Alex. --
asilvering (
talk) 19:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Easter food. Easter dinner is absolutely special in many traditions (in mine, we eat lamb, for obvious reasons, but they're not always so obvious).
Easter food is close enough. --
asilvering (
talk) 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As nom, withdraw my nomination per asilvering (I don't believe we can close the discussion due to
Occidental Phantasmagoria's delete vote. I tried seraching for related pages but "Easter food" didn't occur to me. And as an American Jew(ish), guilty on two counts of having no idea what I'm talking about, thank you asilvering. My family followed (very irreligiously) some of the Russian traditions in
Easter food#Other noteworthy dishes, even.
Rusalkii (
talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, even without Occidental's delete vote, we do also have two Retarget votes, which would also serve to keep the discussion open despite the withdraw. Retarget votes aren't keep votes.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 23:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Timmermans lookalike, not notable by himself, not mentioned in the article. Confusing per
WP:R#DELETE #2
Викидим (
talk) 17:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteKeep per Paul_012. This domain (now a redirect to malware) belonged to a different organisation called Asia Times. We risk confusing and misleading readers by having this redirect. All the best: RichFarmbrough 16:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC).reply 16:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep. How are they supposed to be different organisations? The article already covers the entirety of its history. Atimes.com was their old domain until 2019 when they moved to asiatimes.com, and continued to redirect there until it expired in 2020, according to the Wayback Machine. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rich Farmbrough, could it be that you misunderstood the site's history? I see you recently mentioned on the target article's talk page that Asiatimes.com existed in 1996, but that's a different, unrelated site. Look at the Wayback Machine's calendar and you'll see that Asiatimes.com only became active in 2019, before which the site was at Atimes.com. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Not a good idea to lead our readers to malware. --
Lenticel(
talk) 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Lunamann,
Lenticel, in what circumstances would the existence of a redirect lead readers to the site? Redirects serve the reverse purpose. It leads readers who actually type in the domain to the article with which the domain used to be associated. The only way someone could be led to the site from the redirect is them checking "What links here" in the tools menu, then sifting through the hundreds of links (or selecting "Hide links") to find the URL, then deliberately typing it in the address bar. Anyone doing so would probably know enough to understand the risks. (Though maybe a warning template for such redirects might be useful.) --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. Still feels weird to have it here, though, especially without such a warning template...
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 18:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, since it's the site's former domain name, as noted above and at
D:Q727162. -
Eureka Lott 15:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Emoji are also keyboard faces, but the title is vague enough that the current target is probably not the most suitable, if any. Contains 2 edits of June 2009 history. While it looks like patrollers were lax about the "online emotions" unsourced cruft list, let's just say that NPP today would not approve of the immediate CSD within 2 minutes of creation and conversion into a redirect immediately after 💀. (Looking back on it, at least the text was legible so it wouldn't be complete nonsense imo). Nevertheless, very 2009 :v Utopes(talk / cont) 04:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete> The link between the redirect wording and the target is a real stretch. --
Викидим (
talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 11:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: When I do a web search for keyboard faces, I see several websites with lists of emoticons, including one called keyboardfaces dot com. This indicates that term is used a reasonable amount.
Kk.urban (
talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Section title no longer exists. No mention of "EmoteXT" or "Emotext" anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This was merged and redirected following
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotext (2006). Unfortunately the Wikiblame tool is currently giving me timeout errors when trying to find when and why it was removed.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have tagged the redirect as an R from merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
All other redirects such as
WP:RV,
WP:REV and
WP:REVERTING and all redirect to
WP:Reverting but this one is the odd one out. For this one I consider changing the redirect name like the one I mention above because that one fits with the redirect more. This is supposed to redirect with a project-associated page and not a help guide.kleshkreikne.T 20:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. This has a very large number of links, we should not retarget this unless we are certain that these links were intended for the WP space page not the Help space page. I've not (yet) looked.
Thryduulf (
talk) 04:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Wikipedia:Reverting, which has a hatnote referencing
Help:Reverting at the top. Readers who realize the page in the Wikipedia namespace is not the page they are looking for have clear direction to get to the related page in the "Help" namespace. In other words, updating the incoming links may not be necessary in this case.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target. I believe the Dong Nai (apologies for lack for diacritics) flows through Nha Be province, but I can't find any evidence that it is referred to that way. I don't read Vietnamese, so there may be important sources I'm missing.
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Also
Nha Be River. Is there an automated way to bundle redirects for deletion, or does it need to be done manually?
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've a couple of times seen people list a bunch of redirects using a tool, then going back to bundle them after the fact manually. I myself have found it far easier to just manually list a bundle instead of trying to use a tool.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Was going to nominate the diacritic-less version when I came across it, so thank you
Rusalkii for opening this! The two are now bundled, as requested. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Given that I was also planning on nomming this, it only makes sense I !vote delete as well. Not mentioned, unclear relationship, not a useful redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That source isn't ideal but is enough for me to agree that the redirect should probably stay, thank you for finding it.
Rusalkii (
talk) 01:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirect of a poorly formatted date to a particular event makes little sense, so
WP:R#DELETE #2 ("confusion") applies. For the few ones who can remember a date, but not the event, there is
9 November in German history.
Викидим (
talk) 03:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
American date with month in the first place needs a comma. A proper format would be November 9, 1989. I have no objections against redirecting the correctly spelled
November 9, 1989.
Викидим (
talk) 05:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep in mind that these are redirects, not articles. We don't need to worry about what's pretty and perfect when naming a redirect, because not always will the general public type in something that's pretty and perfect. Instead, we need to worry about what's plausible for the general public to type. A dropped comma is perfectly within plausibility.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 05:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a plausible search term and by far the most significant event to happen on that date.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note:
November 9, 1989 (with a comma) is currently a redirect to
9 November in German history. If the nominated page is targeted elsewhere as a result of this discussion, the page with the comma should be updated to match. -
Eureka Lott 15:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled
November 9, 1989. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Pppery. Bizarre to send this to "... in German history" since it's a specific date. Mauerfall is absolutely referred to by date alone, so we shouldn't delete these. --
asilvering (
talk) 19:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Western era" not mentioned in the target article. The implication of "modern era", "modern history", and "modern times" from the article is that this is happening right now, and equivalent to western in usage. Was created by the creator of
Post-Western era; that seems to be a better location to talk about the concept of a "western era", if any suffice. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Do NOT keep at current location. Referring to the modern era as the 'western era' is... extremely euro-centric??? Heck, with how pervasive Japanese and Chinese culture are right now, you could just as easily call the Modern era the "Eastern era" and be just as correct as if you called it the "Western era". Either delete, or retarget to somewhere else. I'm loathe to target it to
Post-Western era mostly because that article is... just as eurocentric???Could perhaps target to
American frontier (the target of
Wild west)?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 03:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget or secondarily delete, this is neither common usage nor an equivalence I'd like to see promoted. "Western" doesn't usually seem to imply "wild west" except in fairly narrow American history contexts.
Post-western era seems like a good target, since it implictly defines "western era".
Westernization would be my second choice but at that point I think it may be better to delete.
Rusalkii (
talk) 18:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Might be a good idea to turn it into a disambiguation page, with the "Wild West era"-related page being one possible redirect.
GreekApple123 (
talk) 16:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
While this might be a taxonomic prefix, a reader is quite likely to be looking for some information on the prefix in general. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the fact that we have information on this specific usage is sort of arbitrary.
1234qwer1234qwer4 17:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This spelling does not seem to be used anywhere outside the Spanish Wikipedia.
WP:R#DELETE #8 (obscure).
Викидим (
talk) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep:Please note that the name "
Shimun" Shimun (
Syriac alphabet: ܫܡܥܘܢ), also transliterated as Shemʿon or Shimon is the form of
Simon used in
Classical Syriac and other
Aramaic languages. As the scope of the article is Syriac in nature and not Spanish, It would help various links to be re targeted and help Syriac Community as the pronunciation of the name is also based on the same, Thanks.
J.Stalin STalk 04:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The lead uses the phrase "Shemʿon line", so this seems a plausible search term. --
asilvering (
talk) 20:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rarely, if ever, referred to that way. Googling, the most common topic is
Defense Freight Transportation Services which we don't have an article about, and I don't see any use of this abbreviation elsewhere Wikipedia. Could be a typo of DFTD, since they're one off on a QWERTY keyboard, but I don't think it's worth keeping a typo of an abbreviation.
Rusalkii (
talk) 01:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambiguating? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As nom, support disambig.
Rusalkii (
talk) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm now wondering whether it would make sense to have a combined dab page for
DFT,
DFTs and
DFTS?
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:RDAB and the consensus at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. Search would take readers to
London (disambiguation) if deleted anyway. The only way people would be affected is if they use direct URL navigation which is unlikely as most people are going to know DAB pages have a lower case qualifier. In terms of OTHERSTUFF/PANDORA I'd point out that there are no merits like being discussed on external websites or useful history etc that would make this one different to others. Redirects from WP qualifiers with incorrectly formatted redirects are generally not useful to readers but are an inconvenience to editors and create clutter. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 23:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per the mega-RfD cited in the previous comment and numerous
otherprecedents. These cases should really be eligible for speedy deletion even if not recent.
Certes (
talk) 23:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as yet another example of a useful and completely harmless {{
R from other capitalisation}}. Contrary to Crouch, Swale's evidence-free assertions the encyclopaedia gains nothing by deleting this other than making it harder for some readers to find what they are looking for.
Thryduulf (
talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The mega-RfD linked above includes an extensive specific discussion of London (Disambiguation), which was used as an example even though it did not exist at the time. It contains plenty of evidence for and against the deletion of the then-hypothetical redirect.
Certes (
talk) 10:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
...Wow, the nonexistent (at the time) redirect
London (Disambiguation)was indeed discussed extensively in that discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 14:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There was indeed extensive discussion, and absolutely none of it included evidence that convinced me that redirects of this nature were harmful or that the encyclopaedia would benefit from their deletion. In the absence of such evidence I will continue to oppose the deletion.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"...none of [the discussion] included evidence that convinced me..." I get that; my point there is that I've never seen such accurate
WP:CRYSTAL discussion in regards to a redirect that had not been created yet. (I think I know what happened regarding this redirect, but since my thoughts go into a potential
WP:AGF failure [not against you], I'm gonna leave it at that for now.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If you really feel it would be helpful to readers to have such redirects why don't you just get consensus to create them all with a bot. Why do you oppose to deleting this redirect? What is different about this redirect than the numerous others that don't exist? Why do you think deleting this one is a bad idea but you don't appear to want to bother to get them mass created? Why do readers need a redirect here? Apart from the fact someone has bothered to create this one I can't see any merits that are different about this one. I can't see why readers benefit from a small arbitrary number of DABs having these redirects than inconvenience editors. If we did mass create them then the tools might get fixed to prevent them showing up as errors but with only a small number its probably not worth the trouble. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We really don't want the tools "fixed" to prevent links to London (Disambiguation) with a big D showing up as errors, because they are errors.
WP:INTDAB recommends, in certain circumstances, links to Foo (disambiguation), not Foo (Disambiguation) nor Foo (discombobulation) nor any other variant. That's because it is not a qualifier in the normal sense like (footballer) or (film). It is a technical placeholder which is detected and handled specially by numerous pieces of software as well as editors who specialise in disambiguation. It's rather like a
reserved word in a programming language. IF ... THEN ... ELSE works because the compiler or interpreter expects those keywords. If I decide my program would look prettier written with WHEN ... CONSEQUENTLY ... OTHERWISE instead, the computer is going to say No.
Certes (
talk) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We should always fix the tools to deal with the encyclopaedia as it exists for the benefit of the readers, and never degrade the user experience just to make it easier for tool authors/maintainers. I don't encourage the mass creation of pretty much any redirects, because that's not generally the best use of resources and it's usually very easy to cause problems (c.f. EU bot), however I generally don't oppose well thought out creations either. Redirects that are intentionally created demonstrate a utility for that redirect, sometimes that utility is not high enough to counter the problems (e.g.
2028 elections in India below), but that does not apply to (Disambiguation) redirects that lead to a relevant disambiguation page as they are (in almost all cases) completely harmless. Comparisons to programming languages are irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a programming language, and redirects like this exist for the benefit of readers not compilers.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree readers come first but that only really applies if the redirect(s) is actually likely to be useful to them rather than being COSTLY. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per the 2022 RfD.
PamD 06:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the precedent RfDs: general consensus is that these types of redirects are
WP:RDAB errors and should therefore be deleted.
InterstellarGamer12321 (
talk |
contribs) 12:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
IMO, such a discussion should be better placed at
WT:WPM, since the interested editors are necessarily participants to the wiki project mathematics.
D.Lazard (
talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
diffiety. "Diffiety" is a
portemanteau for "differential variety", and this is the only mentioned article that contains a definition of something that may be called a differential algebraic variety.
D.Lazard (
talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Obscure character that even most Warhammer 40K fans wouldn't know. Not mentioned in article. Not a reasonable redirect.
Canterbury Tailtalk 23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete one of my favorite assholes in the franchise but this is an obscure character out of universe. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Feder-Vardi conjecture
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: nomination withdrawn
Conflicted feelings about this one. Created initially pointing to
cultural area, then changed to current target by
Викидим. The current target defines "non-Western" culture in terms of its relationship with the west, and also excludes non-Eastern non-Western cultures, notably all of Africa and (depending on how you count) Latin America. The target also doesn't significantly cover culture. On the other hand, I can't think of a better target, and it's a
commonly used term.
Rusalkii (
talk) 19:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My change was inspired by Western/Non-Western dichotomy (as defined by the Western culture) clearly present in the title, and the Non-West is (mis)labeled as East since at least
Kipling: East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. Africa, if mentioned specifically, IMHO is part of another,
North-South divide.
Викидим (
talk) 20:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target.
Rusalkii (
talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This was ABS-CBN's term for its evening primetime block and is not necessarily notable outside the company's marketing initiatives. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Double Engine (2024 film), as thats their latest project, and the studio itself doesnt meet WP:Notability. Perhaps they can have an article of their own in near future.
bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (
talk) 07:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and add a short section on the category of tangles.
[17] is the top Google hit and there are other suitable sources that are easy to find.
Charles Matthews (
talk) 07:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
After the merging of
Luxury real estate into the general article, the redirect of "luxury home" does not appear to be super useful as it does not bear a mention at any location. Additionally, while the plural version may indicate "multiple homes" being sought, it doesn't seem specific enough to target something besides what the singular version does. Looking at these two options side by side in the search bar, it's a shot-in-the-dark for readers to figure out where each'll go. Perhaps there's a better alternative, because neither status quo seems necessary currently. (I'll mention that "luxury homes" was repointed to the category in 2020 by a user later blocked for NOTHERE). Utopes(talk / cont) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Is the "merge", then, a back-door delete? I've seen this done before, deliberately or accidentally. All the best: RichFarmbrough 21:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC).reply
It wasn't a merge; it was redirected
as a result of AfD (though I don't actually see any policy-based reasoning in that discussion). --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Rich Farmbrough: Thanks for the catch! To clarify, were you referring to the merge of luxury real estate, or luxury home? As this only concerns the "home" titles, there shouldn't be any issue that loses the luxury real estate history, and wouldn't be a backdoor delete of that, unless there was something else that you were referring to. The other title of
Luxury Home had a miniscule existence before becoming a "Luxury real estate" redirect, although admittedly I did not catch that in my first go with this nom (I was mainly looking at the lowercase two, and then bundled the uppercase once I realized it existed). Utopes(talk / cont) 06:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and renomenateLuxury real estate? Paul is right in that I don't see much policy-based reasoning, either-- the nominator's only given argument was that
Luxury hotel was a redirect to
hotel, and he got one
WP:PERNOM, and one vote that mentioned the idea of adding a section to
Real estate discussing luxury real estate, which... wasn't done, before it was closed with only those two votes. No consideration seemed to be given to the actual article, which... seemed pretty okay, at least to my eyes? (Also, since we're technically here to discuss
Luxury home,
Luxury Home, and
Luxury homes, target all three back to
Luxury real estate when it gets restored.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If you want to overturn the result of an AfD you need to nominate it at
WP:DRV.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep first two, and retargetLuxury homes to
Real estatefor now (reverting the 2020 change by a now-blocked user). Also tag it as an avoided double redirect to
Luxury real estate (as I have done for the first two). Whatever action is pursued regarding the former article (usually the case should be raised with the closing admin before going to DRV), this should help ensure that the redirects are taken care of should it be restored. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would've enjoyed being told that before I nominated it a c k, I currently feel like I would like the floor to swallow me up
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
oops! I was not aware. Although I now notice what Lunamann's small text was trying to say. Will wait for the DRV to conclude. Jay 💬 17:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Restoration of the previous target - Luxury real estate, may not be an option per the recently concluded DRV. We have so far only one vote suggesting targetting all to Real estate "for now" probably pending the discussion of Luxury real estate, but with that now out of the way, we can re-view this RfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Sahrang" has no mention at the target article, and the three mentions it has on Wikipedia are within the same citation used three times, not related to Iran. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Back when the redirect was created, the article did list that "sahrang" (Persian for 'tricolor') was an alternate name for the flag. This was changed in January of this year, and now simply states that Tricolor (not the Persian word, the English word, which is a little odd to me considering this is literally Iran, aka Persia, we're talking about) is the alternate name of the flag. Gonna attempt to flag down the editor who made that change, maybe they have some input here...
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 06:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget all to the DAB as per nom. W h a t ? ? ? How did THAT get translated there?? Delete as per nom.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Concur with Delete - this was a common discussion board nickname in his playing days (ankle biting midget of death). Now outdated.
Xsmith (
talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete unless a mention is added. I have no opinion whether one should be added, just that more than 30 seconds on google is needed to make that decision.
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Seems to be the title of several companies according to GSearch. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify, I don't think either of these could lay claim as to being primary target. As per
WP:NOPRIMARY that means we should dabify, even if we only have two potential entries in the DAB.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose [edit: was "Support"],
Chord (geometry) is very obviously the primary meaning, from which these later meanings are derived. –
jacobolus(t) 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I got confused about what was being proposed. The current target is good, and retargeting to the DAB page would be moderately worse. –
jacobolus(t) 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The European Union merger law does not seem to be referred to as "merger regulation 2004", as the full title (including 2004) does not appear at the target, although "merger regulation" does. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A potential program not listed at the list of programs. No mention of "Between Greetings" anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a book anthology that does not appear, nor is it ever alluded to at the target translator's article. It's currently linked via a hatnote on the
Bridge of Words article as the only incoming link to this redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Was at this title for about a day. This is a Russianization of the name which as far as I can tell is not used anywhere; Google gives zero hits for this form. I have been able to find one instance of "Heydar Ilkhamovich", used by a commenter on a newspaper article.
Rusalkii (
talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, we don't have any information on Cinebooks/CineBooks (American comany). If they had an article to point to, I'd recommend hatnoting the two against each other.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 08:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Lunamann: I only support keeping if all of the incorrect links that currently point to the British company are removed, or changed to different (red) links if a future article is planned for the American company.
J3133 (
talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh no, I don't think those links should stay. That said, I don't think it should point right here-- these links are a bit too close to the name of the existing article on Cinebook (UK). They need to be removed, or
WP:BOLDlyWP:REDYES'd, all to the same target, with that target having a disambiguator.
CineBooks (American company) perhaps?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Since this redirect is in plural form, is it really a common way to refer to the target? Especially given the existence of the other company. I would suspect someone searching "Cinebooks" is more likely looking for information on the American company than the British one which uses the singular form.
D2 and
D10 seem to apply here. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue I find with simply outright deleting is that the names are still so similar that I could easily see this issue continuing to occur without SOME sort of explanation. ...Is there precedent for a redlink hatnote??
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The word "ecological" is not present in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target potentially unclear. In addition, the article
Land reclamation seems somewhat indistinguishable from the target article's subject, meaning that even if the redirect somewhat could refer to its current target article, there may still be potential confusion since
Land reclamation is a separate article.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Feebly nteracting particle
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
No clue where this one comes from, not used anywhere in or out of Wikipedia. The possible proper spelling "Aventurine glass" contains way too many differences.
Викидим (
talk) 03:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
«Авантюриновый блеск (avanturine glance) = кислый плагиоклаз» <avanturine glance = sour Plagioclase> (Krivovichev V. G. Mineralogical glossary. Scientific editor
A. G. Bulakh. — St.Petersburg: St.Petersburg Univ. Publ. House. 2009. — 556 p.: page 11 ) --
Namesnik (
talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not an expert, but I do not think that A.g. term exists in English. Someone, somewhere, would have used it in a way for Google to pick it up. It is easy, for example, to find sources for "sour Plagioclase". Perhaps, a typo, or mis-translation in this particular book?
Викидим (
talk) 06:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well then there must be two typos, or rather, at least twenty. The fact is that two dictionary entries are devoted to avanturine glance. This reference book has a separate section devoted to the translation of foreign names of minerals («List of foreign names of minerals», mainly English and German). And there is this mineral there too (only in English, without the German version): «Avanturine glance = авантюриновый блеск» (ibid., : page 440 ). The form of the word «
avanturine» is noteworthy. We are probably talking about texts from the 18th and 19th centuries. --
Namesnik (
talk) 10:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The term is not used in the redirect target (there are no "losers" there. Neiter it occurs in subtopic article
Standings (sports). An article is possible (ethics and psychiatry of sports), so
WP:R#DELETE #10
Викидим (
talk) 03:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. My best guess is that this redirect is intended to be a {{
R avoided double redirect}} to Second place or intended to target some topic at
Last place, but even then, this redirect is confusing due to being ambiguous in nature.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
To the best of my knowledge, the idiom is not as much about putting down the silver medalist, as it is a way to say that in sports the winner takes almost all of the tangible rewards (unlike the case in many other professions). Definitely has nothing to do with ranking, and I do not think that 2nd place would be a good equivalent either. It is not hard to find the expression in serious works in the fields of ethics ("winning at all costs") and psychiatry (effects of losing), but I did not find anything with deep enough coverage for a separate article. Soft redirect to wiktionary is possible, but why do we need it?
Викидим (
talk) 08:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect term is not used at target article (it's an obscure Firefox config, and Firefox is only mentioned once, briefly). StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
rm ubufox: After some digging, it turns out that in September 2008, a chunk of the Ubuntu article was forked out into
Ubuntu version history-- and the only mention of Ubufox in the entire article went with it. However, while the reference to Ubufox is still intact in its 2008-era entirety in
Ubuntu version history, it's no more than a namedrop, nowhere near enough to support the redirect. Delete!
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 08:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not a Slavic deity, or any deity. This is a fictional character that is totally not notable. Redirect is senseless,
WP:R#DELETE #5
Викидим (
talk) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting also that there appears to be the
C Ring of Saturn (not sure whether that redirect should be retargeted once the disambiguation page is created, considering the similar term in chemistry).
1234qwer1234qwer4 01:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This used to be an avoided double redirect to
Punctured neighbourhood, which used to redirect to this glossary (though has since been retargeted). However, this is not really conceptually related to punctured neighbourhoods. One place where this is described is
Scheme (mathematics)#Examples, though there might be similar content portraying this topic from some other mathematical field's POV.
1234qwer1234qwer4 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
REDIRECT I would have expected this to be a redirect to
Puncture (topology), or perhaps to
Complex plane (in the context of
meromorphic functions), both of which I would prefer to the current situation. Redirecting to the top of a glossary page doesn't help the reader much, I think.
Tea2min (
talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
One might also consider redirecting this to the disambiguation page for
Punctured, which may be expanded with additional uses in mathematics. Redirecting to the complex plane seems like a good idea for something like
punctured complex plane, but the current title can refer to planes over other fields as well. Note that there are also the
Punctured set and
Punctured surface redirects.
1234qwer1234qwer4 14:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Out of context, "Punctured set" does not seem to mean anything useful. And it does not even appear in the Glossary of topology. I would delete that redirect.
PatrickR2 (
talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambig. Google results are a roughly even three-way split between the world cup, the video game and events relating to FIFA in 2023. I haven't found a good target for the latter, but a dab between the first two is viable with or without that.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Revert back to the status quo of redirecting to
FIFA Football 2003. The video games are commonly referred to as "FIFA [year]", the World Cup is not. While it's ambiguous, the video game is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a hatnote should be employed for the World Cup. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The Cognitive Brain Research Unit is a unit at the University of Helsinki. The current target is the unit's founder, who also directed it from 1991-2006. Not much is said about the unit at the current target, so I'm not sure if it will be satisfactory for people looking for it. However, I don't see it mentioned on
University of Helsinki, either. I'm curious what the best target for this could be.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, I haven't been able to find a mention anywhere else on Wikipedia and a sentence seems better than nothing.
Rusalkii (
talk) 23:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify, or Delete as per
WP:REDLINK. It feels pertinent that the opening sentence of
Mass deworming does not state that
Preventative chemotherapy is another name for it, but rather, that it is a TYPE of preventative chemotherapy. That says to me that there are MULTIPLE meanings for this phrase-- and that this deserves its own page, either a dab page or an article.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 22:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Readers will only use that search term if they are looking for information about
chemotherapy, which is cancer chemotherapy. And I'm not even sure that adjuvant chemotherapy is really "preventative" in the way that readers would expect, so I wouldn't want to retarget it there. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Added. I wasn't sure whether to, seeing as this particular phrasing is mentioned at least four times at that article. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email) 19:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear: Delete both. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My original vote was made misreading the bold text "Preventive chemotherapy" in the opener as "Preventative chemotherapy". Now that both are bundled? Delete both. (Or turn one into a DAB and retarget the other to said DAB, as per my original vote.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dan Schneider already exists without the disambiguation, which is the intended target. There's no reason why someone would add the parentheses, and this redirect wasn't created from a page move.
Bandit Heeler (
talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect is a left-over from an article created that duplicated an existing article on the subject. Instead of deleting it as a duplicate, they just redirected to the other article. No articles link to this, it is not a likely search topic. Pointless to have. Nothing in the edit history was used in the other article so history retention also isn't important here.
Geraldo Perez (
talk) 19:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem is, it's not a likely search topic, or at least something that's not being used. Before the nomination of the redirect, it
wasn't getting any views, aside from a singular view on the 23rd of March, and bearing in mind the target's recent surge in page views over the last few days.
Bandit Heeler (
talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That argument is irrelevant for {{
R from unnecessary disambiguation}} because
WP:CHEAP applies and since there is no evidence why the disambiguator itself is problematic. "Not inaccurate" = "plausible" (regardless of page views) = deletion causes more harm than good.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Quoting from currently-blocked user
Roland Of Yew who moved this title to its current target with the ratioonale being: Incorrectly titled 'American' (,) the series is a British production, the American streaming platform 'Amazon' has international distribution rights. I ran into these two titles here whiles scanning for rdrs and rcats for DAB fixing purposes and found this not fitting any of our rcats – not even the " R from alternative ..." rcats. I may be wrong, but I'm listing this here for either deletion or keeping as this is over 3-and-a-half years since this was moved. What do you think?
Intrisit (
talk) 13:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I wanted to test this, and it turns out that "link.com" is a separate website that is built by stripe. Stripe's own domain is "stripe.com" and already exists as a redirect. The target in question makes no mention of "Link" on its own, or "link.com" for that matter. The article does make a passing mention of Stripe's "Payment Link" portal, but having the url as a redirect when this portal is barely present at the article may be confusing. The citation in the Stripe article that discusses the payment link portal, does not mention link.com. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirecting Horst Schumann to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany page, where he is never mentioned and to which he has no connection to other than being a party politican, creates confusion for people looking him up. I wanted to actually create the Horst Schumann article and am instead faced with this unnecessary and unhelpful redirect (WP:RDELETE No. 9). The redirect is unprotected, but Horst Schumann (politician, born 1924) is the better title for this specific article IMHO.
Maxwhollymoralground (
talk) 13:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Maxwhollymoralground: As stated at the top of
WP:RFD, you can just go ahead and create the article if the redirect is unprotected. Typically, article titles won't include a birth date unless needed for disambiguation purposes. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The target of this redirect has been changed multiple times over the years, so I wanted to bring this to a discussion instead of just reverting. Essentially, I feel that this could just as easily refer to
Zaporizhzhia Oblast as the Russian occupation article - there are (mostly older) sources that refer to the city by its Russian name, and
Zaporozhye already redirects to the city. Maybe it could be converted to a disambiguation page?
