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.
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.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant
WikiProjects through one or more
"deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{
subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
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.
There is now a "Fashion in China." page (note full stop). I've redirected this redirect to point there, but ideally we can delete the redirect and then move the new page to not have the full stop. (Edit to add: I know technically this belongs on the technical requests page, but since the new page already exists, I think it makes sense here?)
Smallangryplanet (
talk) 10:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While I am aware that
WP:NPOV is less of a concern for redirects as they are less likely to face the general public directly, I do question the rationale for the existence of these redirects.
Surely anyone searching for woketard(s), will already need to type the word woke, and I am sure that any quote in an article that could possibly benefit from bluelinking woketard could surely just pipelink it.
I am not strongly of the mind that "These should not exist on Wikipedia", though I do feel as though they are needlessly inflammatory and likely unnecessary. The article for
Woke does not mention Woketards anywhere including in the
as a pejorative section.
Primarily, I am leaning towards deletion for these redirects, if consensus aligns with them being valid, I am not opposed to the target being narrowed down to the as a pejorative section.
IceBergYYC (
talk) 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to Wiktionary There is an
entry in Wiktionary.
Catalk to me! 11:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Make it mac tonight
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy delete.
An extremely unlikely search term and a typo that even cannot be accidentally done. Just note that First Great Western was the former name of the current Great Western Railway
JuniperChill (
talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [edited 09:50, 29 May 2024 UTC]reply
weak deleteFirst f Great Western. This is reading the corporate logo as "First f" which is not completely implausible given how it was rendered in e.g. what Commons calls the "corporate blue" livery (see
image) but I can't find evidence it is commonly used.
Thryduulf (
talk) 08:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, we don't have
First f as seen at
FirstGroup logo so a clear reason for deletion. Plus FGW was out of business 9 years ago so its even more unlikely. But obviously keep
First Great WesternJuniperChill (
talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteFirst Great Western Express. It wouldn't have been an implausible way to distinguish from
First Great Western Link but the only uses I can find are "First Great Western express" (i.e. express trains that happen to be operated by First Great Western).
Thryduulf (
talk) 08:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete first two and Tentative delete the third, though with the note that they're all being deleted for different reasons and I'm not sure they should've been grouped like this. --The first one, delete due to unlikely typo. --The second, delete due to unlikely/vague search term (Greater?? And are we sure that they were talking about a railway when all they called it is a Western??? Could've been a movie for all we know) opinion withdrawn 00:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) --The third, tentative delete due to being... possibly unlikely? The term 'express' does narrow down that we're talking about a train, and "First Great Western" WAS the name of this rail line at one point. I could see this alternately being kept and tagged as Unnecessary Disambig.With the very different reasons why each one of these are being talked about, lastly, I propose handing nom a
WP:MINNOW for grouping these together instead of keeping them separate, as this could've resulted in-- and could still result in-- a minor
WP:TRAINWRECK.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I'll allow First Greater Western being kept, though I'll also note that this means that we are now officially in Minor Trainwreck territory. ...Ironic, considering we're talking about railways.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I did not think this thru. All of them are about railways all linking to the current GWR. I just thought that all three of them are very unlikely typos or search terms for FGW hence why I bundled them together. I initially thought
WP:TRAINWRECK was talking about the notabilty stuff related to actual train crashes like the
Stonehaven derailment or about whether to include it in an article like the EMR derailment on the
List of rail accidents (2020–present)#2024.
JuniperChill (
talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope,
WP:