HappyWith (
talk) 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Focus team" is never mentioned at the target page, and the sparing mentions of "focus" and "team" are not in context of any sort of Focus Team. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I've also gone ahead and bundled "Liberal Alliance Focus Team", which has even less mentions of "focus" or "team", i.e. zero mentions in any capacity. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The Lib Dems (and their precursors in the Liberals and the SDP-Liberal Alliance) have fielded election candidates under the banners of 'Liberal Focus Team' and 'Liberal Alliance Focus Team', usually in local elections. For example, take a look at
the results of the 1986 London Borough Council elections. On a related note, they still stand 'Liberal Democrat Focus Team' candidates in recent local elections
acrossthecountry. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 16:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm gonna just comment since I'm the one who created them but the reason i created the redirects is because it is a distinct description used for dozens of candidates fielded by those parties in the 1970s and 80s
TheHaloVeteran2 (
talk) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Bimrad" is not mentioned at the target article; Bimrad metro is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Unhelpful for people that search this term to end up at a page without relevant content. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Bhimrad is not the name of a station listed at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Whoops, I must have gotten confused which article I was looking at. Retarget to
List of Surat Metro stations, which is where it is mentioned.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As noted by the page mover, the term "food street" can be highly ambiguous and exist all over the globe, evidenced from searching "food streets" on Wikipedia.
Street food looks like the most suitable term out there, which branches off into
Street food of Mumbai,
Street food of Chennai, etc, although perhaps there is a difference between this and the multiple food streets, such as
Gawalmandi Food Street or
VV Puram Food Street, etc. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I just read over the
Street food article, and it seems as though it is a mix of describing the food sold on the streets in the top section (street food), and then the next section describes the shops that are on streets that sell food (food streets). In fact, at this point, looks as though this article is not sure which topic it is meant to refer to, and the top section may need rewriting to accommodate both concepts and/or the article may need splitting. Not sure at this point.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, if THAT ain't a
WP:SURPRISE and a half. I do concur that that article needs a rewrite and/or split, though I'm going to hold my vote where it is for now-- mostly because, while you're correct in that that's where the information is now, it doesn't feel like it should be where the information SHOULD be. (It's a bit like the discussion a while back on
Not real, and how I mentioned that the option that seemed most correct would be to redirect it to
Real, except that the idea was silly.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Street food since the concept of "food streets" seem to be explained there, though the top/lead section is not too clear regarding explaining that both concepts (food sold on streets, and the streets which the food is found) are present in the article. (The article may need a bit of a rewrite or some splitting into another article, but it seems at the present time, the concept as defined by the redirects is present in
Street food.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirect should be deleted. The name of the page was an error, it appears that an editor thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics which it is not. The page has been changed to the more appropriate title Thermal transport in nanostructures. The redirect is incorrect, as it is not on thermodynamics, so would take readers in the wrong direction. I cannot find an actual page on thermodynamics in nanostructures, so it should be removed for the moment.
Ldm1954 (
talk) 04:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now as an {{
R from move}}, unless the phrase clashes with another topic. The article has used the former title for almost ten years and may become hard to find without the redirect. ―
Synpath 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Please note that the old name is misleading -- that should matter most. The science clashes.
Ldm1954 (
talk) 22:32, 10 18 March 2024 (UTC)
N.B., the redirect is comparable to having a redirect from "Star" "Satellite" to "Milky Way" -- misleading without rationale. Please check the article content.
Ldm1954 (
talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how misleading the redirect really is. As far as I understand, the physics of thermal transport would be a subset of thermodynamics. If I'm hopelessly wrong there, then sure, it might be harmful enough to delete. Even then, I don't think that this is wholly unreasonable thing to be mistaken about (hence a useful redirect).
Regardless, deleting the redirect would break several internal links, which are easy to fix, but one should do that ahead of deletion. External links might exist as well, but that's more difficult to assess. I'd say that the redirect should be left alone for a month or three to see if it becomes unused. If that is established then it may make sense to revisit deleting this, but it still seems
WP:CHEAP to keep around. ―
Synpath 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but yup, you are very wrong. Thermal transport is exactly what it says, how heat via vibrations (phonons) or electrons is transmitted from one place to another, for instance compare copper to an insulator such as glass wool. The topic is relevant as it changes at the nanoscale.
Thermodynamics is all about what phase you have and how it varies with composition, temperature, pressure, gas environment etc. For instance why you can melt ice by adding salt to it, the solution freezes at a much lower temperature.
Thermodynamics at the nanoscale is important, but has nothing to do with heat transfer.
Ldm1954 (
talk) 07:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Thermal transport is akin to ocean heating or magma flow. Thermodynamics is the (theoretical) study of ergodic systems with a large number of particles and the conservation of energy. It would seem the original article was created with a typo in the title; its pointless to preserve typos.
67.198.37.16 (
talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note I've combined these two nominations that had identical rationales.
Thryduulf (
talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep unless someone wants to stub up an article on the other journal --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 03:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone looking for Security & Privacy is not looking for IEEE Security & Privacy these are misleading redirects that should be red per
WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
WP:DAB and
WP:XY. Without a disambiguator that this in fact is referring to a journal, someone could easily get here off of a search for an article discussing the intersection of
Privacy and
Security-- but there is no article (that I know of) that discusses said intersection, which means the redirect is pulled by both topics with equal force as per
WP:XY, and should be deleted.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget: As redirecting to a different criterion where this notion happens to be used seems a little odd to me, I created an entry for the term at
Glossary of commutative algebra. It probably makes sense to retarget there.
Felix QW (
talk) 16:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For such a broad concept, it seems as if this search term would be for people looking for respect (with respect to humans), i.e. just the contents of
Respect. Human respect does not seem more particularly associated with a non-profit in Sacramento than it would be with just, respect in the general sense. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep/comment, since the redirect/page did not previously exist, and given
WP:CHEAP, i did not think there was much of a problem here. I created a new redirect though that uses the exact phrase that is associated with this particular group, "philosophy of human respect" as a new redirect. If that full phrase, which seems predominantly to be used by this group, is preferred, then I suppose we could delete "human respect" by itself.
Iljhgtn (
talk) 02:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with the WP:CHEAP aspect; a useful redirect that exists is always more preferred than a useful redirect that does not exist. Once a useful redirect exists, it'd be a waste to delete it per WP:CHEAP. However, as long as it exists, it's most beneficial to ensure that it leads to the most likely target for that title. "Human respect", in my eyes, seems to be a likely search term. Now that we have it, I feel like the most expectable location for this title would be the page for
Respect as a general page for a general term, rather than at the Sacramento non-profit. If "human respect" is strongly correlated with the non-profit as opposed to "respect", a hatnote could be warranted then. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Interestingly, Google mostly gives results on the Catholic sin of human respect. I don't think we cover it anywhere, but it looks like there are enough sources it may be notable on its own.
Rusalkii (
talk) 02:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Possible
WP:XY of sorts, e.g.
respect for persons and
self-respect movement (as well as some aforementioned).
Respect might be a good target (as with human dignity pointing to
dignity); though this case may be more complicated than that one. Does not seem fit for a disambiguation page, at the least. On a thought tangent: Juxtaposing
personhood to
non-personhood, may indicate that the quality of of being
human is a philosophical requirement of being deemed worthy of 'full' respect. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 06:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wear Plants To Church Day
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
Meme not mentioned at target. If I was searching for "eepy" I would not want content on sleepiness but the meme. Also, "eepy" generally refers to sleepiness in general, not just excessive sleepiness. If kept I suggest a retarget to
Sleep, though note also the existence of
EepyBird.
Rusalkii (
talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The... lack of existence? That's a redlink. A quick search indicates you meant
Eepybird, before revealing that their website actually alternately lists it as both Eepybird and EepyBird... one second, creating a long-overdue redirect. In any case, oppose retarget to
Sleep on the grounds that
Somnolence IS about sleepiness in general, not just excessive sleepiness. In addition, also oppose retarget to
Eepybird on the grounds that someone searching "Eepy" in 2024 is a thousand times more likely to be looking for the meme synonym of sleepy, rather than for a company whose main claim to fame according to its article was dated to 2007.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oops, thanks for catching the redlink. And yes, on a more careful read agree that somnolence is more appropriate than sleep if kept.
Rusalkii (
talk) 19:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - the word "eepy" is a meme but principally it is a slang for sleepy. It seems like the OP and the one opposer also agree eepy means sleepiness (""eepy" generally refers to sleepiness in general..." and "searching "Eepy" in 2024 is a thousand times more likely to be looking for the meme synonym of sleepy...") So... why not just have it linked to
sleepiness as it is now? This is the agreed upon synonym/slang that eepy is referring to.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a good point. If it's all right for a marked, known slang synonym of a word to be redirected to its meaning without need for a source, then I'll happily and eagerly change my vote to Keep.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Same as
#March 2024 Ukraine missile strikes, with the added grammar problem as there has definitively not been one single missile strike in Ukraine in March.
SuperΨDro 00:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There have been other missile strikes in Ukraine other than this 22 March mass wave. The ones against civilians in Odesa stand out
[18]. We have an article for
6 March 2024 Odesa strike but there have been more.
SuperΨDro 00:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Obviously problematic redirect. Inclusionists let's use common sense. Just delete the redirect. We don't have disambiguation pages like
2022 Ukraine missile strike or
2023 Ukraine missile strike. There is few people who would look up something as general as this. Let's simply delete the redirect, it is of not much use.
SuperΨDro 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete My first reaction was to keep, as it seemed like this was "2024 strike" (singular) to "2024 strikes" (plural). Then I noticed the "22 March" part of the target. Delete as per nom, definitely don't keep on current target. (A potential target if kept MIGHT be to
Russo-Ukrainian War, which takes a more wide-shot, general look at the concept... but if any missile strikes happen in Ukraine NOT part of the Russo-Ukranian War, the reasoning for that retarget falls apart.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a nonsensical redirect. Even if we were to target it to some timeline, there are no good options, as any timeline (at least how they are currently structured) necessarily does not include all of 2024, and "2024 Ukraine missile strike" certainly could refer to any time period in 2024, not just one part of the timeline.
Gödel2200 (
talk) 00:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"MT25i" not mentioned at the target. The letters "MT" are never said together, and the number "25" is not present anywhere at the page. This may be a model number, but it's unclear how useful of a redirect this is as the title is never mentioned as a synonym. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Related mem; not mentioned in page or anywhere else on wikipedia.
Rusalkii (
talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove:clearly unrelated and not appropiate.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 00:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - IIRC, this meme phrase was put over a (large?) number of different videos and gifs from multiple franchises (my memory says kirby, freespace, and more). If we don't have an article on the meme itself due to lack of notability, then this meme has no real unambiguous target, and should be removed.
Fieari (
talk) 07:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete IIRC, the original meme featured Cell from Dragon Ball Z. That said, that's not saying we should keep, I otherwise fully agree with you, nom, and ReyHahn.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are about 6 articles linking to
Pierre Connes, the problem is that the article currently leads to
Janine Connes, his wife. It would be better to either take the time to create the article (I am not up to it), or just delete the redirect so that the red link appears. An {{
ill}} template has been put in place in the concerning articles if the redirect gets deleted.
ReyHahn (
talk) 22:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Meme not mentioned in page. Section isn't about the meme or even the commercial the meme is from, but a related blog marketing campaign. Note that this is by a user who has created a number of recently-nominated redirects.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment:This redirect is a quote from Kitchen Gun, a parody of the Cillit Bang marketing campaign that is mentioned in the Wait no, scratch that, this isn't the Kitchen Gun meme-
it's the slogan from this ACTUAL ad for Cillit Bang. Shows how familiar I am with Cillit Bang's advertisements, lol. In any case, what I do find odd is that that section is... honestly rather confused? It's titled as if it's all about the viral marketing controversy, starts out talking about the television ad campaign instead, switches gears and talks about the viral marketing, then switches gears AGAIN to suddenly talk about Kitchen Gun, which is inspired by the television ads, not the blog.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Search results are various companies non of which are mentioned onwiki. Unlikely & confusing error.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can imagine someone unfamiliar with the
Geordie accent mishearing "stalemate" spoken in that accent as "steelmate", but we can't cater for every possible error of this type. To borrow the language used in discussions of
WP:RFOREIGN redirects, the subject has no particular affinity to the north east of England so that doesn't provide a basis to keep this redirect and I can't find any other.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that I have seen
Lunamann's
edit to my comment, and while they were correct in that I did mean "no affinity" (rather than "affinity"), I do not endorse the editing of my comment.
Thryduulf (
talk) 16:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Would
Template:Db-xfd apply here? Consensus has already established that there's no info on this lake; might not need to go through song and dance for another week if it's avoidable. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per previous consensus. I fail to see how any of these are any different from the one we just deleted. I'll also note that save for
Surikina, which was made by a bot to redirect to
Surikiña and then immediately avoided-double-redirect by a second bot, every single one of these redirects were made on the same day by the same author.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 18:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
HOLD ON WAIT. THAT WASN'T IMMEDIATE. HISTORY DIIIIVE --Okay, so,
Surikiña was actually made first to be a dab page between three pages that... are redlinks (
Surikiña, Bolivia;
Surikiña River; and
Lake Surikiña, which at the time was actually a circular redirect), NONE of which were
Taypi Chaka Quta. All of the others were originally made as redirects pointing to this dab page. This existed for 11 years, before it was BLAR'd to
Taypi Chaka Quta with the explanation as to why being...
WP:PRIMARYRED?? Which also doesn't explain why
Taypi Chaka Quta was chosen as the target, given-- as noted in the RfD discussion for
Lake Surikiña-- Taypi Chaka Quta is NOT Lake Surikiña. The others were then scooped up by a bot and avoided-double-redirected as a group to Taypi Chaka Quta....This doesn't really change my recommendation; the old DAB page was nothing but redlinks, that's not enough to support the DAB.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 18:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target article. Originally was a redirect to
Muppet Theory, which was BLAR'd as a non-notable neologism, leaving this redirect without a home and undiscussed at the current target page. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Roguevania is not mentioned anywhere at the target page, although the concept does receive a smatter of mentions across different other games' articles. Only usage of "vania" is talking about Deadcells being a roguelike / metroidvania, but not a combination of these two terms. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A game-genre neologism which is not mentioned at the target article. Is only mentioned once on Wikipedia (but would likely be inappropriate to redirect a concept to one usage of such concept). Dark Souls is mentioned as being "loosely considered a Metroidvania", and
Soulslike is listed in the see also section. However, the subsection that this redirect was initially pointed to no longer exists, so it does not seem as if this redirect has a great use anymore if the concept is not discussed anywhere else. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Allegedly a TV drama, which is not listed at the target article, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. We have no content for this topic. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This war was not 25 years. This title does not appear anywhere at the target page, and is confusable with
The 25 Year War. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete It looks like the phrase probably originated
with this article. There is a
Russian Twenty-five Years' War which redirects to
Livonian War, whose dates more closely align with those given in the article. Still, neither term doesn't appear to be a commonly-used synonym. (Most of the Google hits seem to be random instances where "twenty-five years" and "war" appear close together). There doesn't seem to be enough here to warrant keeping the redirect. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The title refers to Russo-Swedish wars fought in 1570-1595, see
fi:Pitkä viha. In English-language sources they may be referred to as "Nordic/Northern 25 Years' War". Without a specifier the title is ambiguous.
Jähmefyysikko (
talk) 07:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Further comment on the relationship between the
Livonian War (1558–1583) and the "25 Years' War" (1570-1595) which may appear confusing. The Livonian War features prominently in Russian historiography since it lead to a loss of territory. The "25 Years' War", or the
Long Wrath [
fi as it is called in Finnish historiography, overlaps with the Livonian War, but puts more emphasis on the guerrilla warfare in the Finnish front, which continued even after 1583. Based on
this pdf such term is absent from the Russian historiography.
Jähmefyysikko (
talk) 09:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been getting very tripped-up with this redirect, but I feel this title can easily (and more likely) be used for
Marching band, which is, by nature, a band. The page for
Marching band has the disambiguation page linked to access other uses. But technically speaking, a marching band is still a band. (This reminds me of the
Climber (climbing) situation...) Utopes(talk / cont) 20:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:DIFFCAPS. The duo is the only musical group the on
the disambiguation page, and the term would be a
WP:PTM for any article about an individual marching band. If we need to provide more clarity, we could add a hatnote pointing to the
List of marching bands on the article about the duo. -
Eureka Lott 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth about the diffcaps,
Marching Band is also a redirect to
Marching band. With that in mind it seems as if
Marching Band (band) and
Marching band (band) would hypothetically be on a level playing field, if the two (band)less versions are currently considered the same, I'd think. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is the only article we have about a band called "Marching Band".
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a group that used to be, but is no longer mentioned at the target article, and not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Currently unhelpful redirect as we don't have any material on this subject. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete the Redirect (Before it Deletes You) as per
WP:REDLINK. As noted by the older version(s) of the article that mention Killdren, this is the name of a British electronic punk band, whose only link to this article is that they have a song titled "Kill Tory Scum (Before They Kill You)". That's not really enough to support anything at all-- not the reference being kept in the article, and not the redirect.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 22:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a weird case. The only reason this page exists is due to the creator working around the
Raman Raheja title salt. The base name had been speedily deleted 3 times for A7 and G11, and this variant title lasted less than 24 hours as an article, before being
WP:BLAR'd into the cricket league. Because there is only a passing mention of Raheja at the target, and no indication that Raheja is an entrepreneur, this redirect does not seem very useful without any content about Raheja being an entrepreneur at the cricket league page. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
2020–2023 global chip shortage
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: wrong venue.
Nominating for deletion. The redirect is overly specific and too long and is therefore an unlikely search term.
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Close I didn't realise that their had already been a previous discussion on this redirect, I was kind of tired when I nominated it and forgot to check.
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in the article, but most importantly, not mentioned ANYWHERE on the Internet. If this was a news headline that could be hypothetically copied in, that'd be understandable(??) but still incredibly unlikely to be naturally searched. This is just, bits and pieces of the articles opening sentence and lead, but as a redirect. Restating the prose of the article, but as a redirect, makes these specific 14 words a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, (evidenced from no user on the Internet has said this ever with zero results outside of Wikipedia). It can't even be a synonym, it's a synopsis. It's unsearchable as a string of words that exists nowhere else, and a year later has STILL never been stated anywhere else on the Internet. The alternative redirect being:
10-year-old (the rest of the title) "from Ohio to Indiana" already exists and is the stylization that seemingly headlined in reports. I don't really like that redirect either, but at least the title benefits from existing, and can be copied into the search bar and/or can appear first when users start typing this in, if they happen to start their search with "ten-dash-year-dash-old" exactly. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redirects are not the way to promote very tenuous news reporting. See the NPR reporting in some detail on (probably?) this case,
[19]. Essentially, we will most likely never get the facts straight (whatever the truth is, due to privacy concerns), so there is nothing of notability here for the article. Redirecting a headline of a single-source new story with no corroboration to our article where for this very reason the story cannot be published does not seem to be useful for anyone. --
Викидим (
talk) 07:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:RDEL#D8. It should have been speedied under
WP:A10 in November instead of being converted to a redirect. -
Eureka Lott 19:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Dis" is not a common abbreviation for "disambiguation".
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect went to a different party (that in turn was an early name for yet another party in a WP:FORK). An article is possible, so WP:R#DELETE #10.
Викидим (
talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect went to a different party (that in turn was an early name for yet another party in a
WP:FORK). An article is possible, so
WP:R#DELETE #10.
Викидим (
talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in redirected article.
GnocchiFan (
talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Budweiser#Marketing. It would be more appropriate to redirect to the drink that the mascot ("Bud Man") is advertising, rather than the company that produces the drink. Also the Marketing section contains some information on this mascot.
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 10:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
2024 conspiracy theories, speculation and controversy surrounding the health, period of convalescence, public absence and Mother's Day photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales; or, Where is Kate? (Kategate)
Delete. Simply being long is not a reason to delete, but it being an implausible amalgam of several titles is.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Haha. Admittedly very funny, but delete.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk) 20:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above, and as an implausible and unlikely search term.
Rusty4321talkcontribs 22:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails to include "also known as Kate Middleton".
BD2412T 13:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Voz is dos" is "what is it?" in Yiddish. There is a Yiddish song with this title, not mentioned in the target article. Article about the song can be created, so
WP:R#DELETE #10.
Викидим (
talk) 09:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The exclamation mark at the end appears to be not used by Watterson.
Revenge of the Baby-Sat is already present as a redirect. Most likely, a typo by the editor.
Викидим (
talk) 08:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a plausible error, especially as multiple other books/stories in the series do end with exclamation marks.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Very plausible error. Easy to remember the names of the books, not so easy to remember the presence of punctuation or not.
Fieari (
talk) 01:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Misspelling reflecting mispronunciation by Calvin in a single strip of the comics. Calvin wears a snorkeling mask with water in it. Highly improbable to occur in internet searches for
Calvin and Hobbes.
Викидим (
talk) 08:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom.
Fieari (
talk) 01:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect should be deleted mainly because as was said last time, shootings in Kansas City are frequent, including one
literally today. The Super Bowl parade shooting IMO should just be merged into
Super Bowl LVIII#Aftermath because gun violence is an everyday occurance in America and one fatality is not notable enough for an article, but I digress. In any case, this is clearly not the most notable shooting of the name, and it being so high in the search results and not the
Kansas City massacre is clearly
WP:RECENTISM.
134.6.74.198 (
talk) 20:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I understand an RM is underway for this article, but that being said, I feel that that shouldn’t impact this given how this is not a suggested name (I don’t think) and there have been RMs for this article since the day it happened. --
134.6.74.198 (
talk) 20:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The
last discussion closed just two weeks ago, and there was strong consensus to keep. I find it highly unlikely that consensus has changed in such a short timeframe. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak disambig A very rough search suggests that about half the current google results for "Kansas city shooting" are for the 2024 parade shooting. (Compare a search for
"Kansas city shooting" and
"Kansas city shooting" -parade -"Super Bowl". This seems suggestive that it's the primary topic, given that the remaining half is divided up between several different topics, but not overwhelming. Other shootings that have pages that might be referred to as such include
Shooting of Ralph Yarl,
Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting, and the above-mentioned
Kansas City massacre. I would support creating a disambig page and targeting there, but in the absence of such a page this target seems more helpful than deletion. That being said, re-opening discussion so soon after previous discussion closed seems to be in bad form.
Rusalkii (
talk) 04:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply - Agree that "re-opening discussion so soon after previous discussion closed seems to be in bad form". --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:TROUT nom for reopening discussions so soon, then either Keep as per previous discussions, or Dabify as per Rusalkii. (For the record, I'm leaning towards Keep, as it's the result of the previous discussion.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 05:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and trout - Right on! --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as far as I can tell nothing has changed in the last 2 weeks.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Right on! --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 21:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Dabify as per Rusalkii. This knee-jerk redirect is obviously nonsense, as the nominator said. — Smuckola(talk) 14:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion two weeks ago presented evidence that showed this is not nonsense. What has changed since then to make it "obviously nonsense" now?
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong dabify. More than one Kansas City shooting. In fact, there've been hundreds of shootings; while we might not have articles for all of the hundreds, the ones we do have articles for still fare pretty highly pageview wise, and regularly contend with 2024 event even with its
WP:RECENTISM bonus.
[20] Redirecting this umbrella term for one shooting in an entire major city is wholly unhelpful and obscures the other notable shootings that people may have been searching for. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Would it really be helpful to send readers looking for encyclopedic content, to an unfamiliar page such as a category? This would be a deviation from the norm of, say,
Chicago shooting or
Nashville shooting among multiple others. The category can be linked from the hypothetical DAB if it needs to. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose this - we have an article on the exact event the significant majority of people are going to be looking for (the current target, yes it's recent but that doesn't mean it's not the primary topic) that has a hatnote to the event most other people are going to be looking for. Retargetting to a category that is much broader and which doesn't help people who don't know that the Kansas City massacre was a shooting is actively unhelpful.
Thryduulf (
talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've drafted a disambig page at the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a disambiguation draft at the redirect page now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I have just checked again, and it is even more clear that the current target is the primary topic now than it was when this was last discussed - 100% of the results on the first five pages of my google search are about the 2024 event. The draft dab should be at
Kansas City shooting (disambiguation).
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The #1 result I get now is
this, and then
this - two unrelated shootings. Yes, this is a significant shooting but it’s obvious it will not be the primary Kansas City shooting long term. Ten years from now, this will not be seen as the primary KC shooting.
24.89.159.222 (
talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, Hatnote to Disambiguation - It really does seem the 2024 shooting is the main topic here, but it might not always be the main topic... and clearly it wasn't always the main topic previously, so searching based on historical references might be misleading. Because it's the main topic RIGHT NOW, the redirect should probably stay where it is, but there should be a hatnote pointing to a separate disambiguation page.
Fieari (
talk) 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I know we just had a discussion for
List of Cops episodes (and I participated in the respective discussion), but I made my comment in that discussion prior to noticing the existence of
List of COPS episodes. The problem here is that
WP:SMALLDETAILS probably does not differentiate the two topics enough, given that
Cops (TV program) can be stylized as "COPS" and
COPS (animated TV series) is apparently stylized as "C.O.P.S.". In addition, at
Cop#Television, there are additional TV show/program subjects listed which include an inline list of episodes. So, with all that said, I'm not sure what is the best path here. (I've also added
List of C.O.P.S. episodes for completion of this nomination so others know of its existence, but I'm "weak keep" on that per my previous statement about the "C.O.P.S." stylization; either way,
List of C.O.P.S. episodes is a {{
R with history}}.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Disambiguate with hatnotes at the target sections.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 11:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 04:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment: At the minimum, I think
List of COPS episodes should be retargeted to
Cops (TV program)#Episodes per the "COPS" confusion and since the show with 30+ seasons is significantly more notable than a show which aired for one season almost 40 years ago.
Steel1943 (
talk) 04:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to dab page. Create a list of episode redirect for each series using their main article title and disambiguation.
Gonnym (
talk) 10:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all per Shhh and hatnote (which I have already done). I would see "List of COPS episodes" with only the COPS capitalized going to the COPS animated series. Jay 💬 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not clear what you are suggesting with should be further disambiguated, but the TV program was titled with caps earlier (see
Talk:Cops (TV program)/Archive 1#Why is this article titled COPS (TV series) instead of Cops (TV series)?), and was moved to the lowercase by
RHaworth in 2012, probably boldly. However, after going through the discussions, and leaning towards to stylization, I see merit in nom's minimum requirement of list of COPS going to Cops, hence striking off my vote. Jay 💬 05:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on Pppery's suggestion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 05:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Gillanwali (Dera Baba Nanak))
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
Following the closure of the
Minecrat RfD with a deletion result, the last and
WP:POINTiest outcome of that discussion I'd expect to see is the mass creation of all other variations of this deleted redirect. Creating redirects for every typo-instance of a word pre-emptively, especially a week after the deletion of the last one, is not useful. Minecraft is not hard to spell; these redirects don't provide any benefit besides clogging technical pages (not a benefit). Utopes(talk / cont) 03:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all as unlikely typos and per previous RfD. Unnecessary maintenance. —
HELLKNOWZ∣TALK 09:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all, these redirects are unnecessary.
Suonii180 (
talk) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I'd have R3ed these if I'd seen them as these are not plausible typos in the way we use that term.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per all above and suggest to
I am RedoStone that they take a break from creating redirect altogether, their record is not great and this sort of passive-aggressive redirect creation is not a good look re:ability to take a hint.
Rusalkii (
talk) 18:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per the above; no objections and reasons to speedy delete have been explained by Thryduulf. Not plausible typos. --
GnocchiFan (
talk) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment (I'm only commenting here as I've already voted) -- Even without the speedy delete recommendation, this is getting pretty clearly into
WP:SNOW territory.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 22:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are hundreds of different ways to interpret being sick, with a massive list of symptoms and/or other characteristics to choose from. Taking this hyper-generic phrase and targeting at one outcome of being sick, is not helpful as a redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
to the dab at
Sick#Medical conditions as per Thryduulf, Rusalkii, and Fieari. I'll note that
vomiting is one of the three targets listed in that specific section of the dab, which should ameliorate concerns about the current target being technically correct. (It also happens to have
Disease right there!)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Being sick" is a euphemism for vomiting, so the current target does make sense. See
wikt:be sick. -
Eureka Lott 17:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Mixed feelings here. The first few Google results are all for vomiting, but then again the first Google results for
Apple are the company. Inclined towards retarget to
Sick#Medical conditions per Thryduulf, but not strongly opposed to current target either.
Rusalkii (
talk) 18:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the dab at
Sick#Medical conditions, I agree that vomiting is the most common meaning of this phrase, but it's not the ONLY meaning, and so the dab is appropriate. You could suggest a hatnote, but I think that would be clutter, and just retargetting to the dab is a much better idea.
Fieari (
talk) 07:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see only a loose connection between this redirect and the target article. There is a link with the Cadenheads but "old raj"? But I might not be up on lingo for distilleries. I came upon this redirect, one of many created by this editor while tagging some of their category creations. LizRead!Talk! 03:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete google results make it clear that (Cadenhead's) Old Raj is a gin bottled by Cadenhead's. The only connection is that Cadenhead's is owned by J & A Mitchell & Company, who also own the target distillery, but there is no information about this product at the target (and there shouldn't be) or anywhere else on Wikipedia (I have no opinion whether there should be) making the redirect unhelpful.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Bagel" anywhere at the target article, no mention of this particular offshoot character anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from a contextless one-off name-drop in the
Fred: The Show cast. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure why this was created as it seems implausible that anyone would ever make that typo (Puyallup Reservation > Puyallup Resvn), "Resvn" isn't any slang I know, and nothing links to it, so I feel like it should be deleted. I would have marked it for speedy deletion but it's been around for two years. The only edit besides its creation was from a bot fixing a double redirect a few months ago.
PersusjCP (
talk) 02:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Agree that this is an extremely unlikely typo.
Yuchitown (
talk) 02:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
Keep This is not a typo but an abbreviation used on maps, directories, etc (especially paper ones) where space is limited in the same way many other geographical features are making it a highly plausible search term. As an example of use see
this US Census map. Indeed I see a different map was cited in the creation edit summary, so I'm not sure what sort of BEFORE the nominator did.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hasya Movies or "Hasya" not mentioned at the target article, unclear connection to subject based on article contents, external searches did not show Razesh. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The word "delete" is only mentioned once in passing, never with an exclamation point, and never referred to as a possible chant of such word. Because the word "delete" is very often stated on its own, as a command verb, this stylization I feel can be used in many other contexts present on the
Delete disambiguation page. There is currently not a strong justification from the Cyberman article's content to prioritize this usage over the others. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
IIRC there is at least one episode of Doctor Who, possibly "
Rise of the Cybermen", where the Cybermen use the imperative "Delete!" in much the same way that Daleks say "Exterminate!" in other episodes. But there is no mention of it in our article
Cyberman. So Retarget to
Deletion (the current destination of Delete). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Youtube does indeed have
a couple instances of this, with the two scenes I linked coming from "
Rise of the Cybermen" and (I *believe* given it depicts Cybermen being pitted against Daleks) "
Doomsday". That said, it shows up a lot less compared to the Dalek's cry to Exterminate!, presumably due to either A.) it only showing up in the newer series, potentially as a deliberate parallel to Exterminate!, and/or B.) the Cybermen themselves being a lot less interested in flat-out extermination, wanting instead to assimilate populations into the Cybermen.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Per
WP:PANDORA, way too vague to be a viable redirect.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Deletion per Redrose. I explicitly do not endorse the
WP:PANDORA rationale because, just like pretty much every other
WP:OTHERSTUFF and
WP:CRYSTAL-based !vote it is not relevant to the discussion.
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
An r from meme catchphrase, not mentioned at the target article. Wikipedia is not a compository of meme-to-source redirect connections. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as much as I like this meme fountain of a game, en.wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of memes. --
Lenticel(
talk) 13:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Even the article on
Senator Armstrong (Metal Gear) doesn't mention the quote, which is surprising. But, it indicates that this should be deleted until such time that information is integrated somewhere.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A catchphrase that is not discussed at the target article. Searching for this specific quote instead of the service itself is an intentional decision that should be reflected in content, but is not present. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The word "wow" is not mentioned at the target, much less "wowee", also not mentioned. I find it extremely far-fetched to believe that people would search for Mario by typing in "wowee" instead of "Mario". For people that would make the decision to use the phrase "wowee", it would seem expectable to have some content about the phrase "wowee" as a target, which we do not have on Wikipedia. There's plenty of other mentions of "wowee" across Wikipedia; it could be worthwhile to delete this and let the Wikipedia search do it's thing. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - No idea what this is supposed to mean.
Sergecross73msg me 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. A couple of days ago Facebook decided to show me a video where someone had replaced the "woo-hoo"s in
Song 2 with vaguely similar noises from a Mario game (that weren't really that similar to my ears). It wouldn't surprise me if this was part of a similar meme or something, even if so that is far from the only reason someone might search this and we don't have any useful information for people who are looking for that.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Dunno about anyone else, but when I see this collection of letters, the first thought that goes through my mind is definitely NOT Mario. Heck, my mind brings up some fics from the SCP Foundation before it brings up Mario.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This got me to do a history dive on this one. Redirect was originally created in 2008 targeting
WoWee, then retargeted to
WowWee near immediately by its creator, with indication that the latter was the intended target. It stayed at that target until 2021, when it indeed was retargeted to Mario by
user:Rng0286 under the stated belief that this was a quote from Mario.For the record, I'll note that the original target of
WowWee is ALSO a bad target for this redirect, and would probably generate a fair bit of
WP:SURPRISE. My vote will stay on Delete.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Chasing" is also not mentioned at the target, which I would've expected
Chasing Waterfalls more if anything. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that is surprising. It's part of the chorus and central to the concept of the song, so it seems like it could pretty easily be included.
Sergecross73msg me 01:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think "building an invention" is ever said by Candace; this is a genericized version of a specific opener that is unlikely to be predicted as a search term; the full deal is not mentioned at the target, and I don't imagine it would be used as a replacement search term for Candace. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A deletion vote...? ...PERRY the deletion vote!? Not only is 'the full deal' not mentioned at target; the fragment "Mom, Phineas..." fails to show up, so not even truncating this redirect down would save it.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
An unmentioned catchphrase from the movie Whiplash, a phrase that is never alluded to at the target page. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - not sure that this catchphrase ever caught on in popularity enough to warrant it as a search term a decade later (or ever.)
Sergecross73msg me 16:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - concurrently an unlikely search term, and not particularly specific enough to just link to this target.
Sergecross73msg me 00:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
An R from catchphrase not mentioned at the target article, not a likely search term for the Fourth Doctor. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete. I am EXCEEDINGLY surprised that that catchphrase ISN'T mentioned in the target article, given how ingrained said catchphrase is to the Fourth Doctor's character-- it's as Fourth Doctor as his scarf. If someone were to add it to the article, I don't think I'd support deletion anymore.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 05:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
An R from catchphrase that is not listed at the target article. Creator banned for sockpuppetry has had similar deleted catchphrase redirects in the past. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think we generally link to WikiQuote like that, and even if we did, I don't know how we'd include that naturally with encyclopedic content...
Sergecross73msg me 00:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just add a WikiQuote linkbox to the see also or external links section --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 08:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unless you literally plaster "I am the one who knocks" at the bottom of the page, it's not going to satisfy our redirect standards. And as you've likely noticed, we don't have quote collections at the bottom of fictional character articles.
Sergecross73msg me 16:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Good night, Chet. Good night, David. And good night, for NBC News
An r from catchphrase from a news report closer that is no longer mentioned at the target. Catchphrases, similar to r from lyrics, are not useful as redirects on a general basis. People searching specifically for a catchphrase are looking for information about this specific search term, which the target does not contain. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. GSearch says that there are materials to build a section about the prisoners within article. I do have to warn anyone who'll try though. The stories are quite dark.--
Lenticel(
talk) 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore pre-BLAR revision. It even has an image of the prisoner and the dog during the interrogation. Although
NorthBySouthBaranof's edit summary said "Mergify", I didn't find any merge done. Hence I have tagged it as {{
R with history}}. Jay 💬 07:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm also fine with a Restore, then send to AfD per Jay's findings --
Lenticel(
talk) 12:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am unsure what this group actually believes or if they in fact exist, but search results suggest something similar to
Messianic Judaism and certainly not Anabaptism.
Rusalkii (
talk) 06:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I find very few mentions of this phrase through a
WP:BEFORE search and none with enough SIGCOV to define it. There is a movement known as
Noahidism, but it doesn't appear to be messianic in nature. Certainly, there is nothing to suggest a link to Anabaptism. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete this doesn't seem like an accurate description of Anabaptism, and it's neither a commonly used term nor does it have a clear meaning.
Kk.urban (
talk) 17:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
keep about 2 years ago I started research into Messianic Hebrews because I had also assumed that they were the same as Messianic Jews but it turned out that the Messianic Hebrews denounce Messianic Jews as a "Synagogue of Satan" and instead promote something called "Messianic Noahide Judaism". Upon research into that religion it turns out that it was founded along Anabaptist lines by Baptist Ministers in 2003 and that the modern day non-Messianic Noahide movement split from it in 2005. Since they are too small for their own article it seemed best to simple redirect it to the religion which it is based on at least until there is enough data to build a good article on the topic.
Ioan.Church (
talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Would you happen to have any source on hand for that? Could be helpful to add a section to Anabaptism about it.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 18:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Only from what is published by the Messianic Noahide groups themselves which one can find when one does a Google search for "Messianic Noahide". The biggest group only has 2180 members and runs a YouTube channel. There are a handful of books which. ention Messianic Noahides only enough for a stub article to be written so I thought it would be best to redirect it rather than write a stub but if people want the redirect to be deleted then the best option is for the stub to be written. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ioan.Church (
talk •
contribs) 23:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
...In that case, I'd say that they aren't notable-- information published by the Noahides themselves do not count as reliable secondary sources. In this case, I support deletion. If you really do feel like they deserve a section or article, and can find enough sources to support it,
WP:REDLINK applies, with perhaps a little jolt of
WP:BOLD. Although if I may add, 2k members doesn't seem notable enough for a youtube channel, much less a religious sect.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 23:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We should bare in mind that Anabaptists (with the exception of the Mennonites) are a collection of minority groups so 2000+ and a YouTube channel and website is notable considering the
Dunkards (who get more mention on Wikipedia) have only just over 1000 members and do not have their own website.
Ioan.Church (
talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Eh, fair enough as to the numbers- a single person can be notable enough for Wikipedia, after all. What makes something notable is the sources, not the concept/number of people/ect, as per
WP:N.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is misleading and confusing; the article for
Messianic Noahide should be nominated for deletion as well (or incorporated into this discussion). Kind regards,
AnupamTalk 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled Messianic Noahide with this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Strong delete, for that matter. I have several hundred books on Anabaptist history and have never even seen Messianic Noahides mentioned once, that I can remember, in any of them.
Mikeatnip (
talk) 12:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Mike and Anupam have a proven Conflict of interest working for an Indian Wikipedia article making company and have mindless prejudice and a history of working together and lying to try and get their way on Wikipedia. For example. The username Mike Atnip is not his rea name but he uses it for articles on Anabaptism because it looks like the name of a famous Anabaptist Public Figure who he is impersonating. The other Indian named accounts which support him are part of the same company. I have been contacted, I will not state by whom but I have been contacted by such a company who "noticed" that I was having difficulty getting sourced references into an article which is "owned" by those two and their paid admin. Support staff. So I won't bother getting into any edit war with such people who will only accuse you of being the one who is edit warring after they get their stooges to create the fake illusion of an edit war. I won't tarnish my good name on Wikipedia messing around with them. The Internet makes very clear that Messianic Noahides and Messianic Hebrews are the same thing and that they are very strongly opposed to Messianic Jews and that they have their origin in Anabaptim. There is no need for a sham Wikipedia discussion on notability by actors for a company who have turned Wikipedia into a business platform. The truth is obvious anyway with not Wikipedia. If however there are any legitimate Wikipedia s left who are willing to do a Google search for "Messianic noahides" it is easy to find out 1 that they exist and 2 that they are also known as Messianic Hebrews 3 that they are Anabaptists 4 that they oppose Messianic Jewsto be a "Synagogue of Satan". But since there are no reliable peer reviewed articles on the group then there should be no article under the name. Therefore the best solution is a Redirect until such time that there are more published sources on the topic. Logical reasoning always overrules concensus. Fake concensus is always easy to achieve when there is a company behind you. Comments from those whose edit history shows vendetta and prejudice should be struck through.
Ioan.Church (
talk) 12:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
(@_@) Holy crap, that's some heavyWP:MEAT /
Wikipedia:PAY accusation. If true, that's grounds to get Mike blocked, not simply ammunition for an RfD... Are you sure RfD is the right venue for this???
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Kolkata Metro often uses names of cultural leaders, social workers, and freedom fighters in naming its metro stations. These 8 metro stations, however, neither exist nor would you find any reference about them on the web, except Wikipedia mirror sites. Many of these redirects had started as standalone articles, but they were fully unreferenced. These names were mentioned in the main Kolkata Metro article as far back as 2011 (later removed, but retained in templates), however, the only surviving reference from the time (
archived) does not mention these names at all. It is very likely that these names were made up and had not actually been given to these metro stations.
Red Line did not ever exist on Kolkata Metro. Creator was deoablock-ed. —CX Zoom[he/him](
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 07:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I personally see insufficient evidence being put forth for such a claim. The non-existence of sources in English does not imply that these stations do not exist, just that they are non-notable at present.
Sohom (
talk) 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Neither the
map nor the
expansion plan on the official website seem to have mentioned these names. As I mentioned above, all of these were being used as aliases to other already named stations on the main article (reverted soon), but while it was still there, made its way to
Template:Kolkata Metro (where it was not reverted for quite a long time). For instance,
Swami Vivekananda metro station was used in place of
Baranagar metro station (real name). All the rest were being used for stations on "Noapara-Barasat Metro" line (Line 4, yellow). However, no official or secondary sources have ever used these names, raising questions on credibility. —CX Zoom[he/him](
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 04:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Should have been deleted under
WP:CSD G8. Created in obvious error. Misspelling of "Jyotirindra Nath Nandi metro station" and "Yuva Bharati Krirangan metro station" respectively. —CX Zoom[he/him](
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 07:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget Jyotindra Nath Nandi metro station to
Jyotirindra Nandi metro station as a plausible misspelling. Delete Yuva Bharati Kirangan metro station, which does not appear to be mentioned on enwiki for either spelling. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Yuva Bharati Krirangan" is an alternative name for Salt Lake Stadium, and therefore can be used for
Salt Lake Stadium metro station although no one uses it. In both cases though, I do not think it is a plausible misspelling. Search function should be sufficient for such cases. —CX Zoom[he/him](
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 14:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Jyotindra Nath Nandi metro station" seems to get used relatively frequently based on pageviews.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 13:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That is probably because the
Template:Kolkata Metro route diagram had the wrong spelling until I fixed it hours before the nomination:
[21]. I suspect all of the views came from
Kolkata Metro which displays the route diagram. The views are too few to log onto clickstream data though. —CX Zoom[he/him](
let's talk • {
C•
X}) 19:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This neology, likely invented by Feynman in his characteristically off the cuff fashion, is not used other textbooks. It combines two nouns which, throughout the history of physics, have meant incompatible alternatives. It not a synonym or antonym for "wave-particle duality". On the contrary, "wave-particle duality" is the concept of "duality" not "composition" or "ambiguity". The mere existence of this redirect was cited in
Talk:wave particle duality as evidence for the term.
Johnjbarton (
talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: On the one hand, this is pretty solidly
WP:NEO. Except, on the other, I can easily see someone either typing it into the search bar because of Feynman, or simply typing in "particle wave" or "wave particle" into the searchbar specifically to get to this concept, the way one might type
Jobs and Wozniak to get to
History of Apple Inc. Given the target article discusses the intersection of the two concepts of "wave" and "particle" in a manner that satisfies
WP:XY, I'd say let the redirect stand.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 16:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It might sound contradictory as a term, but it makes sense as a redirect. That is, it's a thing someone might search for, either because they saw that quote from Feynman, or because they read any of the zillion other things written about quantum mechanics and had some memory that it involved waves being like particles or vice versa. Harmless and points to the right place.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per both above, particularly this being a likely search term for someone who has sort of heard about the wave-particle thing and wants to learn more about it. Wikipedia is exactly the right place to do that and we should make it easy for them to find the content they are looking for, and this redirect does just that.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I think this should be an SIA, as it could be referring to a de Broglie
pilot wave, the
matter wave, and the particle dynamics of condensed matter waves --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 04:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I propose to retarget this to
Personality rights. Name, image, and likeness are stock terms in reference to personality rights of all sorts of celebrities, far beyond student athletes. See, e.g., Monk v. N. Coast Brewing Co., Case No.17-cv-05015-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2018), contesting use of "the name, image and likeness of Thelonious Monk"; Lucchese, Inc. v. John Wayne Enters., LLC, EP-17-CV-135-PRM (W.D. Tex. Jul 31, 2017), regarding "rights to famed actor John Wayne's name, image, and likeness"; Cousteau Soc'y, Inc. v. Cousteau, 498 F.Supp.3d 287 (D. Conn. 2020), regarding "use of Jacques-Yves Cousteau's name, image, and likeness", etc.
BD2412T 02:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dab? The
existing incoming links all refer to student athlete compensation. For decades in the US, university athletes were not allowed to be paid. This specifically deals with the newer rules in US college sports. Seems like a disambiguation page is an option. Not sure if there is a
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also note that the
Nil dab page only has an entry the the student athlete topic, in case the abbreviation also applies to the general personality rights' use.—
Bagumba (
talk) 03:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bagumba: There is nothing to disambiguate, as these are not two different things. They are the same thing, whether applied to student athletes or movie stars. See Sarah Wake and Addison Fontein,
NCAA Athletes Will Need a New Playbook to Score on Tax Day, Bloomberg Law (September 2, 2021): "Individuals typically have the right to control the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, and likeness, which is known as the right of publicity or personality rights".
BD2412T 03:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BD2412: From a legal perspective, I understand. Unless
Personality rights is deemed the primary topic (no opinion yet), I'm not sure if it makes sense for a reader that's looking specifically for college sports to have to wade through a large article, find the US portion, then skim to find the link to the relevant dedicated page.—
Bagumba (
talk) 03:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Perhaps a hatnote could solve that, or a restructuring of the text.
BD2412T 03:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably no need to have similar discussions in two places at once (see
Talk:Student athlete compensation), but copying my comment from there: One or even a handful of random uses of the words as a phrase are not enough to make it a generic term. A search for "name image and likeness" on Google Scholar shows results only about college athletics on the first I don't know how many pages. Even limited just to sources from before 2020, I don't see a stock use of the phrase until result 15, and then not again 30.
Hameltion (
talk |
contribs) 03:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a "scholarly" phrase, it's a legal one. If you look at legal cases, they arise in hundreds of them with respect to celebrities of all kinds. If you want me to provide hundreds of examples, I will. The phrase is practically a synonym for personality rights.
BD2412T 03:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't doubt that it's widely used, but the college athletics sense still seems to be a
primary meaning even in a legal context. See, e.g., this
Justia search (it's less total but still most when limited to
law texts). I agree with your comment above that a hatnote would be justified either way.
Hameltion (
talk |
contribs) 04:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate — Name, image, and likeness (NIL) is a common phrase used to refer specifically to the NCAA regulations. The NCAA policy is notable enough for its own article, either at
Name, image, and likeness or something like
Name, image, and likeness (NCAA policy). That's currently a redirect but should/could be developed into its own article. I understand the point that the college NIL rights are "the same thing" as the NIL rights in other industries, but the specific college regulation appears to be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the phrase. Add disambiguation page then decide later if it should live at
Name, image, and likeness or
Name, image, and likeness (disambiguation) or be solved by hatnotes.
PK-WIKI (
talk) 09:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Evidence presented above suggests this is the primary topic. A hatnote can be added for disambiguation purposes. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 13:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Presidentman. This appears to be the primary topic for this phrase, whether it is the primary topic for the concept doesn't really matter.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Primary topic. Poor timing to nominate this during an ongoing RM.
162 etc. (
talk) 16:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
162 etc.: It's just such a mind-boggling exercise in recentism. The phrase is temporarily associated with student athletes because that was the controversy that was most recently resolved.
BD2412T 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Language can evolve. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say.
162 etc. (
talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We might as well redirect
Touchdown to
College football on Saturdays, since the sources will then be reporting on touchdowns occurring in collegiate games.
BD2412T 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nomination. I am unimpressed with the disambiguation or keep arguments above. Both are recentist, and in the former case, I think as a general principle we ought to retarget to the broadest meaning of a term that could be either more general or more specific, since readers who want the more specific definition can always find it within the broader article. Sdkbtalk 04:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom and sdkb. Not a single word in this phrase is specific to athletics, much less specifically student athletics, so I'm having a very, very hard time believing that their primary target when together would be
Student athlete compensation. It'd be, for example, like if someone claimed that
Uniform should be a redirect to
High school football in North America because the clothes that high school football players wear are referred to as a 'uniform.' ...Heck, if it weren't for nom laying out a case for it being a legal term, my knee-jerk would be to delete as an
WP:XY of
name,
image, and
likeness.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and hatnote, the term is specifically used in the media for references to the current target and thus primary. I'll trust Bagumba on the fact that incoming links support that also, unless proven otherwise.
Respublik (
talk) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlikely alternative name for MW2. Appears to just be a joke name based on the logo. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 04:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The logo does indeed look like MIIW, unsure why it would be a joke? Utopes(talk / cont) 04:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is the game logo, thus a viable search term --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 04:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Utopes and IP Editor. Typing what the logo looks like into the search bar is far from unlikely.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Implausible typo of Riot Games with only 1 page view in the last 90 days StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 03:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I remember this being the preferred misspelling for Riot Games by fans of League of Legends. A little crufty, but harmless. ―
Synpath 03:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as an {{
R from meme}}, not {{
R from typo}}. Upon research, this is a meme among League players that eventually was even referenced by Riot themselves. Anyone typing this in probably did so intentionally.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 05:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep single character transposition of adjacent characters is a highly plausible typo --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You've got to have a dream if you don't have a dream how you gonna make your dream come true?
A very specific lyric from a recently created redirect that is not mentioned at the target article, and does not appear to be a likely search term. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A highly specific lyric from this song that is not mentioned at the target. With the la di das, I don't expect this to be a likely search term, and Wikipedia is not a lyric database. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A Megan Thee Stallion lyric not mentioned at the target article. After typing in specific commas and apostrophes, only for no information about this, makes this title unhelpful and unlikely, as Wikipedia has never been a lyric database. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominating this for
user:InTheAstronomy32, who tried to PROD it earlier. I will not vote. Reason given was "Implausible search term. "Isnotreal" appears to be a play on the name Israel and has no relation with criticism of Israel." StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Is the criticism of Israel here that... it's not real...? I've heard of antisemites denying the holocaust, but denying the existence of the current, physical country of Israel is a new one.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 01:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Many years ago (I've just looked it up, it was August 2005) someone (an IP it turns out) nominated the
Israel article for deletion with the rationale Nation does not follow the laws of the body that granted it soveriegnity, as such it is a non-soveriegn nation and does not officially exist. It attracted two speedy keep !votes in the four minutes it was open before the AfD page was speedily deleted as a "Troll page" (none of that by me so I don't know how I found out about it), but denying the existence of the country isn't completely new. None of this has any bearing on the redirect though.
Thryduulf (
talk) 03:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. This (and
Itsnotreal, which is currently a redlink) is a hashtag/epithet used by (pro-)Palestinian commenters to signal that they disagree with the legitimacy (not de facto existence) of the Israeli state and/or government (it's not always clear which). It's trivial to verify this is not something made up, and it's not trolling or something like that. Is it prominent enough to make a useful search term here though? Well it's prominent enough that the answer is not obviously "no", but it's not prominent enough that the answer is obviously "yes". This one is going to take more research, but as it's 4am here that's not going to happen right now.
Thryduulf (
talk) 04:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete its use is generally bad faith or misguided, and it lacks the prominence to be a useful term, particularly for the page at hand.
FortunateSons (
talk) 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The song IS mentioned and discussed in the article-- The theme song for City Escape was composed by Jun Senoue, who first worked on Sonic Adventure 2 after moving to San Francisco... The "Escape From the City" theme was featured as a selectable song in the Sega rhythm game Samba de Amigo: Party Central. The theme also received an Irish remix by the band Hyper Potions in collaboration with Senoue as part of a collaboration between Jacksepticeye and the Sonic social media account on St. Patrick's Day. As for the likeliness of the search term, this is literally the first sung lyric from the song, and has become pretty notable as a phrase associated with Sonic himself. It'd be like saying
I wanna be the very best shouldn't redirect to
Pokémon Theme.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 01:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As I'll reiterate, this is a lyric that is not mentioned at the target article. There's thousands and thousands of songs, with hundreds of lyrics in each (unless it's
Tequila), and nearly all (suitably) don't have individual redirects; Wikipedia is not a lyric compository. R from lyrics are for lines in a song to a source that "describes the lyric", which this is not, and so far there does not seem to be a reason why this unmentioned line would defy that. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I understand why this was created, but it feels like any attempt to give this proper context in the article is going to feel forced and excessive detail when read in the game's article.
Sergecross73msg me 13:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A Linkin Park lyric not mentioned at the target song article. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep; it's the lyrics for the beginning of the chorus, and thus a very plausible search term and useful for readers who hear the song but don't know the title. I don't see how this is a harmful redirect just because it's not mentioned at the target article; that looks rooted in an
overly strict interpretation of the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
Left guide (
talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree with that interpretation of wp:notburo here. This is moreso an issue with "R from lyrics" as a whole (of which there's give-or-take 200 total) that has been commented on throughout the years, but never fully dealt with. The way to find articles on Wikipedia is by searching for its name. We generally don't include lyrics on song pages; Genius and Google take care of that. This isn't an issue of "
For the Longest Time" vs "
The Longest Time", this is someone typing in a full lyric instead of the actual song title. If someone makes the conscious decision to type these 9 words instead of the actual song title, it can be inferred that something specific to the lyrics is being sought, which we don't have, so there's no reason to think this song is specialized and needs an unmentioned chorus lyric redirect above any other song. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If someone makes the conscious decision to type these 9 words instead of the actual song title, it can be inferred that something specific to the lyrics is being sought I'm not so sure about that. Not always do people know the name of the song they're looking for-- maybe the lyric that the title comes from doesn't stick in the mind as well as a different lyric does, or maybe the song is titled something that doesn't show up in the lyrics. In such a situation, these redirects are useful-- especially if they're either the first lyric of the song, the first lyric of the chorus, or simply just 'the most catchy lyric of the song' (yes I know that that one's subjective, but you get what I'm getting at, right?) I know for a fact that I've needed to look up a lyric in order to find a song hundreds of times.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 10:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've done this countless times too...on a
Google search. I'm not sure this is the role of an encyclopedia. Sounds more like the role of search engines and lyrics database websites.
Sergecross73msg me 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
implausible misspelling(?) of its japanese name, manene. also unlikely speculation, as it was also named in gen 3. results only showed an in-game trainer and an anime production staff member with this name cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 12:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or weak retarget. The top results all relate to some non-notable tiktokers/youtubers, Inanidrilus manae - longstanding consensus has repeatedly been that redirects from specific names are not useful, so I don't support targetting it here; and
Manaé Feleu, a French rugby union player but I can't find any evidence that she's commonly referred to by her first name alone (searching for Manae rugby -Feleu finds only places where her surname has been misspelled) so while I don't oppose retargetting it here it's not my first choice.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate: Probably no harm in disambiguating to the articles
Thryduulf dug up. Apparently it actually is a given name in Japan as well (quite a few people out there with that name as well), could be argued as futureproofing or something? idk. But the current target of
Mime Jr. really isn't useful. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Thryduulf. Search will help better. Jay 💬 05:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 00:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete it as confusing. It's mainly used in another club's seasonal articles
[22], while redirecting to the current target
[23].
Respublik (
talk) 00:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A lyric from We Didn't Start the Fire that is not mentioned at the target article. Because this song has to deal with world history and events, this title can very well be used to refer to sex between British politicians, outside of the context of being a song lyric, and is currently unhelpful as it is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the list of events was removed from the article citing copyright concerns. This resulted in an extended edit war, page protection and a
talk page discussion that didn't arrive at an obvious consensus (most of it was people asserting a copyright violation for reasons and different people giving reasons why it wasn't. IANAL but to me the arguments that the argument "encyclopaedic discussion of the selection of events, which has been discussed in reliable sources, is not a copyright violation" feel the strongest and so I would tend to favour inclusion, but my opinion holds no more weight than any other editor's individual opinion.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A lyric from We Didn't Start the Fire that is not mentioned at the target. Without a mention, and especially from a song tied with world history and events, this term can very well be used for topics relating to China being under martial law, and is not currently helpful as a redirect to a song where this line is not discussed. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Martial law#China (as a {{
R avoided double redirect}} of
Martial law in China) which gives an overview and links to the three more detailed articles. If you know the context of the song then you can infer from what is there that it was referring to the Tiananmen Square protests, which will help some people and more than deletion would. See also my long comment at
#British politician sex for background.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A lyric not mentioned at the target article. "Back" is not mentioned, nor is "front". This is a pretty common phrase and is used as a lyric in
Lil Boo Thang, for one, a Yu-Gi-Oh card popped up for this term too, and it's pretty similar to and likely confusable with
Back from the front. Without a mention of this lyric at the current target, it's a confusing redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as vague per nom. That's a decent Yugioh card btw. --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous with no good target, and too common a phrase to be worthy of a disambiguation page.
Fieari (
talk) 01:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
An incorrect lyric from Bohemian Rhapsody not mentioned at the target. The correct version does not exist, and is not mentioned at the target either. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Snippets of song lyrics of Bad Gyal, all of which created at the same time and none of which appear at the target articles, nor should they appear due to these being unlikely search terms for which we don't have any particular content about. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about these lyrics.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete All - Being lyrics to a song whose lyrics are not notable enough to get extensive discussion makes all of these not particularly useful search terms. If google (or any other search engine, or LLM AI, etc) made wikipedia popup when searching these lyrics, people would not get the information they want, which would presumably be the full lyrics or a discussion on the meaning of the lyrics, neither of which we provide.
Fieari (
talk) 01:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It makes no sense for the links
tantra and
tantras go to different articles. Retarget to
tantra.
JIP |
Talk 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget as per nom. Given the proposed target already has a hatnote pointing to the current target, I don't see any sort of problem with this change. (Don't forget to mark as R from plural.)
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oop, also, forgot to add: Apparently, this was an R from page move. Still, feels like it makes more sense to point to the singular form.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep since it does not seem to make sense to refer to the subject at
Tantra in a plural form. (However, if a disambiguation page were to be created for "Tantra/Tantras", this redirect could be retargeted there.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Tantra. Never mind, seems the English language defines the word "tantra", as well as the subject at
Tantra, as a noun, so a plural is plausible.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
To be clear, are you saying the page should be changed into a dab?
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Countering the nomination, it does make sense for the two titles to point to different articles. For any confusion, hatnotes are already in place. Jay 💬 05:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify - Per above, their arguments are convincing that the plural matters and a search for Tantra or Tantras means something different.
Fieari (
talk) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Requesting deletion for unencyclopedic search terms that are unlikely to be frequently sought after or helpful as most readers looking for Twitter would just search for that and go from there, plus it is still largely called Twitter on the site and by many media and news outlets.
Trailblazer101 (
talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, plus no mainspace links to either one. GSK (
talk •
edits) 01:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
WP:UNHELPFUL, a test search for "Website previously known as Tumblr" had Tumblr as the very first result. Presumably, if we removed this redirect, the same would still hold for Twitter.Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 02:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep both as per a smart kitten and Thryduulf, who are right on all counts. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lunamann (
talk •
contribs) 14:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
...I... what???? That was supposed to be an edit of the comment above it. It displayed correctly in the past. How in the name of sanity did THIS happen??? ...Why does nonsense like this keep happening to me specifically? First Discussions stuffed the entirety of RtD into my collapsible, then Twinkle stole my reply meant for one discussion and put it under a different one, and now this nonsense. It's like these bot scripts have it out for me or something, lol
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 14:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep both. Variations of the phrase [the website] formerly known as Twitter have been used (& are being used) by a number of reliable sources - e.g.
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30] - thus making this a likely & potentially helpful search term (engaging
WP:R#K3); with no other target that it could be ambiguous with (as far as I can tell at a glance). Redirects are
cheap, and - notwithstanding my problems with the
WP:COSTLY essay - I don't believe
WP:UNHELPFUL/
WP:PANDORA apply in this instance, due to this specific phrase being used by reliable sources. A lack of incoming internal links is
not a reason for deletion - especially so with redirects such as these ones, which can validly exist as search terms. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 13:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel like these should use “formerly”, rather than or at least as well as “previously”, as these quotes are usually worded in that way. –Gluonztalkcontribs 13:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair point (I must have skimread the exact wording of the redirects too quickly!). My opinion would be that both forms could exist as redirects, given that previously is a synonym of formerly. (For what it’s worth, at a search, I’ve found sources also using previously - e.g.
[31],
[32],
[33]) All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 14:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you could find 10x as many references to the locution
Zuckerberg's company being used to mean
Facebook by reliable sources—surely you're not suggesting a redirect for that as well? If not, I completely fail to see the relevance of this comment. The power of
natural language is such that you can always construct new ways to refer to the same entity, and someone out there will be using at least some of those locutions. That has no bearing on whether there should be a redirect here, or whether someone is likely to use the given locution as a search term. A journalist uses an expression like the company formerly known as Twitter to achieve a specific rhetorical effect; a searcher, on the other hand, is only trying to find a topic as quickly as possible—and they will generally do so with the fewest number of words that suit the purpose, and which actually occur to them. Since it is obviously impossible someone could say the company formerly known as Twitter while forgetting the name Twitter, it stands to reason very few, if any, people will search for the longer term when the shorter term will do.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 01:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep both per a smart kitten. These are highly plausible search terms, given that phrases like this are how many people are referring to the website previously known as Twitter. The longer it becomes since it was known as Twitter the more likely it will be that people don't know what is being referred to, and even those who do won't know the title of our article given how ambiguous "X" is.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per the third reply; the second reply brings my opinion slightly towards ‘delete’ but still within the ‘keep’ range. –Gluonztalkcontribs 14:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Both redirects show evidence of being used, getting 12 (Website) and 40 (The website) hits between October and February. The latter particularly is evidence these are not actually unlikely.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue with that is that
WP:PANDORA, which seems to be the only citeable essay or guideline or policy that I can find that attempts to put into words why we don't and shouldn't have such "sentence redirects"... is, as Thryduulf put it at one point, '
WP:OTHERSTUFF nonsense'. Like, the core idea-- that we shouldn't make or keep redirects that amount to a user typing an entire sentence or question into the searchbox-- seems sound to me, but the 'pandora's box' argument used renders the essay... dare I say it? Renders it
WP:UNHELPFUL. (And this is coming from a relatively new user that has been trying to wrap my brain around this for the past couple of weeks, and also, who tried to cite that very argument earlier on in this very discussion.)That said, WP:COSTLY nonsense notwithstanding, I wouldn't mark this as one of those redirects. As smart kitten and Thryduulf have pointed out, this phrase (or at least, a variant of it) gets used in reliable sources all the time to refer to Twitter/X, and has been ever since the name change.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If you can find evidence that people are searching Wikipedia for those terms, especially if they are frequently used in multiple independent sources, then they would likely make useful redirects (although "animal that barks" is ambiguous -
Bark (sound) notes that dogs, wolves, coyotees, foxes, seals and other animals all make that noise)). However as Lunamann points out, whether they are or are not useful search terms is completely irrelevant to whether these redirects are useful search terms.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If you can find evidence that people are searching Wikipedia for those terms,
You say this as if anyone has provided any evidence that people are using the search term "the company formerly known as Twitter" here on Wikipedia.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hits are not evidence of search engine use. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this obviously false claim.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 16:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What makes this different is that multiple sources frequently refer to it as "(the) website previously known as Twitter" as a name, not just as temporary clarification, in the same way "
The artist formerly known as Prince" was used. Also, once again,
WP:PANDORA is just
WP:OTHERSTUFF +
WP:CRYSTAL - we judge redirects on their own merits, not on the merits of other redirects that someone might theoretically create at some point in the future (and there isn't even evidence to support the underlying assumption that it will encourage such creations).
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Website previously known as Twitter" only gets around 529 Google hits most of which are from Wikipedia. It doesn't appear to be a common term unlike "The artist formerly known as Prince" which is mentioned in the target and has about 135,000 hits, similarly "Country previously known as Swaziland" has about 528 hits. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 20:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
More like
9 news results, three of which are invalid. I guess that must be some users' definition of "widely used by reliable sources".
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 22:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree we judge redirects on their own merits, and this one has none. If you bothered putting the other search terms offered as anti-examples into Google, you'd see they manifestly have far more searches than this.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 01:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, if the country of Swaziland were only recently renamed to Swaziland, still regularly referred to as Swaziland by most people, and kept getting referred to with the phrase "Country previously known as Swaziland" in reliable publications, then yeah, I could see us ending up with
Country previously known as Swaziland. ...It's a bit like
The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 20:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that's the point, it seems Prince is sometimes actually named as "The artist formerly known as Prince" which "Country previously known as Swaziland" is just a sentence so is not a plausible redirect. In other words the "Country previously known as" is just a modifier rather than a name. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ehhh. I mean, during the time period where Prince was referred to as 'The artist formerly known as Prince', his name was actually
File:Prince logo.svg. (You can probably see why people referred to him as 'The artist formerly known as Prince') In that case, I'd argue that 'The artist formerly known as' would also just be a modifier.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 23:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, if the country of Swaziland were only recently renamed to Swaziland, still regularly referred to as Swaziland by most people, and kept getting referred to with the phrase "Country previously known as Swaziland"
Literally all of these things are true. Did you bother checking? The correct response here is to have a redirect at
Swaziland to
Eswatini, because the expression "formerly known as" is, in a sense, the linguistic equivalent of a redirect already. The solution is not to think people will actually be searching for entire sentences and thus create a redirect for them.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 01:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
delete per "no one refers to it as x". aside from elon and
organization 13
on a more serious note, i think the "previously" would require that the target article not be named "twitter" cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We don't require readers to know what our article is titled before they can read it, indeed that's the point of redirects like this. "no one refers to it as x" would be a valid argument against moving the article but is completely irrelevant here - rather it's a reason why this redirect is useful.
Thryduulf (
talk) 14:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Serves no practical purpose. Almost anyone would simply type in "Twitter" or "X", not this sentence.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep harmless, not a Pandora's box as the titling of "website previously known as twitter" might even be more of a popular name in the modern landscape than "X" is, which is hard to say for any other "former name" of anything. People who know it's not Twitter anymore can very plausibly search for the subject in this way. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It is infinitely more plausible they would just search for Twitter and hope Wikipedia gets them to the right page. Which it does.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 01:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Admittedly
involved relist on my part, going to
IAR in order to close the subpage. No prior relists with 6 !votes delete and 5 !votes keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Implausible search term. Why would somebody search this instead of just searching for Twitter instead? StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 15:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per A smart kitten. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Are you arguing that X's official name is "the company formerly known as Twitter"? Because that was the case for Prince, at least for a time. It showed up in his logo and everything.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
X's official name is not "the company formerly known as Twitter", it is X. Similarly, Prince's name was never "the artist formerly known as Prince", it was (insert unpronounceable symbol here). For both, actually referring to them by their official name is problematic-- X, because it is literally only a single letter and is thus vague as heck. (Prince Symbol), because it is an unpronounceable symbol that also does not show up in Unicode.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 16:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I misread your comment. No, I don't think either of those things are true, but I do believe "the artist formerly known as Prince" is Prince's name, as a matter of simple
descriptive linguistic fact. People used it because the Prince symbol is unpronounceable and not Unicode-encoded; the expression "the artist formerly known as Prince" is the only actual way to say anything that you could call his name (besides "Prince" itself, of course). Conversely, the redirect being debated here is just a phrase whose referent is Twitter, and there are infinitely many such phrases, due to the
productivity of language; an analogy is the phrase
Zuckerberg's company,
referring to
Facebook witbout being the name of Facebook. A superficial resemblance between "the artist formerly known as..." and "the website previously known as..." is just that: superficial; they are, linguistically, not the same thing.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per above arguments. I mean, it's demonstrably a useful search term, in that it gets use. We don't need thousands of hits a day for it to be shown to be useful. Also this term sees plenty of uses in the wild; in the news, in reliable sources, in social media... basically everywhere.
Fieari (
talk) 01:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In multiple comments by multiple people pointing out the page views and the use of this and similar terms in multiple independent sources.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Page views are not evidence that people arrived at those pages via search, since links exist.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 16:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
People using this redirect as a link to the content they want to read (and there is no other content this could refer to) is evidence of use. It's irrelevant whether people are navigating via the internal search engine, an external search engine, direct URL entry, links from internal or external pages, or any other method - what matters is that this redirect takes them to the content they are looking for.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
People using this redirect as a link...is evidence of use.
No, it isn't, actually, because anyone can edit a Wikipedia page, and for the non-mainspace articles where this particular link exclusively shows up, there aren't even many checks on such edits. This is the exact argument cited by
WP:OTHERSTUFF, which you love referencing here, edited here for relevance: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles links do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article link.
If it were that simple, anyone could end a redirect discussion immediately by spamming the link across user/talkspace. Even disregarding such malicious intent, the existence of a redirect causes people to use it; to claim we should then keep the redirect is, therefore, circular.
It's irrelevant whether people are navigating via the internal search engine, an external search engine, direct URL entry, links from internal or external pages, or any other method - what matters is that this redirect takes them to the content they are looking for.
First, the person I am replying to above said, explicitly, it's demonstrably a useful search term. It's fine if you want to talk about a different set of goalposts, but that wasn't how this thread started, and I am still waiting on @
Fieari, or anyone else, to back up this claim.
Second, that a redirect takes them to the content they are looking for is trivially true of any redirect that isn't straight up wrong (i.e. mistargeted). This isn't a useful or interesting fact, except when it isn't true.
Third, it is supremely relevant whether people are using this link via search, or because someone else put it on a page on talk/userspace, because the latter is something anyone can do as discussed above. If a term is getting actual, organic search use, that is a far better indicator of its utility, than someone clicking on a link because someone else put a link somewhere (who, in turn, used the link because they saw the redirect existed, or perhaps even created the redirect themselves).
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 18:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You are making the assumption that links can only be from other pages on the English Wikipedia, when they can be from any page on the internet. The existence or non-existence of links is not the sole determining factor of a redirect's utility, but it is one factor that plays a part in the decision. If people are clicking on a link to reach this article, that is exactly as much evidence of utility as them typing this phrase into a search engine to reach this article.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You are making the assumption that links can only be from other pages on the English Wikipedia
If people are clicking on a link to reach this article, that is exactly as much evidence of utility as them typing this phrase into a search engine to reach this article.
You are just repeating the point I just refuted without addressing anything I said. I'm genuinely curious if you think any RfD could be pre-empted by just, ahead of time, making sure the given redirect appears on a bunch of talk/user pages.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 20:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom,
WP:PANDORA, and the other replies I've made in reply to others above.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Are you unable to read
WP:PANDORA?
WP:OTHERSTUFF is bad when it acts as an example of the example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). That's not the argument being made here, or at
WP:PANDORA. The argument is that allowing such redirects to exist will, in the long run, result in a worse user experience and therefore a worse encyclopedia—either because user's expectations that certain redirects exist will go unfulfilled, or arguably worse, because their expectations will be fulfilled, at the cost of editor time and effort in having to maintain a factorial explosion in the number of redirects.
I have also yet to see any evidence that people are really using this as a search term (as opposed to clicking on a link, which proves nothing).
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm explicitly calling out PANDORA as the fallacy, because the utility of redirects is determined on their own merits not the merits of hypothetical future redirects that, if they ever exist, may or may not share any characteristics with the nominated one. If a given redirect is useful to the encyclopaedia and/or its readers (and people using a link is absolutely evidence of utility) then it is kept, it if isn't then it is deleted. People being inspired to create useful redirects in the future is something we want to encourage, even if it means an infinitesimal increase in the maintenance burden (which is orders of magnitude less than the burden created when people nominate demonstrably useful redirects for deletion).
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm explicitly calling out PANDORA as the fallacy, because the utility of redirects is determined on their own merits not the merits of hypothetical future redirects
I am not claiming this redirect lacks merit because other hypothetical future redirects lack merit. I am claiming this redirect lacks merit because it leads to a worse
user experience. The reason for the latter is because it implies the existence of other redirects, but I am absolutely not making the claim that this redirect is bad because other redirects are bad!
A further comment: without making reference to
WP:PANDORA, can you explain why there shouldn't be redirects for pages like
first vice president of the United States (→
John Adams),
Zuckerberg's company (→
Facebook/
Meta Platforms), or
the richest man in history (→
Mansa Musa)? Keep in mind, a simple Google search will show these are used far more often than the redirects we are discussing here (both in absolute terms, and relative to the frequency of the base expression). Or do you think such pages should exist? If you agree they shouldn't exist, but must invoke
WP:PANDORA to justify this reasoning, this is an affirmation of the utility of
WP:PANDORA.
People being inspired to create useful redirects in the future is something we want to encourage,
This is not a useful redirect, and other redirects like it would also not be useful. I have yet to see any evidence people are searching for this on Wikipedia. And for all the hot air about how "these terms are used by reliable sources!", in fact, the exact string "website previously known as Twitter" only appears a grand total of 7 times in a Google News search.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep harmless, clearly identifies the site. On the other hand, if you know "formerly known as Twitter" you probably will just search for "Twitter", or at least will if "website previously known as Twitter" doesn't work, and
Brusquedandelion makes a good point re:usage. So all in all eh.
Rusalkii (
talk) 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Peach tree is currently a redirect to
Peach. While this title differs in caps from the general tree redirect, this war is never referred to as "Peach Tree" just by itself. I don't think the need is here to warrant a
WP:DIFFCAPS variant for a shortened version of "Peach Tree War" (that is only used once throughout the article). Utopes(talk / cont) 06:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will mention, this redirect seems to have been created as a mistake when moving
Peach Tree War to
Peach War, and apparently not an intentional pointage here. But, figured I'd bring this here to discuss the diffcaps redirect that was created as a result. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. This isn't necessary, and if left, might generate quite a bit of
WP:SURPRISE for anyone who was simply wanting an article on peach trees.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 06:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect would have been created when I accidentally moved Peach Tree War to Peach Tree. Immediately reverted this move then moved Peach Tree War to
Peach War. Peach War is the more common usage, although a few secondary sources use Peach Tree War.
Griffin's Sword (
talk) 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No evidence that this is an alternate name, and can be said and used in nearly any context where multiple vowels are said consecutively. Doesn't appear at the target, so no particular association. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, as this is basically a meaningless set of letters.
BD2412T 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Several of the top hits for me on google are people asking "what is the song that goes ... ?" where ... is a string of syllables that includes these vowels. About 27 different songs were suggested, one of them was "Million Voices" but the question for that was "What's the song that goes eeeee aaaaa aaaaa aa aaaa?" which is not the same as this redirect.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
D e e l e e t e e as ambiguous at best. --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Even if this were the primary topic for "the song that goes <string of vowels>" this particular string of vowels, with this specific spacing between each vowel, is an implausible search term.
Fieari (
talk) 01:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "doubles guy" at the target, or in any meaningful capacity anywhere on Wikipedia. The only hits this gets are from a person that plays doubles tennis, named Guy. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm fairly certain this is in reference to a meme regarding Patrick Bateman from
American Psycho (film). That said, even there, the topic is only referenced vaguely in passing-- The film is frequently a topic of memes and has been said by some to be relevant due to its themes and satirical nature... That's not enough to support this redirect.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 01:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Know Your Meme "article" just have 4chan and Google Trends as reference. I think this is just an obscure meme. --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The rcats on this redirect completely and perfectly spell out the reasons why this redirect should be deleted. A quote, from a related meme, not mentioned at target. Brilliant, doing the job for me! This redirect title is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, as well. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I've heard pretty much this exact comment from across the room many times when
KTC is playing
World of Warships, I've almost certainly said it myself when playing a snooker game on my phone. This is far too common a phrase to make it a useful redirect.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unneeded and unused meme redirect. It's a Wario quote. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 01:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of any character named "Demi" listed at the target page. Not a helpful redirect for people that search this character, only to find zero info about such character. Used to be a redirect to
Characters of Phantasy Star IV but since that's' disappearance, there's not currently a home for this one. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A social club not mentioned at the target article. Was involved in a 2005 AfD that closed as merge. No merge actually took place. The club existed as a passing mention with no real focus for a while, and then removed via a copyvio clear in 2015. Unmentioned since. The dash followed by the university name makes this unlikely in its own right. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The word "deep" is not mentioned at target. The word "well" is mentioned but never in the context of being a noun, that could ever be interpreted as "deep". Appears to be a nickname for the subject, but this nickname does not occur anywhere at the page or on Wikipedia. Searches for this term exclusively procure
Deep-sea fish intel. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment is this a translation from Nauhatl or Spanish? --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 04:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Translating the edit summary from the creation of the redirect (深井魚, presumably Chinese - I'm not familiar with these characters) gives us 'Deep well fish' using Google translate and 'Shamrock Fish/Shamoi (deep-well fish)' using DeepL. Searches for shamrock fish/Shamoi only return names of places/people. I'm inclined to believe this is some literal translation of the Chinese word for axolotl. ―
Synpath 02:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) I spoke too soon, forgetting to do the reverse translate of axolotl to chinese which gives 蠑螈 from Google translate. Who knows what that edit summary is referring to. ―
Synpath 02:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Redirect is from an implausible translation mistake, apparently even to the wrong fish, per above.
Fieari (
talk) 01:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm considering retargetting to
Juicer, as
Orange juicer and
Lemon juicer redirect there. How should we do about this though, as lime-juicer can also refer to that particular term according to the current target? Also considering redirecting all three to
Lemon squeezer as an alternative as they're citrus fruits.
1033Forest (
talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Darkstream is not mentioned at the target. It is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, besides as a publisher offhandedly mentioned at
Bugsy McGrawUtopes(talk / cont) 19:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The character exists, see for example
here and
here. However, as the nominator says, it's not mentioned at the target article and the redirect has no incoming links. Darkstream is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.
JIP |
Talk 11:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: "besides as a publisher offhandedly mentioned at
Bugsy McGraw": Not the same Darkstream as the Transformers character.
JIP |
Talk 07:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The day before any tornado can be seen as a "dangerous day ahead". In particular to this tornado, this phrase was tweeted by a stormchaser and turned into a movie/doc after they lost their lives in this tornado. This movie, nor this phrase, is mentioned at the target, so people searching for this term will not receive the content about what they're looking for, and as a standalone term is too generic to be reliable. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete — Too generic and not a common search term for the article topic, I imagine.
Penitentes (
talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - The only case when this is related to the target is in very niche circles. DJ Cane(he/him) (
Talk) 08:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Was closed as redirect after a 2021 AfD, but to this day there's no mention of "Ice Girls", or even "girls" at all at the target page, making this unhelpful for people that search for this topic only to find nothing for their search term on this 112 thousand byte page, i.e. a very very long scroll. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Alternatively could be redirected to the
List of lakes of Estonia add the incomplete list expanded, especially if there are multiple lakes with such name. There exists quite a few wikidata entries as well. No exact necessity to delete for the article's creation as there aren't any incoming link outside the RFD. Delete disamb, with no prejudice for recreating.
Respublik (
talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
From its website, Oregon Business Development Department is known as "Business Oregon" not "Oregon Business". Oregon Business is the name of a magazine often cited in articles but about which we have no substantive article.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 15:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The initial target was
Love and War (Cornell novel), which made sufficient mention of the Hoothi, until it was redirected to
Paul Cornell, which makes no such mention. Someone typing this will not be satisfied with the new target, and it is possible that they misspelled Houthi. –
CopperyMarrow15(
talk |
edits)Feel free to ping me! 01:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Houthi movement: same target as
Houthi, plausible typo. (It's also worth noting that the 'Hoothi' in that novel have 0 relation to the
Houthi, and their name comes from a flubbed reading of a throwaway line from
The Brain of Morbius of all things!) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Very well. I had considered this, and now I agree. Retarget to
Houthi movement. Considering the obscurity of the fictional species, I think it's safe to redirect from misspelling here, especially considering Google Search results for "hoothi". –
CopperyMarrow15(
talk |
edits)Feel free to ping me! 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Tentative keepComment. Per
WP:RNEUTRAL, that's not enough to delete-- a non-neutral redirect may stand, even if not mentioned at the article itself, as long as the appellation is regularly used outside Wikipedia (i.e. it's not
WP:NEO) and thus is a regularly used moniker. A quick Google searched revealed plenty of usage of this name-- albeit, all of it was attached to a specific event from May 2023 that saw Mark Cuban ask Twitter users if they were watching a pirate stream of the heats vs. celts game.No clue if the moniker has stuck around well enough that someone might be using it as a search term a year later... what do you all think?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, also, quick aside: Usage stats for this redirect won't help as it was a grand total of 3 hours old when it was listed here. Whoops.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there evidence that this nickname has been used since last May? All of the coverage seems to have been from around the time of the incident. Based on that, this seems to fail
WP:NEO. NW1223<
Howl at me•
My hunts> 16:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you mean on social media? (As Thryduulf mentioned below) TLAtlak 14:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: It seems to be a plausible typo (M and N are next to each other). Coverage of the nickname seems to have been a one-and-done event though. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It also swaps the K for a C, two keys that are on opposite sides of the keyboard. That, and stacking two typos hurts plausibility. So I wouldn't go on the typo argument.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
honestly brain was so focused on the first letter I forgor that his name isn't Marc 😅 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 17:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It doesn't precisely match anything. If the name were still in use then this would be a clear keep per
WP:RNEUTRAL/
WP:RFD#KEEP #3, if it had never been used anywhere prominent then it would be a clear delete per your comment. However as it was widely used, but apparently only briefly, there are good arguments for both keeping and deleting and which arguments are stronger needs thoughtful consideration.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree. The offensive redirect is OK if it is described in the article (see the wording of #3). If
WP:BLP does not allow us to openly state the offensive language in the article, we should not introduce it through the backdoor of a redirect. The general popularity of offensive language is irrelevant to us, we are looking to
WP:RS for guidance.
Викидим (
talk) 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Although being mentioned in the target article is a good indication that a non-neutral redirect to it is acceptable, it is not a requirement. Presence in reliable sources is an indication that a non-neutral redirect is appropriate, but again it is not a requirement (although this has been mentioned in at least one reliable source). For example, a non-neutral nickname used very widely across social media but not in reliable sources would almost certainly not be mentioned in the article but would likely be a useful redirect. I'm not arguing for or against this redirect, just against dismissing arguments for or against it out of hand.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This machinery, if left unchecked, will be (and was) used for cheap (in all senses) political shots by influencing the Google search results. I do not think that lending our redirects to be used for personal attacks, essentially helping to spread the abusive language, is in the spirit of
WP:5P. Therefore, I think that the language of #3 reads exactly as it is written: redirect can be deleted if redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "[verbal abuse of X]" to "[X]" (unless "[verbal abuse of X]" is legitimately discussed in the article), where the example precisely fits the current redirect (words in bracket are mine).
Викидим (
talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, basically exactly what nom said. This is a non-neutral nickname that is not mentioned or discussed at that target. That is more than enough to delete this. We have no information about narcotics at the page to begin with. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment – Is "narc" really non-neutral? Technically, it is slang for a person who investigates narcotics crimes, and culturally, it is slang for a snitch. If the only issue is the fact that it's not mentioned in the article, that's an easy fix. I can just add a section that writes about this widely cited event. Thoughts? TLAtlak 12:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Given it's being used as a pejorative, negative nickname for someone, yes, in this case it is non-neutral. That said, it simply being non-neutral is simply cause to use {{
R from non-neutral name}}, not a reason to delete.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, okay, understood. TLAtlak 12:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
2023 Formula One Esports Series
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator
this term seems to exist, but not in the context of music, so a redirect to electroniccore doesn't make any sense
FMSky (
talk) 16:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: A google search for 'Metaltronica' on its own does crowd the search with references to an Italian medical instrument manufacturer (which may be worthy of an article?), however, searching for 'Metaltronica music' does reveal that it is indeed used as a music genre title, by artists like FRANK NILE and DJ Mahoutsukai (although how related these two examples are to each other, and how related they are to Electronicore, may need some investigation-- I notice that FRANK NILE seems to be under the impression as of three weeks ago that he created the genre whole cloth, while DJ Mahoutsukai's work is from three years ago.) I'm not sure whether these two examples are enough to keep, and the Italian medical instrument manufacturer may require disambiguation.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Do not see the connection to “Electronicore”, and also no mention of anything like “Metaltronica” on target page. -
Dyork (
talk) 02:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the second: The name 'Metaltronica' seems to be a portmanteau of 'Metal' (as in Metalcore) and 'Electronica', the two components of Electronicore according to
Electronicore. The idea of "Metaltronica" being an independently-coined name for the same genre seems to track to me. That said, you are correct in that it doesn't show up on the page.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 13:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 23:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete according to GSearch seems to point to companies and some musical entries but there are no indications of notability. --
Lenticel(
talk) 03:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: As the creator of this redirect, I would like to mention that this term features in most articles using the | dependency_liability parameter in
Infobox drug such as
Caffeine,
Cocaine or
MDMA, where it pipes to the same article as the redirect's destination. That being said, it could be expanded into an article since there's probably enough information on the subject, or at the very least something like
List of psychoactive substances by dependence liability could be created to further establish the term. —
Mugtheboss (
talk) 12:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Another thing, I had a look through
WP:R#DELETE to refresh my memory, and there isn’t a criterion for redirects not having adequate usage. I also thought that maybe my redirect could be seen to fall under 8 or 10, but the term "dependence liability" is mentioned in
this section of the target page, and that section does delve into the topic, albeit pretty shallowly, so my view is that neither apply. —
Mugtheboss (
talk) 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mugtheboss: But it's not at all defined there, only peripherally mentioned in a single instance.
Hildeoc (
talk) 03:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Hildeoc: The term "dependence liability" should be
self-explanatory in the context of that article, I.E. how liable a substance is to cause dependence. As I mentioned, the term is present in practically every article using Template:Infobox drug with the | dependency_liability parameter being active, making it widespread across the wiki. —
Mugtheboss (
talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Sayyid" (and other spellings) is an honorific; "Muhammad" (and other spellings) is a very common name. There are dozens of people who might be referred to as Sayyid Muhammad and this redirect has no one good target. Note
Sayyid Mohammad,
Sayed Mohammad are red. I suggest delete to enable Search to work uninhibited.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 17:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate: Looks like this page was previously a disambiguation page, but got turned into a redirect due to
WP:PRIMARYRED. I suppose it probably could be returned to a disambiguation page (revert back to this version), but actually link the
Khanate of Khiva to avoid
WP:PRIMARYRED for the latter Sayyid - and maybe also turn the redlink for him into an interlanguage link via {{ill|Sayyid Muhammad Khan|ru|Саид Мухаммад-хан|fr|Saïd Mohammed Khan}} (seeing as this apparently is acceptable in certain circumstances per
WP:DABSISTER). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The actual article title is Wiki compliant. Inconvenient as it is, people simply do not read Wikipedia's policies before using our encyclopedia. I think it would be a little narcassistic to punish them for their ignorance. The redirect covers how many peops commonly know him (many not even knowing that Sayyid is an honorific) and is thus a plausible search term. As and when these dozens who have been referred to as Sayyid Muhammad surface we can expand the page from redirect to disambig. I note
Sayyid Mohammad,
Sayed Mohammad are red. The answer for anyone who is disturbed by this is to turn those links blue via a redirect.
Tiny Particle (
talk) 18:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Parody YouTube channel which seems to lack the secondary sources required to actually mention it in the article of the thing it's parodying.
Talk:CinemaSins#CinemaWins? has some circular reasoning that we have to include a section about it because the redirect exists. I suggest deleting the redirect.
Belbury (
talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete-- both the redirect AND the mention- unless someone can find secondary sources. If secondary sources are found, happily keep.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 13:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
i found a pair of top however many lists that mention cinemawins, and nothing else
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on sources to substantiate a mention? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Afaik, It's not notable enough FOR an independent article. Heck, we're having trouble finding enough sources to substantiate it being merely mentioned in the
CinemaSins article, much less support its own article.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We must do more research at once. Because I’m leaning toward giving CinemaWins its own article.
220.240.159.198 (
talk) 19:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a redirect, seems to me there's enough material to readd a mention to the article itself. I found this source
[34], probably the one Cogsan intended to list, and also a passing mention here
[35]. The other source provided by Cogsan appears reliable untill proven otherwise, listing an editor-in-chief and editors, etc. on its website.
Respublik (
talk) 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-interchangeable title; this one, unlike
Wasp sting, is one of those cases where it is very difficult if not impossible to have any valid target. The best I can think of is
stinger or something similar.
AwesomeAasim 02:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Arthropod bites and stings as per Thryduulf, this article takes a wide-shot overview of the concept. However, I'm not happy with the refinement-- I'd just retarget to the article itself, without a section header.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 05:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
XY isn't a problem when the target discusses both X and Y as here (or the combination/intersection of X and Y).
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Antikaliuretic
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unnecessarily capitalized disambiguator.
WP:RDAB should apply in my opinion.
Nickps (
talk) 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - My reading of
WP:RDAB is that it's for unlikely disambiguation errors (examples given were inserting random spaces and doubling the parenthesis), but I would argue that using initial caps is not unlikely at all...
title case is a thing, after all, and many people use it habitually. If your concern is the quotation marks, that's also not unlikely as poem titles are almost always referred to within quotation marks.
Fieari (
talk) 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The quotes don't concern me because, as you said, it's a poem. As a sidenote though, a lot of the stuff in
Special:ListRedirects involving quotes would probably not survive an RfD.
My problem is the capitalized disambiguator. Strictly speaking
WP:RDAB is concerned with things like "(Disambiguation)" since linking to such a page is still considered wrong per
WP:INTDAB. However, improperly capitalized disambiguators still should not exist since they imply to someone who stumbles upon them that we should make redirects for every capitalized disambiguator. This case is even worse in fact because the correctly capitalized version
"Tiara" (poem) never existed.
Nickps (
talk) 01:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Capitalised disambiguators are equally as plausible as miscapitalisations elsewhere in the search string, they're harmless and at least one person (the creator) found them useful.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure about the creator finding it useful. It's an {{
R from page move}}. The creator just made the article in the wrong place.
Nickps (
talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed that, but redirects from page moves are routinely kept to avoid breaking links, etc. so that's actually an additional reason not to delete.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The article was kept at the incorrect title for 2 days in 2019. There is precedent for deleting R from moves if the page didn't stay at the incorrect title for long enough, especially when the search term is implausible. I argue that this one is implausible; it only got ~200 views in 5 years, and it's pretty reasonable to assume that most of them intended to reach the correctly capitalized version.
Nickps (
talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Keeping an accidental (and quickly fixed) typo for posterity is not
WP:COMMONSENSE. Almost all search engines ignore capitalization. --
Викидим (
talk) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Strong Delete" 2 errors and as noted only here for a short time. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete due to capitalized disambiguator.
Nickps (
talk) 22:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Yes, the capitalized disambiguator is wrong and if it were an article title it would be corrected. However it's a redirect that is in use on 33 articles indicating that it is not an uncommon mistake. Why remove it? It costs nothing.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I see no reason that consistency is needed, nor do I see a reason to get rid of those that already exist.
Title case is a thing, and some people type it habitually. It's helpful enough where it already exists, but it's not really needed to add everywhere. I'd say just let it be. Oh, uh... I guess I'll toss in a !vote of Keep here too.
Fieari (
talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying that consistency is "needed", however the existence of one such redirect creates precedent that will eventually lead to more of them being created. Assume for a moment that an editor made a link to the incorrectly capitalized
Time (Magazine) in an article and saw it works but then when they tried with Fortune it was red. Would it be that unreasonable for them to create the "missing" redirect? On the other hand if neither exists they will be forced to use the correct one.
Nickps (
talk) 01:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
They could correct the error, or they could create the missing redirect. Neither action would be harmful in any way.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
How is
WP:PANDORA related to
WP:CRYSTAL? CRYSTAL clearly refers to articles being too forward-looking or speculative. It says nothing about how editors should argue at XFD and how could it considering it's under
WP:NOT#Encyclopedic content.
Nickps (
talk) 02:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
PANDORA is entirely speculative - it presupposes, without evidence, that the existence of one redirect will result in the creation of a different redirect at some point in the future and, again without evidence, assumes that the presence of that other redirect will be harmful.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not an unnatural assumption to make. I've created a lot of redirects because similar ones already existed. E.g since std::string existed I made std::wstring, std::u8string &c. In my opinion, all of these redirects have merit on their own and don't need the others to exist, but the reason I actually created them instead of just not opposing their creation was consistency.
Nickps (
talk) 14:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
all of these redirects have merit on their own and don't need the others to exist so in other words the existence of other redirects is not relevant to whether they should be kept or deleted, invalidating the core point of PANDORA.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If you want to ignore what I said afterwards, sure. I only said that all of these redirects have merit on their own to make it clear I didn't create the redirects
to make a point. That doesn't mean one's existence is not dependent on the others' since, if the original hadn't been created, the others wouldn't exist either because I wouldn't have made them. I provided those redirects to counter the notion that [WP:PANDORA] presupposes, without evidence, that the existence of one redirect will result in the creation of a different redirect at some point in the future nothing more, nothing less. The "core point of PANDORA", that unhelpful redirects warp user expectations leading to the creation of more unhelpful redirects and we should avoid that still stands.
On a similar note, I want to address the idea that
WP:PANDORAwithout evidence, assumes that the presence of that other redirect will be harmful. This is only true if you don't accept the rationale behind
WP:COSTLY. PANDORA redirects are harmful because of the reasons provided there, namely that they create more opportunities for similar redirects with mismatching targets, redirects pointing to the wrong target, and more opportunities for vandalism and content forks. And they do all that without any tangible benefit since they don't assist navigation. Especially in this RFD whose delete close would not be felt at all. Search will automagically take care of any queries that landed on this redirect until now.
Nickps (
talk) 00:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
unhelpful redirects warp user expectations leading to the creation of more unhelpful redirects you appear to be simultaneously arguing that the redirects you created are both helpful and unhelpful, useful for navigation and not useful for navigation. You cannot use good redirects existing because of the presence of other good redirects as evidence that bad redirects lead to the creation of other bad redirects, especially when their theoretically serving as inspiration for other redirects is the only reason you can give for them being bad.
You highlight a lot of theoretical problems that these redirects might cause, but provide no evidence that any of them do lead to that. We regularly see redirects that have existed for over a decade, which are unambiguously not useful, that (as far as we can tell) have never resulted in similar redirects being created, have never resulted in POV forks or vandalism.
This is only true if you don't accept the rationale behind WP:COSTLY. COSTLY is an essay that gets some things objectively right, some things objectively wrong, and states some things as fact that are just opinion (some of which are widely shared, some of which are not). One that that is definitely wrong in the PANDORA section is that one redirect being good or bad is a reliable indicator that a similar redirect will be good or bad, when that is pure
WP:OTHERSTUFF - redirects are judged on their own merits, not the merits of different redirects.
Italia 90 is a good redirect,
Italy 2026 is a very similar redirect that was deleted.
Finally as explained on multiple other discussions, search is not a panacea - some people will be automatically taken to the canonical capitalisation (which is not intrinsically more or less correct than any other, it's just an arbitrary convention) but not everybody - some people will be several clicks/taps away from the destination (it depends on a combination of some or all of, at least, what device/software they are using, how it is configured, how they are navigating, whether they have the ability to create an article at this title and whether the search engine is working correctly at that moment).
Thryduulf (
talk) 00:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We regularly see redirects that have existed for over a decade, which are unambiguously not useful, that (as far as we can tell) have never resulted in similar redirects being created, have never resulted in POV forks or vandalism. And that's great. But regularly is far from always. Since
WP:VANDAL#Redirect vandalism is policy I trust that the editors who wrote it had examples even if I don't. My inexperience/lack of knowledge shouldn't be a factor in this discussion, that's an
argument from incredulity. Creating a redirect is not something an IP can do, if we do it for them, we are opening ourselves up to more vandalism opportunities.
Now, about
WP:OTHERSTUFF I have to admit that you're right.
WP:PANDORA is in its core an "other stuff exists" argument. Hovever, we read in
WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments that While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. I argue that
WP:COSTLY is this argument since it demonstrates the harm that unnecessary redirects can do. I don't want to delete this redirect just because it might lead to a similar redirect's creation. I want to delete it a) per
WP:COSTLY#Relevant factors #1 and #2 as I think keeping it is more trouble than it's worth and only b) per
WP:PANDORA. I thought this was implied by PANDORA's "unhelpful" but I was wrong and that's on me.
One that that is definitely wrong in the PANDORA section is that one redirect being good or bad is a reliable indicator that a similar redirect will be good or bad. That is almost certainly not wrong. In some cases there is a very strong correlation of what a redirect's form is and how good it is. All of the examples in
WP:PANDORA are such cases and just because, say,
What is the meaning of life? exists, that doesn't mean we can't say that the probability of a question redirect being bad is almost 1 by virtue of it being a question redirect.
Nickps (
talk) 02:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think your essay is a bit confused to be honest. You say here that WP:PANDORA is not a reason to remove redirects but in
User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box you bring up the example of
Who was the 15th president of the United States? which would be deleted per
WP:PANDORA! (which applies to e.g. titles that turn articles or article subtopics into questions, like Who was the first president of the United States? or What is the capital of France?) In fact, that entire last sentence tells us to consider how the redirect interacts with the search function which in my opinion applies here since if we delete
Time (Magazine) the search function will still take care of users searching it.
Nickps (
talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The entire point of that last section was to show that the Pandora's Box argument is a non-argument, and to give examples of arguments that don't make WP:PANDORA's mistakes. IMO, the problem with WP:PANDORA isn't that it targets redirects that shouldn't be deleted, it's that it doesn't properly give a reason as per their removal-- it just says yeah nah, we need to remove these redirects, they're really bad, and so are redirects like 'em, just trust me bro.Also, admittedly, I'm not entirely happy with that last sentence. It doesn't feel like it SHOULD be applicable here, but I can't really think of very many salient, non-PANDORA arguments against "sentence" redirects i.e.
Who was the 15th president of the United States?.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
(As a quick aside, I've actually removed the sentence in question from the essay.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll write my thoughts about sentence redirects on the essay's talk page at some point since we are getting off topic here. For here I'll just reiterate that, IMO,
WP:PANDORA is a valid reason to delete redirects and those sentence redirects are examples of such a case.
Nickps (
talk) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete although its existed since 2006 its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
And has been helping people find the correct article all that time without causing any problems, so what is the benefit in deletion?
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
While its true it gets more views than most similar redirects its still likely those will get to the correct title if deleted. The incorrect title creates clutter, redirects are cheap yes but per
WP:COSTLY we generally shouldn't have more redirects than needed. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If We generally shouldn't have more redirects than needed were correct then we would have deleted most or all {{
R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, {{
R from other disambiguation}}, {{
R from other spelling}} and {{
R from modification}} redirects. Redirects are kept based on whether they are useful, not whether they are "necessary". As explained above, WP:COSTLY is an essay that gets many things wrong, to the point that it is itself getting increasingly costly given how it is encouraging well-meaning editors to argue for the deletion of redirects that clearly benefit readers without causing any harm.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are two Vartius crossings in the list in the articles, none of them is referred to as Vartius–Lyttä in the text.
Викидим (
talk) 20:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep This is given as an alternate name at the
Finnish Wikipedia article for the crossing, although the citation there goes to a 404 page for me. I'd prefer better sourcing, but this doesn't seem implausible if it's listed on the Finnish wiki. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I fail to understand the use for such a redirect: there is precisely zero information on the target page about such a double-named object. The actual information about the crossing is in
Vartius. Yes, the target page provides a link to Vartius, but then shouldn't we simply redirect there? Keeping the redirect because Finnish Wikipedia has it appears to be a case of
WP:OTHER. Also, I am sure that there are many more names for this crossing in other languages, so the road is slippery as well.
Викидим (
talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not as worried about the language, as I believe that this redirect satisfies
WP:RLANG. You make a good point about retargeting though, so I will change my !vote to that.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not interchangeable title.
AwesomeAasim 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, the redirect
Bee and wasp stings also redirects here. Diving into their histories as well as the history of the
Bee sting article, I found the following:
Wasp sting was created in 2006 as a redirect to
Bee sting. At this point, the
Bee sting article was an unsourced stub that described the topic as also referring to wasp and hornet stings, as well as potentially horsefly bites.
Bee and wasp stings was created as a stub in 2009 by the project
WP:DERM and thus took a medical stance at the issue. It was refined a bit, until R-with-merging with
Bee sting. At this point, the
Bee sting article had been fleshed out, and was slowly being molded into the shape we see today-- it still mentioned hornet and wasp stings in the first few sentences as a holdover from that initial stub, but it was now solidly about stings from bees.
In June 2015, the sentence talking about how wasp and hornet stings are sometimes referred to as bee stings was finally removed from the opening paragraph, by
user:Chiswick Chap.
The very last part of the article talking about wasps and hornets, a single sentence in the opener, would get removed by an IP editor in 2018.
Keep. This problem needs to be fixed by adding the missing information (back) to the article, not by removing it entirely from Wikipedia.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 03:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Either Remove as per
WP:REDLINK, or Retarget, and Restore the removed section. Where to retarget? To the existing
Done and
Ready DABs, of course-- which should get linked to the relevant, restored parts of the original target article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lunamann (
talk •
contribs) 09:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Whoopsie. (I want so badly to just use the Reply button, since it auto-signs the comment, but I've already gotten flak about how the Reply button seems to glitch-- putting my sig on a newline when it doesn't need one, and bumping the entire comment rightwards when it doesn't need to be. Is there some way to fix the Reply box, please??)
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 10:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Huh. Took a bit to figure out how to change settings on it, but it seems to work well so far. Thank you!
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 01:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. RfD can't be responsible for the content of an article. Currently the terms aren't mentioned, and because they are potentially ambiguous, without a mention the redirects are confusing.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment – I would like to make clear that "Definition of Done" and "Definition of Ready" are terms of art in
Scrum.
[36][37] Redirecting these terms to the disambiguation pages
Done and
Ready would not make much sense, in my opinion.
Tea2min (
talk) 20:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with Tea2min that these should redirect to content related to Scrum (if we have it) or to somewhere that disambiguates the terms of art used in scrum and terms of art used somewhere else (if there is such a somewhere else and we have content), with a hatnote (redirect) or link (dab page) pointing to Wiktionary for definitions. They should not point to the generic dab pages unless these terms are mentioned there (it is unlikely they should).
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A case could certainly be made to target the capitalized versions elsewhere (if they are used that in that manner). However, the lowercase versions, not so much. Thus, I am still in the DAB page camp, if they are to remain or become extant in the future. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some of the recent comments could be interpreted as support for either keep or delete. Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This ambiguity is problematic, as it means that redirects from subtitles on their own are being tagged as more specific versions of the target names; when the opposite is likely true. Because of this, and because the rcat {{
R from subtitle}} can plausibly refer to both a title-subtitle combination and a subtitle on its own, I propose that it is deleted. (I noticed that there was talk-page discussion on the possibility of this becoming an rcat of its own - however, if desired, something similar could still be achieved with [e.g.] {{
R from full name}}, which wouldn't have the same issues regarding ambiguity.)
If consensus is found to delete this redirect, I propose that the redirects currently tagged with {{
R from subtitle}} have that rcat replaced with {{
R from full name}} (with the exception of the redirects at
this list, which I propose have the rcat replaced with {{
R from incomplete name}}). I also propose that
Template talk:R from subtitle is marked as {{
G8-exempt}}, due to containing discussion that may be useful for reference (& potentially for future rcats).
Let me know if there are any queries. All the best. —a smart kitten[
meow 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: Notified the participants of the
previous talk page discussion about this RfD, in addition to the talk pages of this redirect's current & previous targets. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Move and deprecate. The redirect should be moved to
template:R from title and subtitle (categorised under {{
R from full name}} if desired) with correct uses migrated there. If the incorrect uses should use a new
template:R from subtitle alone (or some similar name) (created as a redirect if separate categorisation is not currently desired). The current title should note that it is deprecated in favour of the two more specific options.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Redirects are cheap, and I don't find this confusing. Additional redirects can be created to cover the other cases.
BD2412T 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Agree with editor BD2412 that this has not been a source of confusion up to now. Problematic ambiguity (good catch btw, editor ASK) can be easily fixed as noted. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 10:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Paine Ellsworth: With respect, I'd disagree that there hasn't been any confusion up until now - in my opinion, the talk page discussion shows that there was confusion about the meaning of this rcat-redirect from at least 2015. The incorrectly tagged redirects also show that multiple editors using this rcat-redirect have been confused regarding its intended application. Unless there's something I'm missing (please tell me if there is), without this redirect either being deleted or (as Thryduulf suggests) moved and deprecated, I don't see how problems arising as a result of the ambiguity can be easily fixed: from what I can see, it would require someone to continuously check
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from subtitle for any redirects that don't match the target rcat - at which point, why not just have the other (non-ambiguous) rcats/rcat redirects for editors to choose between? All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, of course like editor BD2412 wrote, I meant that it's not been much of a source of confusion for myself. I do remember some back and forth on the talk pages about it, and I guess the editor who was actually going to turn this redirect into an rcat template in its own right never got around to it. Lot's involved with that, and it apparently was low on the priority list. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I actually just fell for this one now. The name is definitely ambiguous; I interpreted it as categorising redirects that are solely made up of a subtitle, which I see now is incorrect.
Loytra (
talk) 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
On second thought, I vote to move and deprecate, per Thryduulf.
Loytra (
talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Move and deprecate per Thryduulf. Rcat templates or redirects for both full titles and subtitles alone should be created at unambiguous titles.
Nickps (
talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would have expected this sort of title to match targets with
Communist block, although this particular one has been a redirect to urban planning related articles since 2005. To me though, with no mention of "commie block" or "communist block" at the article in question, I'm unsure if this is the most helpful target out there. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Communist block - Principle of least surprise. I don't think anyone is going to use this term searching for urban planning... this is clearly just a casual shortening of communist to commie.
Fieari (
talk) 07:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's used to refer to those sorts of buildings. Not exclusively
khrushchevka, but, y'know, the overall trend of those sorts of commie blocks. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 18:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As a sidenote, it would make more sense to redirect to
Khrushchevka - NOTKhrushchevka#Present day. I mentioned the
Khrushchevka#Present day because that's where the colloquial term 'commie block' is mentioned. However, if someone wants to find out information about commie blocks, they'd expect to be sent to the article on them (
Khrushchevka), not to the section about their contemporary reputation. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Comedy" at the target article, and no mention of "numbers". At the time of it's creation, this page was a redirect to
McSweeney's Books, before crossing over to avoid a double redirect. I presume that the McSweeney's Books page cropped up again in the subsequent year, as it was alive and well with plenty of time to get hit by a
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McSweeney's Books deletion closure, which I can't see anymore as the new page only has one edit worth of history. In any case, readers searching for this particular book will likely be disappointed with the page for the publisher, only to search to no avail for the book in question. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Before deletion,
McSweeney's Books was an article about an American publishing house that contained a large table of books the company published. Comedy by the Numbers was one book listed in that table, written by Eric Hoffman and Gary Rudoren, neither of whom have an article (although the former gets a dabmention at
Eric Hoffman).
Thryduulf (
talk) 14:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of a "Clorinda" among the characters in Once Upon a Time; currently exists as an unhelpful and confusing redirect that does not support readers searching this term. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I apologize for this if I did anything wrong. I will try to fix this.—
Vchimpanzee •
talk •
contributions • 17:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This may be harder to fix than I thought. According to a Wiki, she appeared in the first season, and was a stepsister to Cinderella, but Cinderella is not a character in the first season. Then when I look up the actress, it says she appeared in season six. She has a sister Tisbe. The Wiki says the same characters were later called Anastasia and Drizella. I can't tell which was which. I don't really have time to deal with all this right now but I'll try later.—
Vchimpanzee •
talk •
contributions • 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I know that I didn't use
reliable sources. I used two Wikis and something called Hello Giggles but I feel reasonably confident that
this edit can be used to keep the redirect, with this change:
List_of_Once_Upon_a_Time_characters#Ella. If that's not enough, I'll try something else. As for the tables and lists of less important characters, I don't feel confident about trying to include her there because there may be a system for doing it. One of my sources said she did not actually appear until the sixth season but was only mentioned.—
Vchimpanzee •
talk •
contributions • 20:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think I have a solution. As I was doing further research, I discovered another redirect. How about
Ugly_sisters#Once_Upon_a_Time_depictions? There is actually more detail there than anywhere else, regardless of whether my recent edits are accepted.—
Vchimpanzee •
talk •
contributions • 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Clinistrip is not mentioned at the target article. It is only mentioned twice on Wikipedia, both times saying that it was "brand also known as Clinistix". As it so happens, "Clinistix" is also not mentioned at the target article. The only mentions of Clinistrip on all of Wikipedia are at
Chemical test and
Urinalysis. Clinistix is only mentioned at Urinalysis and
Helen Murray Free, credited specifically with Clinistix. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Holy {{
R with history}}, Batman! According to the history page, there's been an attempt to write an article here that goes all the way back to 2005. That said, despite quite a few editors making their marks on this article, none ever actually dug up any sources. The page was BLAR'd without discussion in September 2023 by
user:Vaticidalprophet, tagging it as an R from merge... except it wasn't a merge, as no information on Clinistrips ever ended up being added to
Blood glucose monitoring. (
user:Christian75 would later remove the R from merge tag and add R with history and R without mention.)It doesn't look like the tool you used to tag the redirect for RfD notified most of these editors. Will be going through and leaving them allmost of them notifications.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Aha -- "without discussion" is a tiny bit of an exaggeration. This was discussed on
WT:MED as part of
a project to handle longstanding unsourced articles (there's slightly more context than is just alluded to there, per WAID's link to the village pump discussion). WAID first suggested it should probably be redirected and have any usable information merged, and I agreed with this after looking at it alongside several of the other articles. I don't remember why I tagged it for merging then never actually merged anything, but from context presumably "because the content in the article at the time wasn't usable, and I intended to search more and never actually did". I was more focused (per the linked convo) on Undervirilization, which is closer to my usual editing areas and seemed more improvable if I ever did work on the core
Virilization article.
Vaticidalprophet 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Completely fair. I assumed it was without discussion mostly because I didn't think to check there for such discussion-- I expected it to be on either the page's talk page, or an AfD discussion. Sorry for the assumption!
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Avoided notification of editors that, according to talk page/userpage, likely are no longer on Wikipedia.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of anything indicative of a "2.0" at the target page. The target mainly talks about Chat Control from a singular-usage standpoint, which
Chat Control currently exists as a redirect too. External searches has led me to believe that "Chat Control 2.0" is a different piece of legislation entirely, which shares similarities to this one. Without any dedicated content, however, this redirect does not appear very useful. (No mention of "Chat Control 2.0" anywhere on Wikipedia by the way). Utopes(talk / cont) 03:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I can see, things found in external searches refer to the same thing using the added "2.0" in the name, but such naming has mainly been used by activists (e.g.
by EU Pirate Party) and such sources have not been cited on the article. Such activists refer to a separate earlier legislation as "Chat Control 1.0" (still a topic as legislators debate extending it, and originally referred to it simply as "Chat Control"), hence the added 2.0, while the sources WP has cited don't talk about the earlier legislation with such naming, and drop the 2.0 when labeling the newer. The older "1.0" legislation was adopted in July 2021 but was/is time-limited, the 2.0 legislation was inspired by it and sought to make it more permanent and to take further steps.
It seems good to cover the naming so that readers know what the labels refer to and have been used for, but there's no real coverage on it. Also, I'm unsure what sources would qualify. --
JoelKP (
talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlikely search term that is a bit generic and may or may not refer to Shandong University.
LibStar (
talk) 22:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Looking at the page history, it appears that the former contents of that page got merged into the final sentence of
Shandong University#Recent history (1980–present), after it got PRODded yesterday (see this version of the page). Not sure off the top of my head what the protocol for this situation is, but I suppose that knowing the context may be of some use for this discussion. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 22:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm the editor who
originally PRODded the article, and I still think there should not be an article on this, for the reasons I stated there (it's not an encyclopedic topic, just a one-off event). I agree with the nominator that even if this content is preserved somewhere else, the present redirect is not a likely search term. The only reason I can see for keeping it is to avoid breaking incoming links, but there are very few of those anyway (few enough that it would be trivial to manually fix them), and most of them are just see-alsos in articles with no more than a vague relationship to this one. My only caveat is that almost-blanking the page and then deleting the redirect might be seen as having sneakily deleted the article while circumventing AfD. Deleting the article is the outcome I favor anyway, but I can understand if others might see this as unfair.
2001:49D0:8511:2:61FD:D141:8697:4A7F (
talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If both PROD and BLAR are contested then the content should be restored and sent to AfD.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and ship to AfD as per Thryduulf. There's a sneaking suspicion that we have a
cold front coming in, looking at the article, but if it's contested, then I do think the contest should be given a proper arena.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or restore? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Refine target to
Shandong University#Recent history (1980–present) - Content exists on wikipedia, target is unambiguous, I see no reason to delete this
WP:CHEAP redirect. If I saw the original article at AfD, I'd suggest redirecting it to here anyway. Not article worthy, but a sentence or two in the main article is fine, and a redirect to it is likewise fine.
Fieari (
talk) 07:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and send to AfD per Thryduulf and
WP:BLAR--
Lenticel(
talk) 01:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Question - It appears some content from this article was
moved to
Shandong University. Isn't it important to keep this redirect and its history for attribution purposes? ~
Kvng (
talk) 19:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirects to an article that does not mention the term. As a residential development, can be notable on its own.
WP:RFD#DELETE #10.
Викидим (
talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
TFL has an entry for it so maybe it should be mentioned at the target. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If there were some text about HW on the Harrow page, redirect might have meaning. As-is, it generates confusion.
Викидим (
talk) 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Apparently a dicdef merge from March 2009 that was removed less than a month later in April 2009. Since then, the word "active" has not appeared at the target page for seemingly the last 15 years at this point. Currently unhelpful to readers searching for a specific term (a la
Ultra short-term memory apparently) and Wikipedia not having any information about this classification of data structures at the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The word "academic" is not mentioned at the target, nor is there anything related to "academia" which is present at the general article for medicine. The one opinion-piece this page referred to, considered this topic wholly separate, and keeping this as a blue link implies that we have information about the academic variant of medicine at the target, which we do not. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Medical education, which appears to be the best sense of this phrase.
BD2412T 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment; As I didn't realize at first, but have now done, the capitalized
Academic Medicine has now been bundled to this nomination.
Currently, there is another article titled
Academic Medicine (journal) which disambiguates itself from the "generic" capitalized / still-undiscussed version. Notifying @
BD2412 and
Presidentman: of this change. Moving the journal title to the "generic" title could also be an option given that it's a topic in its own right. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I think the journal article could be moved per
WP:DIFFCAPS. For the lower-case version, retargeting would still be my preference.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 23:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would ~80% say that the full-caps version should still point to
Medical education, and the journal could be solved with a hatnote.
BD2412T 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Verticon" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia besides in a section of
ASCII art as a section header without any meaningful content nor specific description. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unsure about this one, given the work in question is titled Vertécon, not Verticon. I could see
Vertecon going there, though.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Is the Verticon mentioned in that article a typo, or an English equivalent name? Jay 💬 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget either proposal is sensible to me. Unrelated: your signature is infuriating for how it has such a gradual incline. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 21:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Initially, I had planned to place it vertically, but then my medication kicked in. ;) Paradoctor (
talk) 21:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Power of two. Seems to be the primary topic and there's a hatnote pointing to the dab anyways. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Without any other context, I feel that a look of disapproval would be quite associated with
Disappointment and
Regret, and not exclusively a stare-emoticon. This term is otherwise vague for looks of disapproval. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disappointment can be a motive, but disapproval can just as well be accompanied by satisfaction, if one personally dislikes the perp. Paradoctor (
talk) 22:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I was hoping there would be more intuitive/related content at
Nonverbal communication or
Facial expression, but there's nothing substantial. Otherwise, my searches suggest there's a pretty strong affinity between the phrase and the emoticon, so it's not unreasonable to point at those resources, even if it is a common phrase outside of that context. Whatever happened to that emoticon RfC from a few months ago? Is there better/different guidance on how to handle these? Note that
ಠ_ಠ points to
Emoticon#2channel. ―
Synpath 22:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
While the expression "look of disapproval" exists, it is not
idiomatic, it's meaning completely derives from its parts. Should sourcable idiomatic uses other than the emoticon become known in the future, we'll disambiguate. Paradoctor (
talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A vague name that is not mentioned at the target page, yet can reasonably imply other punctuation topics. The history is possibly the most 2005 of them all, created in 6 edits by an editors' only 6 edits. However, it has dubious usefulness as a redirect here. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. Seems to denote :] or :[, which can indeed be emoticons, but I'm not sure this 'spelling out' of an emoticon is a useful and plausible search term? ...What, is it meant for people searching for emoticons using speech to text?? (6_9)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very clearly takes people to the content they are looking for, it's not ambiguous or in the way of anything else so it's both helpful and harmless.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The word "curse" is not mentioned at the target article, nor do any of the topics at the target have any correlation to "curses" to my understanding. It is, however, mentioned at
Super Bowl curse, and various football championships have been dubbed as the "Curse Bowl" due to bad things happening,
[42]. It is also one letter off of
Cure Bowl, which might be more plausible than a target where the title isn't mentioned. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Curse bowl" is, I thought, the more common and less precise term. I didn't know that page was there at "incantation bowl" at all, that's why I originally made a stub instead of a redirect. There could be other people who don't know the term incantation bowl.
Temerarius (
talk) 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I suspect not, as
wikt:县 seems to suggest this character is only used in simplified Chinese, not in Japanese, Korean, or traditional Chinese. Do you have other targets in mind besides
Counties of China? —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That makes sense compared to '
wikt:市'; that method of investigation also appears to be a good way to determine if such characters are in potential need of disambiguation. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 06:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Arguably this could redirect to
縣 (traditional character), which is a disambiguation page of the same kind as
市. Or arguably the current setup, with
县 (simplified Chinese) and
県 (Japanese
shinjitai) being redirects for those countries, is also fine as it is.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 07:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Chinese and Japanese speaker here. I feel that the use of Simplified Chinese character is sufficient to push it over the edge such that
Counties of China should be the primary topic, as does Japanese shinjitai
県 →
Prefectures of Japan.
Deryck C. 17:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 11:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Most likely, this is a
WP:FORRED issue.
Steel1943 (
talk) 12:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Trying to search around, and am getting vague, spotty references to the comic book character being referred to as "Pappoos" or "Pappus" in another language. I think we can chalnk this up to
WP:FORRED.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 13:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as best I can tell this relates to a Malayalam animated cartoon "based on" the target (but that's based on unreliable sources so may be incorrect). Putting "Pappoos" into Google Translate and asking it for Malayalam gives "പപ്പൂസ്", searching that does back up the connection so I think we can safely say this is a
WP:FORRED issue.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is a similar-looking (but not mute) cartoon/character who has a parrot named Minnoos, see
this,
this,
this, and
this (which might partly be duplicates or subsets of each other – total pageviews less than 30k each). —
BarrelProof (
talk) 23:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider redirecting to
Papoose as a possible misspelling – Pappoose already redirects there, and differs by only the presence of one silent character. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 22:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
France 2024
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Cross namespace redirect with only links to mostly discussion archives. It is unlikely for users to link this page whatsoever.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ownership. If this is to remain a cross-namespace redirect then the current target is definitely the correct one, being the same place
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles redirects. Looking at Google results, the most common result is internal policies on various wikis (at least some of them probably inspired by our policy), followed by queries about/discussion of the policy on Wikipedia (a mix of UGC and academic discourse). Looking for hits unrelated to Wikis, there are results regarding copyright (especially of works produced by academics), copyright/ownership of website articles (especially knowledge base articles), and ownership of physical property (e.g. relation to pawn brokers and marriage). I don't support retargetting to
copyright#Ownership as that's too deep in the article and too short to really help most people without all the preceding context.
Ownership is the best target I've found as while it's more general than the search term is looking for, it does cover all aspects of ownership and contains a hatnote to the current target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget though Google for this term in quotes mainly returns Wikipedia it does return other uses. Unlike say
Articles for deletion it doesn't seem like a particularly likely search term especially given the project page was renamed to "content" to reflect its not just articles. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There's an issue over the ownership of articles published in academic journals, so there is a possible encyclopedic article that could use this title. The assignments of copyrights of journal articles to the journal publisher a thing that happens, and has garnered some controversy and pushback. --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: which target are you proposing to retarget to? Lunamann and I have suggested different ones.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as it is an unlikely search term (
less than 5 hits most months) that doesn't have a proper target. It's oddly specific in a way the targets won't cover.
Alyo(
chat·
edits) 22:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda/Overview of results
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: no consensus
I deleted this page as a G6, and it was requested that I instead formally nominate it for RfD.
There does not need to be a redirect here. I manually retargeted every incoming link when I retitled this page last October. There is no way for someone to access this internal Signpost page from Wikipedia. There are no inbound links from other websites that I know of. There is nobody trying to access this page. The existence of this redirect provides no benefit and creates additional burden for maintenance of the Signpost, as it is yet another one-off exception that has to be written into every script and template that uses this directory, every external tool that works off a list of pages, et cetera, et cetera. Every additional piece of special-case whoopsie-doozie only-used-for-one-page-ever code increases the maintenance burden for myself, as well as every future maintainer of the Signpost codebase -- there have to be extra lines of code to deal with this single anomalous redirect, and everybody who deals with the code (to modify it, to replace it, to add a feature or to remove an existing one) must spend time going over these additional lines.
The page title got about
16 views total in the months of November and December; a good number of those were probably from me as I was delinking it from other pages. The rest could have come from anywhere; people click on entries in the deletion log, web scrapers give normal browser user agents, et cetera.
The structure of the /Archives/ directory is very simple: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/ contains yearly archive pages. It does not contain anything else. The index page for these yearly archive pages is located at
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives. There is no need to have a separate /Years subpage. That's why we don't have one -- it's just at the base URL. Anyone who, for some reason (let's say someday a person clicks a link to this archive page from some external website) gets a 404 from a sub-URL can just follow the URL structure one level up and get to the place they want to be.
For further reference, there have been
hundreds and hundreds of useless Signpost pages subjected to speedy deletion in the last year as I've been cleaning up the space, and consensus (whenever a discussion was required) has always been in favor of doing this. Last year someone demanded that I take these pages through formal processes, to prove with complete thoroughness that the community accepted them being deleted. The main outcome of this was that all these maintenance processes and cleanup were brought to a halt for about a month while these noms percolated through XfD, and all of them were approved, and it just consumed a lot of time (mine but also that of all the XfD participants, closers, etc). Here is a list of all of those formal nominations:
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Obsolete template that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Obsolete template from 2009 that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Template redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Reason: Redirect that is not in use anywhere. No incoming links except for my own userspace and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index and
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index/Linkshere, two pages populated by scripts I wrote to catalog Signpost pages that have no incoming links. One of my major projects as editor-in-chief is to harmonize the use of templates and pages, as the existence of numerous redundant templates (deprecated, never used, or created at the wrong title by typos) poses a large obstacle to navigating or editing Signpost templates. For example, old Signpost articles (from 2005 to 2009) were never properly indexed by the module, because they used strange idiosyncratic header templates, which I recently fixed, allowing me to write a script which updated the module with their titles, authors and tags. Someone has requested that I list these pages at XFD individually rather than nominate them for speedy deletion.
Keep as an {{
R from move}}, for the reasons stated by myself at
the deletion review. Prior to being moved to
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives in October 2023, the archives page had been at this title since 2007. Per
WP:R#K4, redirects as a result of pagemoves should not normally be deleted without good reason due to the risks of breaking incoming links; and [l]inks that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Given that the page was at this title for over 17 years, and given the >100,000 pageviews the archive page received while at this title, it seems very plausible that offwiki links have been made to the previous archives page of a
notable newspaper, which will be broken if this redirect is deleted. With respect to JPxG, there's no way of knowing how many external links have been made to a page, so the statement that there are none from other websites that [they] know of doesn't sway me towards deletion.I'm unfamiliar with the Signpost's scripts/templates/external tools and why this page would need to be filtered from them, but I don't think we should be deleting pages on the basis that they will break scripts - we should be building tools around the wiki, not the wiki around the tools. Especially in this case, I don't believe that that is a sufficient reason on its own to delete a redirect when such a deletion might cause harm (in this case, as a result of dead external links). Regarding the previous nominations, I believe that this page is substantially different to the previously nominated redirects, for the reasons I explained
in a DRV comment in response to the list. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 15:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Forgive me for a moment of bluntness, but I don't expect you to be familiar with the Signpost's scripts, templates, and tools. Nobody is: furthermore, nearly everyone who tries to maintain them eventually becomes burnt out and stops. It's great to think "we should be building tools" in a particular way; if you would like to take a few months refactoring the Signpost's dozens of templates and scripts to reflect this philosophy, I'd love to bring you up to speed at
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical. But I do not expect that. What I would appreciate is that, if the person who maintains a codebase repeatedly says "doing this thing will cause a hassle and require additional spaghetti code to handle the stupid one-off edge case", you did not respond with "well I didn't look at any of the code but I bet it wouldn't".
You have not articulated any reasonable way in which this "might cause harm". I have shown the pageviews: immediately after the page was retitled, they dropped to nothing. What is the hypothetical situation in which this causes harm? If somebody clicks a link to the archive page at the old location (virtually nobody has done this, but they might, hypothetically)... they get a "Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact name" message, and then directly below the page's header, there's a prominently-placed blue link back to the correct location. The page's URL is also obviously formatted in a way that lets you go one level up. But even the situation with somebody sitting there is unlikely. In reality, those pageviews are almost certainly background noise from web scrapers and clicks on the deletion log, and pages (if there were any) which referenced them from an external site either didn't exist or were updated very quickly. The major problem facing the Signpost is not that we're losing a couple pageviews per month to someone who clicks a link to a relocated page and can't figure out how to click up to the main Signpost page and find the archives link from there: it's that we're losing thousands of pageviews per month due to lacking features other newspapers have, having things render incorrectly, et cetera. I have been spending a lot of time on coding stuff, and I haven't written an article myself in ages.
The biggest actual issue the Signpost faces is that everything is built on twenty years of quick fixes and workarounds and weird one-off edge cases. Implementing a new feature (i.e. having bylines on the front page, having images on the front page, retrieving the lost subheadings for ten years of articles) pretty much always requires me to climb over a pile of "one little edge case"s. I realize that for you, "one little edge case" from a random redirect in a directory it doesn't belong in may not seem like a big deal, but they add up quickly for me, especially when there are thousands of Signpost pages to keep track of across multiple namespaces.
I don't think that "
Russell's teapot might have a Signpost URL written on the bottom" justifies a blanket prohibition on relocating or renaming Signpost pages unless a full copy of the 2007 directory structure (or the 2013 directory structure, or for that matter the 2022 directory structure) is preserved with redirects on top of the new locations in the same place and in the same namespace. I really don't think it's reasonable to have an open-source software project -- note that the Signpost's software structure is not in fact distinct from its content structure -- where maintainers have to spend weeks writing persuasive essays to justify every time they move a file. jp×
g🗯️ 20:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JPxG: With the greatest respect, this is a lot of text in response to my !vote; so while I will try not to miss anything in this response, I apologise if I have.I am not requesting that you writ[e] persuasive essays to justify every time [you] move a file. As I've mentioned before, I think the work you've been doing to clean up Signpost-space is genuinely admirable. I have not previously noticed any similar deletions that gave me cause for concern, and this discussion is about this one redirect in particular. With respect, this characterisation seems like a stretch here.I appreciate that building in an exception for this redirect may be a hassle. However, my view is that, in this case - given the specific circumstances surrounding this redirect - this does not outweigh the presumption in favour of keeping it given by
K4. I do not believe that this is a
Russell's teapot-esque reason for keeping - rather, it is applying the Redirect guideline to the current redirect. I am not trying to make an undisprovable statement here; but rather, attempting to apply my best interpretation of wider community consensus (i.e.
WP:R) to this specific case.You also assert that [I] have not articulated any reasonable way in which this "might cause harm", which I disagree with. In my view, it is highly reasonable to think (for example) that a page which accumulated over 100,000 views over the course of its life will have had its link copied - links which will no longer work if this redirect is deleted. The deletion would therefore cause harm by breaking these links to a long-standing historical title (quoting Godsy below) - historical both in terms of the length of time the page was at this name for, and because the page in question is an archive. Furthermore, I disagree that the log snapshot provided when visiting a deleted redirect is a suitable substitute for the redirect itself - and certainly, the Redirect guideline does not recognise it as such. I also strongly disagree with your assertion that the log links are prominently-placed - they are located in small text, in a log format that I can easily see being confusing to anyone not previously familiar with it.In addition, there is no evidence regarding what pageviews to the redirect since its undeletion either are or are not; and I am therefore skeptical of your assertion that they are almost certainly background noise. I am similarly skeptical of the seemingly baseless assertion that pages...which referenced [the redirect] from an external site either didn't exist or were updated (which, to give only one example, doesn't take into account blog-type posts made on other websites at previous points in time - which would understandably have low current traffic).Finally, I don't assert that the deletion of this redirect would be [t]he major problem facing the Signpost. I'm worried that the
linkrot left behind by doing so might be a problem for future readers, though.All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 05:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I do not need you to admire me; I just want you to not actively prevent me from fixing technical debt.
It's a lot of text because I am the editor-in-chief and primary technical maintainer of the Signpost, and you are asking that maintenance be subordinated to individual committee discussions on each page based on some entirely hypothetical notion that somebody might click on a page link and you think the text that tells them to go somewhere else isn't big enough.
The text that's displayed, when the page tells somebody that the resource has been moved, is not big enough. Can you explain why this -- in the current situation -- justifies adding a page to the directory permanently, without simply gesturing to a guideline?
You say that there were "100,000 views over the course of its life", but in reality there were 16 views (including me viewing the page) the month after it was moved. The number we should be discussing is less than sixteen. These less-than-sixteen page loads the month after the page was moved is the thing that you are requesting that I be forced to write additional code (and permanently make the directory structure more useful) in order to handle.
In a comment below, I have explained how this kind of thing messes up queries and scripts. Yes -- I understand -- it can be worked around. I understand this. I am saying that working around it requires additional lines of code to be crammed into everything that handles it, and makes the overall codebase incrementally more difficult to deal with.
Since the Signpost is entirely a volunteer project, and technical maintenace on the Signpost is a subset of an already-niche area of the project, adding arbitrary "trivial" obstacles to doing it results in even fewer people being willing or able to undertake it. I do not enjoy doing this anymore; I am extremely burnt-out, and discussions like this are the main reason why. You may think you are heroically maintaining the legibility of the archives to future generations. That's fine. But it was technical maintenance that retrieved all the previously-inaccessible subheadings from articles between 2011 and 2023; it was code that got every article from 2005 to the present indexed in the module; it was code that made it possible to read the archives in full. If you want to create arbitrary roadblocks to technical maintenance, and you think it's extremely easy to write and maintain all the scripts for the project within a directory structure that's forced to be confusing and redundant, please feel free to do that. jp×
g🗯️ 17:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I was pinged here by something, probably one of the deleted/obsolete pages. I think JPxG should have some leeway to do the cleanup deemed necessary. The Signpost archives are a bit of a mess. I don't care about saving any prior archive layout or any legacy scripts/templates. ☆ Bri (
talk) 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Due to my belief that JPxG has the qualifications necessary to determine the necessity of such a page due to being a frequent contributor, and the explanation above. Cheers,
UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (
talk) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I applaud the nominator's effort to clean up subpages in a way that makes sense, as I tend to get in the weeds of the project namespace myself in the same manner from time to time. However, since this is a {{
R from move}}, I cannot validate me supporting the deletion of this redirect. In addition, unless this redirect is intended to be reused for something else,
WP:CHEAP applies.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I have explained why it does not apply. If the price of being applauded is to be actively prevented from fixing issues, I would prefer obscurity. Every single issue that gets published involves about a half-dozen pages being moved without creating redirects.
In this case, /Archives/ is a suburl of the main Signpost page, which should be something you can query to see how many archive pages there are. Since the Signpost was never subject to any sort of actual architecture decisions, there is a substantial amount of validation required to keep it functioning. For example, the number of issues is calculated by a database query for pages WHERE page_namespace = "4" AND page_title LIKE "Wikipedia_Signpost/____-__-__". How might we see if there are issue pages that don't have archives? Well, we can see how many archive pages there are total; maybe we will use SELECT COUNT(*) as "Number of archives" WHERE page_namespace = "4" AND page_title LIKE "Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/%" AND page_title NOT LIKE "Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/____" AND page_title LIKE "%SPV%", or use {{#expr: }} parser functions to subtract the output of a different template. I mean, I don't know -- I haven't written the software yet.
It should noted that the /SPV/ pages in the archive index are redundant to the /Single/ pages in the normal index which I've created for them, so I hope to deal with those in the future, and there would only be one NOT LIKE in this statement. It's true that I could put an additional NOT LIKE in the statement to account for the lonely /Years/ redirect, or add another clause that selects based on the page_is_redirect entry in the page table. But if you look at
mw:Manual:page table you can see that features are often added, removed or changed (the actor table has had a lot of changes over the years, for example). The fewer moving parts that a database query has, the less it needs to be maintained in the future (and the easier it is for someone else, who didn't write it, to do so when necessary). Moreover, there could become bogus redirects (i.e. from pagemove errors) that would be excluded from the metrics if we just say AND page_is_redirect = 0.
One would expect it to be possible to get a full list of archive issue titles by SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE page_namespace = "4" AND page_title LIKE "Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/____-__-__", but what I have learned in the course of writing software to deal with this stuff is that the simple tasks will sometimes unexpectedly become complicated due to unforseen edge cases -- so it is best to keep open as many options as possible by using simple, consistent conventions wherever possible.
Here is a concrete example --
last January I went through the index of all pages, and found that there were upwards of a hundred useless redirects with no incoming links. Article names had been originally created with typos, or they were postponed, and whoever retitled them forgot to check the button to move without a redirect (or didn't have extended pagemover). This meant that SQL queries for e.g. {{
Signpost/Number of articles}} was inaccurate by about a hundred, and that the module indices had hundreds of entries in them for nonexistent articles (and, similarly, that PrefixIndex results for Signpost articles would give incorrect results). Any attempt to analyze or graph output by year/issue would be inaccurate. Any attempt to make a list of articles would include nonsense. It took most of an afternoon to fix these, but now they are fixed and the problems no longer exist. Note that it did not take a month to engage multiple people in a formal discussion process to seek approval for each individual item, nor was the work prohibited on the basis of an abstract idea that redirects are always good. They were not "cheap", they made it impossible to do many tasks so long as they existed. Now, however, you can see the output of {{
Signpost/Number of articles}} which is obtained using SELECT COUNT(*) as "Number of articles" FROM page WHERE page_namespace = "4" AND page_title LIKE "Wikipedia_Signpost/____-__-__/%" AND page_title NOT LIKE "%/SPV"; and produces an accurate number of (currently) 5,503. Note, furthermore, that this is four lines of SQL, and not five, or six, or ten, because there are no workarounds necessary except for the /SPV pages (which I am working on anyway; when these are fixed the report should only be three lines of SQL).
Another example:
I found a bunch of ghost articles in 2023, i.e. titles Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-12/News and Notes when there was no corresponding issue at
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-12. There were
also ten ghost issues -- issue pages that had no subpages, corresponding to daily editions that weren't actually published, or created in error, or at the wrong location and moved. Again, these caused inaccurate statistics and broke some features. Any code that generated a list of issues was giving a list of nonsensical ghost issue links. Here, too, the pages were fixed without issue. This process was made possible by the fact that the number of redirects in Signpost article space was zero. Some backlinks did need to be fixed, which I was happy to do. As a result, {{
Signpost/Number of issues}} returns 690, and not some other incorrect number. Similarly to the other template, it is a very small SQL query (SELECT COUNT(*) as "Number of issues" FROM page WHERE page_namespace = "4" AND page_title LIKE "Wikipedia_Signpost/____-__-__"). This is a very small query, that requires virtually no documentation or specialized knowledge to understand. If there were a bunch of random unrelated crap pages in the directory, it would be a longer query, with confusing one-off edge-case handling.
Medium keep - I do not see a reason to delete a long-standing historical title (e.g. broken external links, the preservation of wiki. history, etc.). I am, however, sympathetic to the idea that this would need to be deleted on technical grounds to prevent undue maintenance; if anyone can articulate that a bit more clearly and briefly, I would consider changing my opinion (please ping me as well). Could it not simply be ignored in such code? —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 03:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Godsy: See my comment above; I've tried to explain how inconsistent directory structures can cause issues. jp×
g🗯️ 17:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems that many of the past deletions and likely future ones have been and will likely continue to be useful maintenance. However, in this case it does seem that there is benefit to retaining the page as a redirect or some other sort of landing page with an explanation. If queries into the article count show a single (or even a few extra) articles than there really are, that doesn't seem too bad (and it seems there is a technical solution). I also sympathize with attempting to cleanup something that has, shall we say, unique challenges in this format. However much I tend to seemingly agree with A smart kitten, I always try to keep the
bicycle-shed effect in mind, so I guess I will go down to the elusive 'medium keep' (certainly not feeling strong or weak, but slightly less than a normal keep). When redirects should be kept and deleted, especially after moves, is an oft misunderstood concept. If some of the other regulars at this venue are persuaded, I may reconsider, but for right now I'm pretty firmly where I am at. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per A smart kitten, Steel1943 and Godsy. There are well articulated reasons to keep this content easily accessible via these titles and clear potential harm from deletion that combined far outweigh the reasons presented for deletion.
Thryduulf (
talk) 05:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While I do think there is currently enough of a consensus to keep, I want to give this more time to play out based on the nominator and their rational. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Hey man im josh: I'm confused - the last three !votes have been to keep. I'm not seeing how there's currently consensus to delete. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 19:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. My first Wikipedia edit in a long time as I was pinged on this as the original creator of some subset of the pages under discussion. I don't understand why something that is clearly administrative in nature requires a wall of text of justifications to satisfy old-timers obsessed with pedantic details of links you can't even prove exist. ResMar 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Because there are arguments against the deletion of this redirect which mean it is not purely administrative in nature - if it was, this discussion wouldn't exist. My reasons for !voting to keep it are outlined above. (Also, to be clear, no pages created by yourself are nominated here.) All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 03:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would ask that the closer of this discussion considers taking into account the unintentional notifications caused by a list of previous XfD nominations being copied into this one, which seems to have pinged the original creators of those Signpost-related pages. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 06:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The underlying purpose for keeping an r from move, per the template info at
Template:R from move, is: "to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." More often than not when it pertains to mainspace articles, incoming links are a valid concern. But when it comes to switching from one internal archiving system to another, success is measured from a fresh start. As the person who's seemingly undertaken the reallotment of the Signpost archives, I trust Jpxg's judgement here (as the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, which this redirect falls under) and see no reason to keep this leftover which will have zero benefit as an "r from move", which is invisible to all after the updating of 100% of links, and only more struggles and headaches for the people that actually deal with this on a regular basis, i.e. Signpost regulars. Utopes(talk / cont) 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Utopes and jpxg. The falloff in traffic noted by jpxg suggests that there are few, if any, links pointing people to this page that would be broken by this change. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I agree with Utopes – volunteers working on Signpost should be relatively free in management of pages their readership uses to access what Signpost volunteers produced. Someone looking for archives of the Signpost surely won't be discouraged by a deleted, weirdly named "Years" subpage; they won't have trouble finding the archives, e.g. by reading
the footerExplore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives on
the front page. —
andrybak (
talk) 00:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The majority opinion seems to be shifting from keep to delete, so I'm relisting to give others more time to chime in. Have the Signpost's maintainers sufficiently demonstrated that the undue maintenance debt of this disused page title, and the presumption of curatorial freedom by internal projects' lead volunteers, should outweigh
WP:CHEAP? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom and Utopes. There's no reason to expect that an important external link might exist that might be broken by deleting this redirect, meanwhile, I trust jpxg in that he's already cleaned up any existing internal redirects. Further... the entire point of
WP:CHEAP is that keeping a redirect typically poses no undue burden on the userbase or editors. jpxg has already written extensively on how he, by contrast, would need to undertake a lot of undue burden in order to work around this redirect. That's not cheap, people. That's expensive.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Our guidelines and policies are here for the purpose of Wikipedia's readers first, and editors second, and not at all for the purposes of bureaucracy alone. When applying a guideline makes it harder for editors to maintain the encyclopedia while providing no benefit to readers, it's on us to ignore the guideline. --
asilvering (
talk) 17:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, I don't think this redirect matters enough to outweigh the cost in this case;
WP:CHEAP only applies if the redirect is, in fact, cheap.
Rusalkii (
talk) 01:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a different redirect. It just says Midnight Miracle.
Abhiramakella (
talk) 18:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is far from the primary topic for the search term. Topping the list is a podcast, mentioned in a table at
Luminary (podcast network)#Programming but that's not sufficient to anchor a redirect, and on the articles about all three of the hosts (targetting any one of the hosts would present XY issues; I can't rule out the podcast being notable. After that comes a skin oil/cream that doesn't appear to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all (and doesn't seem like it should be). Excluding both those brings up a myriad of different things, but none of them relate to American football.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not found in target article. -
Dyork (
talk) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know, hence "weak". Jay 💬 07:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Struck off, for better consensus. Jay 💬 06:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:V, attestation as a name for this event has not been verified with a sourced mention at the article. Attestation as a form of
Miracle at Midnight has also not been established. --
Tavix(
talk) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Luminary (podcast network). "Midnight Miracle" is mentioned 4 times in enwiki: at the podcast article, and at the articles of the 3 co-creators whose articles are all linked from the podcast article.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retargeting to
Luminary (podcast network), while not the most !voted numerically, has been unchallenged since the !votes to retarget here began. However, the concern that the entry does not have sufficient content to anchor a redirect has not been addressed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 05:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I still feel that mentions of the podcast network are insufficient to make this a useful redirect.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to Luminary; it at least puts the title in context. 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rusalkii (
talk •
contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. A note to the closing admin: This one is in need of a WP:BARTENDER. There's no consensus, but not a single Keep vote, either, the consensus split is between Delete and Retarget.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't see how this serves any purpose. It is lower case and singular, so who would enter that as a search term?
Batagur baska (
talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Someone who doesn't hit the caps lock key and accidentally hits Enter before the last character? Seems plausible to me.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Very plausible that someone limited in English proficiency would use this term to get to that page. Nate•(
chatter) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per
WP:CHEAP, but the lack of
pageviews (virtually 0 before this RfD) indicates this is an unlikely search term and may push me into supporting deletion.
InterstellarGamer12321 (
talk |
contribs) 07:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and creator (especially because of the singular), who admitted the mistake, and corrected it, one minute after creating it. If not for the keep votes, this would have qualified for WP:U1. Jay 💬 15:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
U1 only applies to pages in the user namespace, so this would definitely not have qualified for that criterion.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh right. R3 then. Although created in November, the nom brought it to RfD now, only because it was tagged with capitalization. Jay 💬 16:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned anywhere in the article, and comments on the talk page indicate that there are no plans to add it. These are different events.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 17:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting to Flour massacre? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Far too ambiguous to point directly to a particular church. See for example
fr:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Miséricorde, which lists many of these churches, none of which are the cathedral in Benin.
asilvering (
talk) 04:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I checked "Our Lady of Mercy", which is the English translation of the same phrase, and am appropriately redirected to
Virgin of Mercy. I see that
Mother of Mercy redirects to the same place. I think it would make the most sense if all of these redirected to a dab page, with
Virgin of Mercy listed clearly as the main topic and other uses such as churches, etc grouped below that one. --
asilvering (
talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd DAB with a note that this is the french equivalent of "Our Lady of Mercy", one of the many catholic titles for the Virgin Mary aka the Virgin of Mercy. Then several churches and parishes bare the name. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Perhaps rename these two redirects to "Notre Dame de Miséricorde de Cotonou" and "Notre-Dame-de-Miséricorde de Cotonou", respectively, with the same target of
Cotonou Cathedral, which should resolve the initial ambiguity. Agree also with having a separate dab page with appropriate redirects to it, but deciding and implementing that need not hold up renaming the two redirects being discussed. — Archer1234 (
t·
c) 11:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This would avoid the ambiguity of the current names. What do you think? — Archer1234 (
t·
c) 00:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Archer1234 it's fine from the perspective of the redirects not being ambiguous, but I doubt anyone is going to type that into the search bar. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Asilvering, I think I get your point. What do you think about just deleting them? — Archer1234 (
t·
c) 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Archer1234 It's preferable to rewriting them as you proposed, I think. But the best thing would be to have a dab page. I'm happy to start one at
Notre Dame de Miséricorde if we all agree that's the right idea. Pinging @
OwenBlackerand @
Headbomb to check. --
asilvering (
talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am fine with you starting a dab page. — Archer1234 (
t·
c) 05:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled the five mentioned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree these are imprecise terms, but the article existed under that title for a few years, so per
WP:RKEEP#4 we'd need a good reason to delete them. I don't think the nom makes a strong enough case for that. Is there another subject these titles could be referring to? I see some
halfway plausible Google hits for this title. And
LGBTQ+ Production of Family was merged into this article at
AFD, with
some significant history, so we shouldn't delete that (RKEEP#1). —
The Earwig (
talk) 04:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, unless a better article is made encompassing the term.
BD2412T 21:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article. Without a specify code mention tying the redirect as an alternative name of the target page, the redirect is ambiguous since the only type of book which may be funny is not exclusive to
Comic book.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Not all comics are funny, but “funny book” used to be a standard term for comic books, a la “the funnies”. I would never expect this term to lead anywhere but to comic book… but I say “weak” keep because I CAN imagine a different person less familiar with historical comics terminology who expected to end up at something like
comic fiction or some existing pages about novels that are funny.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
i don't think whether or not it had some niche use before matters because that use is very much gone cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 18:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 05:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. As LEvalyn pointed out, "funny book" was once used interchangeably with "comic book", just as newspaper comics were once called "funnies" and occurred on the "funny pages". The fact that this use is dated doesn't make it incorrect; people might run across the term and try to look it up. Unless there is another plausible target, it should stay where it is. And even though not all comic books are funny, and non-comic books may also be funny, I don't believe there has ever been a time when this specific phrase referred to anything else, and I don't find it plausible that most readers will expect it to go to a different target.
P Aculeius (
talk) 22:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Come on, not everyone using Wikipedia is under the age of 40. For attestation that "funny book" is synonymous with "comic book", see
wikt:funny book. If you'd prefer a non-user-generated source, here's Merriam Webster:
[43]. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
no mention on target page, plausibly notable.
asilvering (
talk) 05:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
DeletE as per nom.WP:REDLINK. I uh, think you put this new RfD nomination right in the middle of an existing nomination, which means you stole the original version of this comment from Master of the TreboN Altarpiece ^^; That said, no harm no foul, as my vote for this one is mostly the same anyways!
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 04:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Lunamann: What happened was the
first non-bot edit of the day broke the top text that
Twinkle uses to detect where to put new RfD nominations. But ... this is odd since apparently, per other nominations on this page,
XFDcloser ...
knew where to put the relisted nominations, even with the top matter looking abnormal. Maybe Twinkle could take a bit of code from XFDcloser to utilize for new RfD nominations in the same manner that XFDcloser determines where to place a relisted discussion? (Eh, might as well ping
Novem Linguae so they are aware of this as they seem to be one of the most active editors at monitoring both tools these days.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 13:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Huh, weird! I didn't realize that's what happened and was wondering why your initial comment didn't seem to make sense. --
asilvering (
talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I can add a mention of the department on the target page a little later today. I thought I did so already but I guess I am mistaken. My apologies.
Infrastorian (
talk) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll note, for the record, that this proposed edit would change my vote from Delete (er, DeletE) to Keep (or perhaps, Refine.)
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Brookville. The Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Brookvilles (at least) also have police departments, and the Ohio Brookville is about double the New York one's population. No telling which Brookville Police a reader is likely to be looking for. (Alternatively, if someone wants to put in the work, this could be a disambiguation page just among the four (?) Brookvilles with police departments.) --
Visviva (
talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The mention added at Brookville, New York is so brief that it's hardly useful at all. There's no point retargeting to the place name's disambiguation page. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of proposed target
Brookville. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thalassic (album)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
2023 Mother's Day photograph by Catherine, Princess of Wales
Was at this title for a while, so I am somewhat reluctant to recommend deletion, but it'll be confusing as soon as the election takes place. There isn't an obvious umbrella/disambig page for Azorean elections.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Legislative Assembly of the Azores has a redlink to
2028 Azorean regional election labelled as "Next election" in its info box and has a list of past elections there. It might be somewhat future-proof, but there's no guarantee it will be. Stats show that the link seems to have served its purpose, receiving almost no views since the 2024 election. It might be appropriate to delete in the interim and revived when appropriate, something like the spirit of
WP:UFILM. ―
Synpath 01:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Legislative Assembly of the Azores as that will inform people searching when the next election is planned as soon as we have information on it. Targeting next election redirects to articles about the relevant legislative body or elections in the relevant country/region is somewhat standard practice, and in this case we don't have an article about
Elections in the Azores/
Azorean elections that I can find, and
Template:Azorean elections has no information about the next election.
Elections in Portugal#Autonomous Regions elections has three sentences of prose covering elections in the Azores and Madeira, which makes no mention of the next election, and a link to the unhelpful template.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the redirect should be removed and the page should be recreated as one for the Next Azorean regional election, just like
Next Madeiran regional election. I was planning on doing so soon, so I don't think this discussion is necessary.
H3nrique Bregie (
talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You can overwrite a redirect with an article at any time (indeed doing so is encouraged in situations like that) without the page needing to be deleted first.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There seem to be several machine guns referred to this way (
Type 1 heavy machine gun,
Ho-103 machine gun) . I'd disambig the page, but the current redirect target was at this name since 2007 so there's a lot of history, and it gets hundreds of page views a month presumably all looking for the old name. Looking for opinions on whether to keep the current target or disambiguate, especially from someone familiar with this area.
Rusalkii (
talk) 19:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabification wouldn't delete the history the way deletion would. Just... edit the page, lol. Especially since the current target should logically show up as one of the DAB page's entries. It'd likely be a good idea, though, to look through the What Links Here page and edit anything specifically looking for the Type 98/Type 1 to point directly there instead of to what's going to be a DAB.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with what
Lunamann propose, to first edit pages that links for the Type 1 aircraft MG to actually go to the Type 98/Type 1 and then turn the page into DAB.
Jauhsekali (
talk) 05:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to
scanf format strings.
Nickps (
talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to
scanf format strings.
Nickps (
talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the dab section as per Thryduulf, then create
Placeholder (computing) as a second redirect that also targets to the same dab, both with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. I don't see how moving a redirect as per Crouch would be helpful, but if we have the incorrectly capitalized version, it only makes sense to also have the correctly capitalized version. Also, the bigger problem is still the target, not the name of the redirect.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that the lowercase disambiguator should just be created as well (and mark this one as a {{
R avoided double redirect}} of it) per Lunamann and
WP:MOVEREDIRECT (basically don't move a redirect unless it's necessary, and moving this one isn't). "(Computing)" and "(computing)" are equally plausible search terms.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Search takes care of capitalization, we don't need to keep incorrectly capitalized qualifier redirects without a good reason. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Search only takes care of capitalisation for a subset of the ways people navigate Wikipedia. The good reason to keep this redirect is to help people navigate to the target they are looking for, but what we actually need is a good reason to delete a redirect and incorrect but plausible capitalisation is never a good reason on its own to delete.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That would be a good reason if those people exist. This page was visited by 6 people last month all of whom were almost surely looking for the non-existent
placeholder (computing) instead. Is there an example of a way to navigate WP that actual people use and that would require the incorrectly capitalized version even if the correct one existed? If not, this redirect is useless and should be deleted moved to the correct title per Crouch.
Nickps (
talk) 16:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to be the case that such redirects can get less than 100 views in over 8 years where the correct version exists. See
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#Yoda (Song) and
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Morbius (Film) though there is no data there. The point in any case is that of those less than 100 views its likely most would have got there without the redirect as the search takes you to the best capitalization it can if there isn't an exact match. And some may also have been from bots or people ending up on it for maintenance reasons or similar. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
disamig per nom and Thryduulf --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 03:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
placeholder (computing) without a redirect and then change the target to the dab page. Since opening the RfD, I've come to see the incorrect disambiguator as a problem. I'd !vote delete if the correct version already existed.
Nickps (
talk) 01:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Lord Cameron (minister)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Live at Montreux 1981
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Format string
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator
No mention of the word "burnie" at the target article. To that effect, there is only one mention of "burnie board" on Wikipedia, which is in the
List of buildings designed by architect John Dalton, as the Burnie Board Residence and Administration Building. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the history of the camelcase redirect contains an external link
[44] which explains the connection "A 1960s advert for Burnie Board – it appeared in an Australian magazine in 1963. [...] 'Burnie Board' is a type of hardboard or Masonite. The Burnie Paper Mill (1937–2010), Burnie, Tasmania, produced paper, high-grade sawn timber and sheet material like 'Burnie Board'" and multiple other web hits also back up that it was also a type of or similar to masonite, but everything seems to indicate it was a product only or primarily of the 1950s-60s so I would expect most reliable sources to be offline.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf. Is "burnished" close enough to "Burnie" that we don't have to add an explicit mention of "Burnie" to the target article?
feminist🩸 (
talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete both per nom, unless a mention is added to the target. I would support keeping the camelcase redirect if it were an {{
R with old history}}, but considering that it was created just
a few months ago, then there isn't any valuable history to preserve.
CycloneYoristalk! 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This page was leftover after I merged its contents to
House of Gelovani. I had nominated it for speedy deletion under
G14 as a redirect ending in (disambiguation) that didn't redirect to a disambiguation or disambiguation-like page (which I guess it wasn't a redirect when I nominated it), and then a user removed it and redirected it to House of Gelovani. I still hold that it should be deleted, as the section Notable people with the surname is not large enough for the page to be considered as "performing a disambiguation-like function".
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: as the section Notable people with the surname is not large enough for the page to be considered as "performing a disambiguation-like function" - well, you did copy over the contents of the disambiguation page (which performed the function of disambiguating) over to
House of Gelovani, therefore making
House of Gelovani the de-facto disambiguation - so this page redirecting to the de-facto disambiguation probably doesn't count as
WP:G14. To be honest, I'd consider reverting
Gelovani (disambiguation) back to being a disambiguation page, if
House of Gelovani isn't supposed to be treated as a disambiguation page. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 03:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess you make a point in the first half of that paragraph; I hadn't thought about that. My thought process was that Gelovani (disambiguation) shouldn't have been a DAB page, it should have been a surname page, so why not just merge it to a section of House of Gelovani since it already lists several people with the name, and since I have seen many examples like that before. Though now that I think about it, I'm not sure that every Gelovani listed is part of the family, so maybe it should be reverted back and changed to a name page. I'll let other editors weigh in.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, it's safe to assume that Prince
Varlam Gelovani definitely was part of the noble house (being officially recognized with the princely title). Did some digging on some Georgian genealogy/nobility sites It appears that
Mikheil Gelovani was a first cousin of Prince Varlam
[45], and it also appears that
Archil Gelovani might have been Varlam's third cousin once removed
[46] (assuming ofc that David Kaikhosrovich Gelovani did in fact have a son called Almaskhan, who might have actually existed according to Geni
[47]). However, I can't see anything linking
Mirza Gelovani or
Sopho Gelovani to the noble house. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 15:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Demerge no evidence that half the people listed are from the noble house. This is conflating two different topics, a surname, and the princely house. If you have evidence all these people are of this house, then you should update all the biography articles with referenced facts that state that they are from this house, since the biographies of several of these with thi surname do not have any information about that. --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 03:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
While it is true that this culture did exist in the west, it is not described as the "western physical culture" anywhere in the article, nor does the article have anything to do with this being a purely western phenomenon besides that it "originated in Germany, US and UK", while also covering the phenomena in Australia. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
All of the countries you mentioned are considered Western countries. And calling something 'Western' doesn't mean that it has to only be found in the West, rather that its origin or character has some significant basis in the West. However, it is possible to retarget to
Western sports if the current target is deemed unsatisfactory. I might also consider developing the redirect into a full article of its own.
GreekApple123 (
talk) 15:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I have left the redirect '
Western physical culture' in place, but have created an article within that page. My primary vote would be to keep the article that I wrote within the page.
GreekApple123 (
talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I do not know whether this should be a separate article (that's not a decision for RfD anyway), but I think such a redirect would be useful. Before clicking the link, I thought "physical culture" would mean
archaeological culture (as it's the physical record of a past culture). Clarifying words like "western" may be helpful in a redirect.
Kk.urban (
talk) 06:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, it does not seem like strings of characters such as this would be useful or helpful for readers on Wikipedia. This is not a likely search term, and the only information we have at the target list, for this topic, is "yes" (it exists) Utopes(talk / cont) 04:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It feels like this specific emoticon wants to be retargeted to
Homer Simpson. It also does not feel like it deserves to be retargeted there. Delete as per nom.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reading the actual
List of emoticons article, it doesdid list ~(_8^(|) (which is this but with an underscore instead of a space-- keep in mind that Wikipedia can't afaik tell the difference between a space and an underscore in an article title)... with, as its meaning, a link to the
Homer Simpson article. I have never been so simultaneously vindicated and trumped in my life. Keep as per Thryduulf. In other news, now I have to figure out why the
【=◈︿◈=】 doesn't show up there, and if any
fish would get thrown at me if I added it.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Harmless, unambiguous and mentioned at the target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I'll mention that this has now been removed from the target, along with other overly-specific and not particularly applicable examples of pop culture figures. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
...Eh, fair enough. Changing my vote back to Delete, then, for the same reason as my first comment on this discussion. Also fair enough, on the deletion of【=◈︿◈=】. At least no fish were involved.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 07:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The emoticon has been removed from the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the Spanish conjugation article makes the most sense as a target, though {{
Wiktionary redirect}} would also make sense.
PleaseStand (
talk) 08:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the reasons you mention about difficulty in search. I don't see the need for this redirect. -
Dyork (
talk) 13:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - should absolutely NOT go to a very common verb form in another language. Anyone trying "to find mentions of the Spanish word tenemos 'we have' using search" on Wikipedia is using the wrong website!
Johnbod (
talk) 15:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In that case, shouldn't you be voting "keep"? Because this type of spelling error should be fairly common, and readers might be baffled not to find anything when typing it. A temenos is a precinct, especially a sacred precinct, a fanum. It makes sense to have redirects from its likely misspellings, unlike various forms of Spanish verbs.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a plausible misspelling of temenos. Conjugations of Spanish verbs should not preclude the creation of redirects for likely misspellings in English Wikipedia.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per editor P Aculeius. Just categorized the redirect and left a hatnote about the dicdef. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 11:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete because there cannot be an expectation that all readers understand that
WP:FORRED is a thing, meaning readers could still attempt to look a word in their native language on the English Wikipedia and assume Wikipedia is a translation service, which it is not. In addition, since the redirect has been deemed ambiguous in a way, deletion would be the best. Let search results tell readers what they are looking for.
Steel1943 (
talk) 01:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Steel1943: This isn't about a redirect for a language other than English. It's about a misspelling for a technical term for an ancient Greek precinct; this word is used in English. The nominator is saying that it shouldn't exist because it might be confused with a Spanish verb. The fact that readers aren't likely to be looking for conjugations of Spanish verbs on English Wikipedia is the reason for keeping this redirect as it is, instead of retargeting it to a Spanish verb on Wiktionary.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I hope my initial comment made it clear that I disagree with what you just said and the reasons why, as that was my intent, given you were the first "keep" vote and the point I was directly addressing. If you are telling me this, maybe there was something I was not clear on. Thanks.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In fact I don't understand what you're getting at. If we have an English article about temenos, why should there not be a redirect from it misspelled, I think predictably, as tenemos? The reason given in the nomination is "because readers might be looking for a Spanish verb instead". As I read WP:FORRED, there is no need for a redirect to a Spanish verb when it is likely that someone typing tenemos is actually looking for temenos, rather than a Spanish verb. Are you saying that the reasoning of WP:FORRED does not apply because some readers may not be aware of it? Or that because someone might, for some reason, look for Spanish verbs on English Wikipedia, that we should not have a redirect from tenemos to temenos, even though that's probably what someone searching in English was looking for?
P Aculeius (
talk) 18:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Steel1943 and per
WP:ASTONISH. Unhelpful misspelling and rather ambiguous, since those familiar with the Spanish language will surely attempt to look up the word and end up at a completely unrelated article. Better to let search results handle this.
CycloneYoristalk! 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Why would anyone be looking for conjugations of Spanish verbs on English Wikipedia? We don't even do this with English verbs—or other parts of speech, at least normally. The place to look up verb conjugations is Wiktionary.
P Aculeius (
talk) 01:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A location by the name of "Osborn Corners" does not seem to pop up at this page, nor any place at all (much less one in Ohio). Utopes(talk / cont) 05:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a Wikidata item for Osborn Corners in this township,
Osborn Corners (Q122546244). However, I'm not sure what you mean by "pop up"; that it's not mentioned on the Bath Township page, or something else.
Kk.urban (
talk) 06:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Kk.urban: The location of "Osborn Corners" does not appear anywhere at the target page, and "Osborn Corners" does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Meant to address this earlier. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep. While it's true that Osborn Corners doesn't show up in Wikipedia except for said township, a few google searches do turn up Osborn Corners being a real location in Ohio-- including Google Maps, which notably has a pin for it as a 7 minute drive from its pin for Bath Township. I'd say that redirecting Osborn Corners to where Bath Township is tracks-- what we probably need is a reference to Osborn Corners added to the Bath Township page, not the redirect deleted.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It should probably be mentioned at the target since as noted it does show up on Google Maps. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A mention has not yet been added to the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. This place does exist, but it's currently nothing more than a rural intersection. If someone cares to do the research on its historical significance and add that to the article, I'd happily reverse my position, but retaining the redirect without a mention would be unhelpful for readers. -
Eureka Lott 18:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
%d is a format string specifier that is used by both
printf and
scanf. While copying
%s#C string is what I believe we should do, it has been pointed out in the
talk page that we may want to include more targets in the dab page than just these two.
Nickps (
talk) 22:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate in the same fashion as
%s ... since two possible targets is greater than none, meaning deletion of the redirect probably is not the solution here.
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambig per Steel1943.
Thryduulf (
talk) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify per Steel1943. --
Lenticel(
talk) 05:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Commentformat string also redirects to printf even though the term could refer to scanf format strings too. Should it also be included in the RfD?
Nickps (
talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest nominating that separately if you think the current target is incorrect given how different the two strings are.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, I'll get onto it.
Nickps (
talk) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Eastman Village is not mentioned at the target article. The only mention of "Eastman" is in a link to the
Kodak article. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to be a new housing estate on the site of a Kodak
[48]. Maybe it should me covered in the target. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The article has "a large industrial premises was built in 1890 by the American Eastman Kodak company in Wealdstone, and by 1965 there were over 100 buildings on a 55-acre site at Kodak Harrow, employing 5,500 people", which I believe is now Eastman Village. I would want a better source than what I have to actually add this to the article, though.
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"NIAF" is not mentioned at the target, probably because it's not used commonly to mean "National Iraqi Armed Forces". It is used to mean
National Italian American Foundation but we have no article about that.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambig for now. The National Italian American Foundation is clear primary topic and very likely notable, but until we have an article then it should be a disambig. Other uses include National IA Forum (mentioned at
UK cyber security community#Cross-sector bodies), Nigerian Institute of American Football (mentioned at
American football in Nigeria), Netherlands Institute for Animation Film (mentioned at
EYE Film Institute Netherlands#EYE Collection Centre but I'm not certain this is enough for a dabmention), and Nigerian Infrastructure Advisory Facility (no good mention).
Thryduulf (
talk) 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect redirect and the target clearunclear. The article formerly at the target title,
Vienne (department), does not mention the redirect either. The closest title match I could find, and the most common match via third-party search engines, is
Viennoiserie, but I'm not sure if that is correct.
Steel1943 (
talk) 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Retarget to
Vienne (department) as before. The adjectival form is unlikely to be used for the various other villages etc with the name, at the disam page. Did you mean "unclear"?
Johnbod (
talk) 16:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:RFOREIGN, given that there are no incoming links from article space. If it is decided to keep the redirect, it should continue to target the existing
Vienne dab page, in that it is the correct feminine form of the French demonym not only for
Vienne, Isère but also for all the French villages listed on that dab page, as well as for
Vienna, Austria. In response to other suggestions, the correct French demonym for
Vienne (department) is poitevin;
Viennoiserie are, etymologically speaking, pastries made in the style of Vienna. Also note that while viennoise is indeed the feminine form of viennois the demonym, the primary meaning of
Viennois in English is not the demonym but the region around
Vienne, Isère (historically known as the Duchy,
County or
Dauphiné of Viennois depending on the period). Accordingly, the current redirect for
Viennois should almost certainly remain unchanged, but should not influence the decision on what to do with
Viennoise.
Rosbif73 (
talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just keep it as is then. --
Joy (
talk) 20:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Rosbif73's detailed explanations. Jay 💬 10:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: one more try for consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Newly created redirect; using the word "legislative" in the title would seemingly imply something more specific than ending up at the general page for committees. While there is material about legislation at the target, from my point of view the more-specific operator in this title is "legislative", and due to this
Legislature may be a more preferable target here. Utopes(talk / cont) 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete unless there is a description in some article. In
Legislature too, there is a smattering of "committee", but nothing really that will help a reader understand what a Legislative committee is. Jay 💬 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe this to be an ambiguous term and, as such, it should be redirected to
Superdome, where there are four stadiums that go by/have gone by this name. Bringing this here due to a dispute on the target with
Abhiramakella.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete the correct title
Superdome (stadium) already redirects to the DAB since "stadium" isn't a proper noun its arguably an
WP:RDAB redirect. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The usage of "[Ss]tadium" in the disambiguator is not a proper noun. In other words, the subject at
Stadium (capitalized in Wikipedia because the first letter of a title always needs to be capitalized), the subject referenced in the disambiguator, is not a proper noun.
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom. The capitalisation of the disambiguator does not magically make this somehow implausible.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree, the capitalization is not something I was at all considering.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Crouch, Swale. The very low pageviews since its recent creation leads me to believe this is not a common typographical choice or error. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Crouch, Swale and
WP:TROUT the redirect's creator for creating a redirect with a disambiguator containing improper capitalization ... since they have recently created several such redirects.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:RDAB as per Crouch, Swale. A note that RDAB specifically lists capitalization of (Disambiguation) as something to delete.Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Abhiramakella. While 'stadium' is not, in fact, a proper noun, Abhiramakella is correct in that the Caesars Superdome is the only stadium we have information on that is referred to by the moniker "Superdome". While it is true that 'arena' and 'stadium' are often used as synonyms, technically, a stadium is open to the sky, while an arena has a roof.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait, hold on, Caesars Superdome has a roof. Withdrawing vote entirely now, is Caesar's Superdome a stadium!?!?𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 01:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
...then what the heck is the difference between the two? If it's a distinction without a difference, then this needs to go to the DAB.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This redirect should be kept to Caesars Superdome because that is the only stadium in which that was nicknamed "Superdome".
Abhiramakella (
talk) 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This in no way addresses why you capitalized the disambiguator unnecessarily, and then apparently created the redirect with proper disambiguation capitalization, Superdome (stadium), about a month later.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Capitalization errors happen often. Just because a page name has an incorrect way of capitalization does not mean that it should not be redirected to a page.
Abhiramakella (
talk) 17:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences, and without this redirect, the search function would treat a query for "Superdome (Stadium)" as if it were a query for "Superdome (stadium)" and redirect appropriately.
Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (
talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Using incorrect subject capitalization on disambiguators can be problematic, considering that means the incorrectly-capitalized title can be linked (which is bad in the case of disambiguators since it doesn't hint to the editor that a correction needs to be made to the title), and it can obscure other functionalities in Wikipedia, such as assessing page views of a redirects' usage. I think
Lunamann hit the nail on the head there: typing a differently-capitalized title in the search function will result in going to the closest capitalization match, which would be "Superdome (stadium)" if the nominated redirect is deleted and can validate deleting the nominated redirect over keeping it, considering all else I have stated. (Not sure if this is enough for me to advocate changing
WP:RDAB to accommodate this, but it sure is leading me that direction.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think with the exception of the fact redirects not including the word "disambiguation" in the title don't interfere with disambiguation link fixes the same principals apply. In the case of
Ø (Disambiguation) the title is a name not a qualifier so RDAB wouldn't apply even if it was a redirect to an article.
501(c)(3) is an example or what would not be an RDAB redirect. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Steel1943 and
Lunamann:Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences this is only true for some methods of finding Wikipedia content and cannot be relied on. The points about making it harder to use some tools are irrelevant - firstly we should always prioritise readers over editors and that means we fix our tools to work with the encyclopaedia rather than "fixing" the encyclopaedia (usually when it's not actually broken) to work with our tools; secondly if it were relevant it would be a reason to delete every redirect that differs only in capitalisation. When plausible miscapitalisations occur outside parentheses we keep the redirect because we recognise how valuable they are to readers, when plausible miscapitalisations occur inside parentheses we should do the same because they are equally valuable to readers.
Thryduulf (
talk) 01:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Because readers are unlikely to look for a title with incorrect capitalizations. Readers qualifying titles like Wikipedia will expect them to be the way we correctly title things.
WP:UNNATURAL notes i.e. an error specific to Wikipedia titling conventions that would likely not be arrived at naturally by readers, thereby adding to the implausibility. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Readers do look for titles with incorrect capitalisations - that's why we have
Category:Redirects from miscapitalizations and nobody has ever provided any evidence that they distinguish between words inside and outside of parentheses. The fact that these redirects keep getting created is yet more evidence that people do arrive here naturally and so do benefit from their existence. Also note that what you quote is referring to things like missing parentheses not capitalisation.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
RDAB makes reference to "(Disambiguation)". Crouch, Swale (
talk) 21:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
RDAB is an essay expressing opinions that reflect very varying levels of consensus for it's disparate points. On this point it is harmfully wrong.
Thryduulf (
talk) 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the point is that there is a limit to redirects being cheap and creating them for incorrectly capitalized qualifiers crosses the line of not being useful while creating clutter since deleting them enables search to correct the capitalization and keeping/maintaining such redirects though not particularly costly is reduced by not having such redirects. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 20:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Kanpachi" is not mentioned on the target page. I tried to verify this myself and got very conflicting results about whether this is the correct target. Kanpachi is definitely a Seriola, but is it thisSeriola? I don't know how to evaluate which of these sources are reliable and would appreciate input from someone who does. Wikispecies agrees that this is the correct target, but of course, that's user-generated. Kanpachi is a Japanese word and in katakana is カンパチ, if this helps anyone.
asilvering (
talk) 21:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate/ The Japanese Wikipedia article
ja:カンパチ is about Seriola dumerili (greater amberjack), but says (translated by Google) "S. rivoliana is very similar to this species and is sometimes confused with this species." Searching
FishBase for the common name "kanpachi" only returns S. dumerili.
However, searching Google for "kanpachi" returns pages that mention the scientific name Seriola rivoliana (some calling it "Hawaiian kampachi", others just calling it "kanpachi"). And pages that don't mention a scientific name often make it clear that they are referring to a fish that is farmed (not wild-caught) in Hawaii (i.e. Seriola rivoliana). From what I'm seeing from Google, I think "kanpachi", in English, refers to S. rivoliana more often than S. dumerili.
Common names for fish eaten as seafood often refer to multiple species. The US FDA says that Lutjanus campechanus is the only species that can be marketed as "
red snapper", but there is zero enforcement and I regularly see fish labelled as red snapper with a country of origin well outside the range of L. campechanus.
Plantdrew (
talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment added
Kampachi, which is an alternative romanisation of the same Japanese word, pointing to the same target.
59.149.117.119 (
talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Fishbase has Kanpachi as the Japanese common name for Seriola dumerili and Hirenaga-kanpachi (longfin kanpachi) as the Japanese common name for Seriola rivoliana. While we can't use Wikipedia as a source for material in articles, the fact that editors at the Japanese Wikipedia have Kanpachi at Seriola dumerili suggests it is the primary topic. I think the redirect as is or disambiguation can both be supported, but if the article doesn't mention kanpachi then we should disambiguate. — Jts1882 |
talk 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 07:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hatnote or Dabify, as per Plantdrew.-- i.e. Kanpachi redirects here. For the species referred to as Hirenaga-kanpachi, see
Longfin yellowtail. (Can one put a reference in a hatnote?)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 08:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
no mention on target page. I have no idea what this means, tried a quick google, nothing immediately obvious. Redirect should be deleted unless someone can add supporting content at
Ukrainians in Kuban.
asilvering (
talk) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
it's based on a weird historic name and subsequent wonky translation of 'Malynovyi Klyn' see
Klyn. Sorry it seems that i forgot to get rid of the pipe on that page when i made the redirect—
blindlynx 17:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Besides the nom's concern, for some reason, this redirect made me think of
Raspberry Pi, and that's not right.
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on blindlynx's suggestion?
Klyn has similar instances. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes(talk / cont) 07:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Add mention of Raspberry Ukraine at the target, similar to how it is mentioned at the Klyn dab, regardless of whether the target stays at current title or Malynovyi Klyn. Jay 💬 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget – I admit that I'm from Ontario and maybe biased, but literally every piece of mail uses Ontario, CA as an abbreviation. The province is definitely the primary topic over the American city. I'm okay with the disambiguation option as well, but I think it's a disservice to readers to assume they're looking for the place in California.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 23:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not that I doubt you, but I'm surprised by the statement that "literally every piece of mail uses Ontario, CA as an abbreviation." In the US, I would never include ", US" at the end of a domestic address, and I never see the country name or abbreviation on domestic mail I receive. If I were mailing to someone in Canada, I would write out the word "CANADA" in full. Just curious. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Clovermoss: To fact check your above statement that literally every piece of mail uses Ontario, CA as an abbreviation,
Canada Post's addressing guidelines do not use "CA". Therefore, I can reasonably conclude that your statement is false. Most mail would tend to follow what formatting the Post recommends. --
Tavix(
talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe not every Canadian does it, then. But they'd understand what you mean by it, at the very least because it is incredibly common to see Ontario, CA on mail and in mailing addresses, regardless of what Canada Post officially suggests. I'm going to be stepping away from this conversation going forward because I've said my piece and this is honestly making me angry because it's a
sky is blue level conclusion around here. I think the very fact that this discussion keeps happening is proof that Ontario, CA is not an unambiguous reference to California.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's 5 examples from a bit of Googling from mobile, could find more on PC but not got the time right now:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
It's fine to disagree, but it's common place for Canadians to see "Ontario, CA", regularly.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 23:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ontario (disambiguation). CA is Canada's two letter country code and I think the province would be the expected result for the 15 million Canadians that live in
Ontario. On a lot of websites you actually only select two letters when selecting your country or they'll only display the two letters and a Canadian flag. The province is clearly the primary topic given that it's not disambiguated. But the city would still be an expected result for some, which is why I'm okay with disambiguate. The city feels like the third best target, behind the province then the disambiguation page.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 23:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Since some people cannot seem to find instances where "Ontario, CA" is used to refer to the province, I've found 50 instances where it does:
General references that seem to always use "Ontario, CA"
Expedia
WeatherBug
Ebird
Mappit
These, among many, many, other examples, are part of why it's a reasonable expectation for Canadians that this redirect would lead to the province. Sorry if formatting is bad and that it's just links, but I did this from mobile.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 01:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Most of those aren't reliable sources, and while a lot of those links don't work or don't include "Ontario, CA" in any way, those that do match "Ontario, CA" when searching the page for that term are only doing so as part of the address specifying the city, none of those are referring to the province itself as "Ontario, CA", it's part of a larger address specifically referring to a city, and is never used on its own and never used to refer to the province, so that's not evidence that the redirect should point to the province when it's not used that way in reliable sources. -
Aoidh (
talk) 04:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone gets you 50 links that use "Ontario, CA" and you dismiss them as unreliable sources? It's the usage here that counts, not whether the link is a RS. LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions) 07:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As I already said in the comment above, the reliability of the sources was not the only issue, and indeed wasn't even the primary issue. Many of them don't even include the term, and none of them use this redirect's title "Ontario, CA" to refer to the province, not a single one. I checked each one. It is indeed the usage that counts and still no source, reliable or otherwise, has been provided that refers to the province as "Ontario, CA", the closest we get is partial matches in town-specific terms, like "Toronto, Ontario, CA", which is not the focus of this redirect while references to the city match the redirect term exactly and unambiguously. The data does not support the claim that the province is ever referred to using this redirect title, and the WikiNav data does not support the claim that readers are confused by the redirect's target. My intention was merely to point out the issue with, for example, some of sources listed not even including the term, but I think I'm past the point of commenting here too much so I'll leave it at that. -
Aoidh (
talk) 09:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The reliability is entirely irrelevant, I'm not using these as sources in articles. I'm demonstrating that "Ontario, CA", is something Canadians see regularly. They're contextually perfectly valid. I could actually post hundreds of more examples but I had thought 50 would be adequate to show that we do frequently see that formatting. Also, to be clear, you're incorrect about the links not working or not including "Ontario, CA". If you ctrl+F you'll find at least one usage on every one of those links.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) as a {{
R from incomplete disambiguation}}, per Thryduulf above. The two-letter initialism "CA" can be a postal code for California or an abbreviation for Canada, and both are equally plausible in different contexts. –
Epicgenius (
talk) 01:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep(with retargeting to the dab page as a second choice). Most anyone looking for the Canadian province is just going to search for plain "Ontario", which is of course the PTOPIC for the plain name. But with the ", CA", the standard postal address for the city in California? It should point to the city in California. There's already a hatnote pointing to Ontario, for anyone who is confused enough to search for it this way.
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 01:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Striking my second choice for a dab retarget. On second thought, this makes everyone click through twice, which isn't great.
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 01:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
CA is the standard postal address for the country of Canada, too.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 01:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Mailing addresses would be disambiguated to the city level, e.g. "Toronto, ON" or "Toronto, ON, Ca" or even "Toronto, Ontario, Ca" but it would not be "Ontario, CA" by itself. -
Aoidh (
talk) 01:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Addresses are often listed different ways. I'm on mobile right now, but looking at the top 5 LinkedIn pages of Ontario cities by population, they all include "Ontario" instead of "ON" and "CA" instead of "Canada" at the end of the address.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 03:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Nothing has changed since the last few discussions, and there's certainly no evidence that there has been any shift in usage. While CA sometimes refers to Canada in certain contexts, and Ontario is a province in Canada, the exact phrase "Ontario, CA" itself is used in reliable sources to refer to the city in California, not the province in Canada. Both now and the last time this was discussed last year I could not find any instances of "Ontario, CA" being used to refer to the Canadian province, but if such instances do exist they are by far an exception. To change the redirect target to suggest that "Ontario, CA" is used to refer to the Canadian province would be inaccurate and misleading and does not reflect usage in reliable sources. Usage in sources show that the Californian city is the clear and unambiguous primary topic for this exact phrase. -
Aoidh (
talk) 01:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"They are by far the exception" – Try searching for city name, Ontario, CA. I just did it with my own city and several others, you'll find thousands of examples. This type of format is why there would be such a familiarity and assumption by Canadians that "Ontario, CA" is associated with the province. It's also the
ISO 2-letter country code for Canada and, as someone from the province, I get a lot of mail with "city name, Ontario, CA" on it.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 02:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This isn't a proposal for any redirect related to "[city name], Ontario, CA" any more than it is about the phrase "Ontario" itself, which of course the province would be the primary topic for. Each redirect stands on its own merits, and if the argument is that the redirect should target the province, then there should be evidence that "Ontario, CA" refers to the province rather than being included in a string related to a city. Throughout now four RfDs nobody has been able to provide a single instance of "Ontario, CA" being used to refer to the province, therefore then the city in California is the primary topic for this redirect and the current target is the valid one, and the hatnote at the top more than adequately addresses any edge cases where there may be confusion due to related terms from partial matches in mailing addresses. I can't find any instance of "Ontario, CA" referring to the province itself; when reliable sources use "Ontario, CA" they are referring to the city, and the redirect currently does and should continue to reflect that demonstrated usage. -
Aoidh (
talk) 02:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You won't find "Ontario, CA" because everybody includes more than that in their addresses. It's about the expected result when you search a term. In this case, Canadians who have regularly seen these types of addresses would naturally, and quite reasonably, assume that the version without a city would be referring to the province. The number of people who are aware of the town of Ontario is significantly dwarfed by those who see and use "Ontario, CA" every day while referring to the province. Not to mention international folks who would assume, based on the consistent 2-letter usage of "CA" for Canada, that Ontario, CA, would be referring to the province.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 03:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue is that assumption is not backed by any evidence whatsoever of even a single instance, whereas usage for the city unambiguously and overwhelmingly is, and that theoretical confusion is already addressed by the hatnote, alleviating any concern such confusion would bring while still accurately redirecting to what reliable sources mean when they use the term "Ontario, CA". Also it was very quick to find international sources that
use CA to refer to California, so the assumption that international readers would assume CA=Canada is not reflected by sources either. Reliable sources should be used over
what comes to mind for some. I feel like I'm perhaps talking in circles (which I want to stress is a me problem, not a you problem Hey man im josh) so I'm gonna let this discussion run its course from here so as to not
bludgeon the discussion. -
Aoidh (
talk) 03:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What do you believe the purpose of a redirect is? I believe it's to redirect people to the expected result. In this case, it's ridiculous to draw a conclusion that Canadians who see "Ontario, CA" regularly as part of larger addresses should somehow not associate that with the province after essentially being trained to do so. As such, the expected result, for myself and a large number of people, is the province. That's why the dab page makes the most sense, if not the province itself.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 03:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It is to redirect people to the expected result. How though do we determine what result is expected? Given that not a single reliable source, even Canadian ones, use this term for the province, that's an unlikely edge case barring evidence to the contrary, and for that edge case there is a hatnote. Canadians (being ~2% of English speakers) possibly confusing the meaning of Ontario, CA (and that confusion is not reflected by sourcing whatsoever) is not an issue due to the hat note and is not cause to change the redirect target without evidence that it's a more likely target, which there isn't any. By actual redirect clicks,
WikiNav shows it's not something people are being overly confused by, especially when looking at how people are
arriving at Ontario. -
Aoidh (
talk) 04:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think your wikilink about the redirect being not "what comes to mind" supports the province being the target, actually. Per the example given at that page:
What first comes to your mind when you hear the word Java? It may be coffee or a programming language, but the primary topic belongs to the island with over 150 million people living on it.
Ontario is a province with 15 million people, the American city has a population of 175,000 and is likely not what the average reader typing "Ontario, CA" is looking for. You cite just one newspaper article using the commonly used abbreviation for California as a state and while I'm sure you could find more, I could also find countless examples of CA being used in reference to Canada as well.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 03:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect is not Ontario, nor is it CA, but very specifically "Ontario, CA" and every instance of the specific term "Ontario, CA" used to refer to something in reliable sources is only used to refer to the city in California, it's not even an issue of which is more commonly used, there's zero evidence of the province being referred to as "Ontario, CA". The city is the primary topic for this specific term as shown through sources. The point about what CA may mean internationally is that it's a grey area and assumptions shouldn't be made as to what people think when they see "CA", though not directly relevant as again this redirect is a very specific term and has only one meaning in reliable sources, and while it's not unreasonable to expect that there will be readers that expect a different result, that's an issue that already has a solution. -
Aoidh (
talk) 04:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm genuinely perplexed that you think that there's zero evidence out there for the province itself being referred to as Ontario, CA and that reliable sources only ever talk about the American city exclusively.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 04:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you have reliable sources that refer to the province specifically as "Ontario, CA"? I can't find any, let alone enough that would demonstrate confusion. The city mailing address makes it part of a term that makes sense in that context, but that partial match is not the term itself and the province is never the subject of those addresses. -
Aoidh (
talk) 04:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Before I do so (I want to avoid showing numerous examples you might discount as irrelevant) can you elaborate a bit more on what exactly you mean about partial matches? Because neither is really the term itself, is it? Afterall, Ontario, CA is either an abbreviated version of
Ontario, Canada or
Ontario, California and either are only ever really used in the context of directions/mailing addresses as far as I'm aware? Can you show me an example for the American city where that isn't the case? The newspaper article you linked doesn't use it in a different context or even mention the city of Ontario, it just uses the abbreviation for CA. I could easily demonstrate that CA is a standard abbreviation for the country of Canada used abroad, too.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What I mean is that a source uses the exact phrase "Ontario, CA" to refer to something, for example
the city itself,
news organizations,
the FAA (though an American entity) all use "Ontario, CA", the exact term being discussed here, to describe the city with no disambiguation used or needed. I can find no evidence that the same is true of the province itself, and per the WikiNav link above readers are not being confused by this either. -
Aoidh (
talk) 06:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think the Los Angeles Times is fair to use as an example here. LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions) 06:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's perfectly reasonable as it demonstrates usage, but
here's one that's not local at all. Do papers in the province of Ontario use "Ontario, CA" in the same way? -
Aoidh (
talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree with Liliana, I think the Los Angeles example is fine. Thank you for finding sources that are more specific than the last one (I'll give some examples of what I mean when I'm less busy today). I wouldn't say that particular usage is really used by papers within Ontario to describe Ontario, so that is a different usage. I'm more inclined to disambiguate this now.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 11:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm on my lunch break so I haven't had time to dig much (will have more time later), but I did find
this page in a book that expresses the concept that the exact term of Ontario, CA can indicate the province, as the international travel website
Expedia assumes that this is what one is looking for if you use that exact phrase as a search term, with the American city being the very last option provided.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 16:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That example is expressing that given the query Ontario, CA there is a 99% chance that the user means Ontario, California, so giving Canadian results first is not well-designed UI. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The author's argument is that it isn't well designed UI but I think there's a reason Expedia uses it like that. Regardless, the author's answer is also in an American specific context. They state that if you ask any American, they'd be expecting the city, their location data indicated they were American, etc. It's easy enough to flip that argument around to apply to Canada: if you ask any Canadian they'd expect Ontario, CA to lead to the province. Hence why the incomplete disambiguation idea is probably the best one.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well the author argued that the UI is so bad that it would have had to have been designed by a robot, so I really don't think it's making the point you want it to make... Also, the second part of your reply is a
fallacy of the converse. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a fallacy if it's genuinely true. Ask any Canadian what "Ontario, CA" means and they'll say the province. I've come to the conclusion that the disambiguation idea is the best one because of Thryduulf's rationale, it's reasonable for people to expect either of these results.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 20:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to DAB page as per Thryduulf. CA can easily stand for either Canada or California, meaning that CA is quite useless as a disambiguator. Since we can't tell for certain which page the user actually wants to go to, we need to go to the DAB page.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 05:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Since this is getting contentious, I'm going to refine my take on this: This is a very contentious and controversial topic, with accusations of americentrism, canada-centrism, et cetera. However, I'd like to point out three things:
One, that the only person who feels that it should be fully retargeted seems to be the nominator, and that everyone else seems to be either wanting to keep the existing target or retarget to the DAB.
Two, that retargeting to the DAB would be best as it offers up the least amount of harm and surprise in every scenario.
Three, that this doesn't even matter in the long run, as both targets already have hatnotes pointing to each other, with the province pointing to the DAB and the city pointing straight to the province.
Retarget to disambiguation page, per the reasoning that both uses are valid; we should of course try to eliminate links that use this redirect where possible. FWIW, the BBC and Guardian both use "Ontario, CA" to refer to the American city, not the Canadian province. SounderBruce 08:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to disambiguation page, as per Thryduulf and others. We shouldn't expect readers outside North America to be familiar with either state or country postal codes. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, especially per BDD's evidence in the 2015 discussion. This is a common format for American cities, but not for Canadian provinces. Perhaps most tellingly, the other Canadian redirects of this format (eg:
Quebec, CA) were not created until during last year's RfD. If this were a common way to search for Canadian provinces, you would think someone in the last twenty years of Wikipedia would have thought to create it, but instead it took an RfD prompt to do so. Also, can anyone show evidence of "Ontario, CA" being used in prose to refer to the Canadian province? --
Tavix(
talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Upgrading to Strong Keep after doing a deep dive on the topic. In fact, I would go as far as to claim that the format "Ontario, CA" unambiguously refers to the California city. I have yet to find any evidence of the Canadian province referred to as "Ontario, CA" and I have tried. On the other hand, this redirect has 29(!) links that all refer to the California city. --
Tavix(
talk) 22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Assuming "Ontario, CA" always refers to the city in California is one of the most Americentrist takes I've ever read. LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions) 22:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion I've reached after multiple hours researching the topic. If you have evidence showing "Ontario, CA" referring to the province, I'd love to see it. I'm always happy to change my opinion in the face of new evidence. --
Tavix(
talk) 23:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I threw up 5 examples above that I found from a little bit of Googling via mobile. Canadians are absolutely trained to recognize "Ontario, CA", as referring to the province.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 23:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! I've stricken the above. --
Tavix(
talk) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ontario (disambiguation). This discussion has indicated that "CA" is not a clear identifier and can be interpreted as California or Canada. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ontario (disambiguation). The redirect is ambiguous. A searcher copy-pasting this portion of an address could be looking for either target. ―
Synpath 22:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ontario (disambiguation) per above. I can't imagine I could explain it any differently than all these other comments, so I'll just leave it at "It could refer to both so it should go to somewhere that lists both".
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 08:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ontario (disambiguation): CA can be confused with California and being used as an abbreviation for Canada is not common in US sources. (My first thought on seeing this was "there's an Ontario in California?") StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 02:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ontario (disambiguation). I'm neither USAnian or Canadian and I have to say I hadn't even heard of Ontario in California, but after reading this discussion I think there are valid reasons for both the Canada and California places so it's best to retarget to the disambiguation page.
JIP |
Talk 08:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ontario (disambiguation). I have nothing to add that is addition to anything anyone else has stated already.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I can find very little to support the idea of "ectomy" as its own word- the only thing I can find is our sister site Wiktionary's definition:
wikt:ectomy. Every other resource I can find treats 'ectomy' as a suffix, not its own word. This therefore seems like a very unlikely search term.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename to testiculectomy - Testiculectomy is a likely search term for what is properly an orchiectomy. Searching that term on Google will include all the hits for orchiectomy for you (you may not want to click any of the links!) This demonstrates that Google already consider that one to be a likely redirect. The current redirect is not a likely search term (and, in fact, can be distracting for a couple of valid search terms).
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 08:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
tbf if you see a redirect in RFD that you think should be renamed, I suppose there's nothing stopping you from being
WP:BOLD and creating that new redirect yourself 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (
talk・
edits) 22:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Behold, the reason voting to rename redirects is rare and hard to come by. They're-- dare I say it?--
WP:CHEAP.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 02:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Speaking of Petz, both of these redirects target a section that no longer exists. Notably, while the article also no longer mentions either of these by name,
both refer to
extant titles in the Petz series.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Forgot to add: Redirects were made in 2010, both by the same author. The section they pointed to was then deleted in August 2013, due to being, quote, "unsourced commentary."
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
and a quick part 2: I was going to notify the person who removed the section, but they seem to have left Wikipedia according to their talk page. With some rather angry words directed at ArbCom. Hm.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping, as I wouldn't have remembered that I had created these even if I saw them listed. Though I admit these redirects appear to be rarely used, I think the best thing to do would be to copyedit the article and include the other titles to give a complete picture of the series. The Gameplay section includes Pigz and Bunnyz, so including the other two wouldn't be that out of place (though arguably they could all be moved to a better section that lists the games). I'm unclear why the article would only include what it calls the "Main series" games, but exclude others, particularly when the infobox lists titles that are listed no where else in the article. Based on the existence of
Petz: Dogz 2 and Catz 2 and without digging through the history, I suspect the article got confusing or contentious by trying to cover the Petz series without a page for Dogz: Your Computer Pet and Catz: Your Computer Pet, which led to the other animals or games being considered commentary or extraneous. So essentially, I would !vote keep, but to also copyedit the page to expand on games in the series, though I don't want to make those edits while this discussion is inconclusive. —
Ost (
talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, my listing here is mostly due to the 'refined to nonexistent section' issue, and I agree with you that if they were added back to the article (which they should be), these redirects (...redirectz?) need to be kept and refined to wherever in the article they now show up.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 05:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the clarification, which may have been in response to my rather detailed reply. I made some edits to the page, including an Animals section, but you may have a better idea for what section should include the content. From what I saw when searching, there may not be a Pigz game, though the animals were in some later Dogz titles. —
Ost (
talk) 04:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect should probably be deleted. "Central booking" is a generic term which can be and is used to refer to processing centers for arrestees in jurisdictions all over the United States. (I don't know if this applies to elsewhere in the English-speaking world). It certainly does not have a stronger association with Baltimore, Maryland than any other municipality, all of which have their own central booking. If this redirect isn't deleted, it should maybe be targeted to either the
prison or
arrest article.
Dennis C. Abrams (
talk) 19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Another set of emoticons with unexpectedly different targets. Using semicolons as eyes, but switching the mouth style, does not seem logical to have a difference in topics here, between the list and the general page. Utopes(talk / cont) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Refine all to
List of emoticons#Eastern. Might as well have the best of both worlds. Alternately, one could make an anchor on the appropriate part of the list and target there, although it's close enough to the top of the Eastern section that it's not hard to find from my suggestion.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Another set of two emoticons, and in this case I'm really not seeing why :') would go one way and :'( would go the other. Utopes(talk / cont) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Another set of emoticons with an unexpected difference in targets. This set consists of emoticons with hyphens for eyes, but the inclusion of a sweat semicolon is what separates these. Utopes(talk / cont) 15:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with targeting the last three to
List of emoticons#Shame, but would it be a good idea to target "- -" to the dab page at "
--" and perhaps adding a mention of the emoticon there? I feel like that could be more useful, but would that affect incoming links too much?
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 14:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, nevermind. Looking at the dab, I honestly don't expect anyone to type "- -" with a space while searching for any of the current entries on the dab. It is more likely that people are typing with an underscore, so yes, target them all to the emoticons list section.
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A handful of emoticons structured like this are targets to either
Emoticon or
List of emoticons. In this case, these are all have the nose and mouth, although the eyes don't appear for technical reasons (but do at the page). I'm not seeking deletion, but rather that the difference in targets may be unexpected. Utopes(talk / cont) 14:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems harmless enough, and they do successfully get you where you need to go, even if they look a little ugly while doing it.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Utopes So... you're seeing utility in navigating readers to these two topics, but would prefer for the internal search engine to do that instead of short-circuiting to one of the two? Why? --
Joy (
talk) 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Both smiling emoticons, frowning emoticons, and slash emoticons are discussed at both the general emoticon page, and at the list of emoticons page. Among this particular set where the emoticons are structured nearly identically, the difference in targets does not seem expectable. Nothing about ":-/" would make someone think they were going to a list instead of the general page about emoticons. While still ongoing,
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#XD (Emoticon) has signaled that the overarching list might be a preferable target for individual emoticon redirects. (I'll emphasize in the nomination that I'm not seeking deletion here.) Utopes(talk / cont) 15:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I admittedly missed the fact that they were going to different places. I'd point them to the list, as per Utopes. (This would be a Retarget for everything but :-/ )
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Utopes it would be best to actually say where you want to retarget, because this made me think you want to delete them. --
Joy (
talk) 17:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Joy: I didn't, and still don't have a preference on where to retarget these. I indicated in the nomination that
-/ and
-\ had different targets despite being the same type of emoticon, and was describing this being an issue coupled via subsequent nominations I was planning/setting up when writing this. Your response came before I completed the set. (Meant to say this earlier). Utopes(talk / cont) 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, it makes sense to keep them consistent. Why not just
WP:be bold and pick one of the two options? :) --
Joy (
talk) 10:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment These redirect eixst due to
technical limitations - specifically page names cannot begin with a colon, leading colons are ignored in search strings (so e.g. "-" and ":-)" lead to exactly the same place) and have a technical meaning in links (e.g. for interwikis) so e.g.
-) and
-) ([[-)]] and [[:-)]]) lead to the same page.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Clearly the current target is too specific. The 1864 versions could potentially be disambiguated between the
Overland campaign,
Richmond–Petersburg campaign,
Valley campaigns of 1864, and perhaps others, but I'm not sure this is really a term in use and deletion may be best. As for the unqualified versions, there were numerous campaigns in Virginia over the course of the war, not to mention these could also refer to political campaigns. The first two are likely too ambiguous to be useful. Another possibility, which would at least be an improvement over the status quo, is to retarget some or all to
Eastern Theater of the American Civil War or
Virginia in the American Civil War.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The latter retarget includes a five-way hatnote that includes all three pages listed by nom as potential dab targets.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wow something I did on Wikipedia 18 years ago. Anyway yes I agree the redirect is too specific and I think the proposed changes are reasonable.
David (
talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment as nom I support the retargets for the 1864 versions above, but still feel deletion is best for the unqualified versions due to ambiguity. For instance, in addition to numerous ACW campaigns, it may also refer to the
Yorktown campaign of the Revolutionary War; enwiki's article gives it explicitly as an alternative title. Google hits are mostly unrelated to either war.Mdewman6 (
talk) 18:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose disamabiguation at
Virginia campaign (with the capitalized version retargeted there) may be better than deletion. I have drafted a dab page under the redirect.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article. Looks as though the term was formerly in the article, but is no longer there.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
We really should have content about this somewhere, but
Gammon is not that place.
Glaze (cooking technique) is probably better (is the best, I'd don't know) but all what's there currently is not really enough.
List of hams is another obvious place on the surface but there are multiple different types of glazed ham (e.g.
Christmas ham and the honey-glazed ham mentioned at
List of hams#Wales) and the structure of that article wouldn't work to anchor this redirect (it also links to this redirect expecting the encyclopaedic content about it to be elsewhere). The edit summary when it was removed from the Gammon article implied that it was being moved to the
Ham article, but I can't find that it ever was, and there isn't anything useful there now. Maybe the text about glazed ham in
this revision can be merged somewhere? I'll see if there is a relevant WikiProject I can ping about this.
Thryduulf (
talk) 00:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see anything in REDLINK that recommends deleting an existing redirect.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
When referenced at RfD, a reference to
WP:REDLINK almost always means "delete this redirect to encourage the creation of an article, because there isn't anywhere that would make a good target for a redirect."
Thryduulf (
talk) 03:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's "not mentioned in the target article" only because an IP blanked half the article a few years ago. That (sourced) material could be restored by anyone, including the nom.
Steel1943, I don't know if you ever noticed before (
Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions), but the line in
WP:RFD#DELETE about deleting redirects that aren't mentioned is exclusively for "novel or very obscure synonyms". Ordinary words that have been in use for
at least two centuries can't be described as "novel", and an iconic holiday dish isn't ever going to be "very obscure". I think we should keep this. The only remaining question is whether to repoint it or to turn it into a separate article.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"The only remaining question is whether to repoint it or to turn it into a separate article." Sounds like a "delete per
WP:REDLINK" rationale to me unless a retargeting option is found. It may be worth investigating to see if the article could be restored to a state where the redirect is mentioned, which would also fix the issue for which I nominated the redirect.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, are you referring to
this edit where an IP blanked the "glazed" mention? (I'm playing a guessing game there since you did not provide a diff.) If so, I'm not sure that restoring that content would validate the existence of this redirect since the subject mentioned there is both "glazed gammon" and "glazed ham", given that there seems to be a few notes around Wikipedia, specifically on
Ham, that attempt to differentiate "gammon" from "ham", meaning restoring the content and then attempting to validate this redirect as a {{
R from incorrect name}} may be misleading.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for further input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 10:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 05:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk) 14:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of hams, where topic is mentioned. Glazed hams are definitely out there. I feel like this is more appropriate than current target.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 17:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
At this title for five minutes at creation due to a mistake of page creator. Incorrect and potentially confusing.
Rusalkii (
talk) 05:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are however things that may be looked for using this title.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget as per Thryduulf. While it's true that we don't yet have any EPs titled Style, if we ever get one, this is exactly where in the disambiguation it'd show up. Yes, I know that that's technically an argument in violation of
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, hush. In addition, as Thryduulf pointed out in reply to Steel, it handily points anyone mistakenly looking for "EP" when the recording they're looking for is actually an "Album" to the right place.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.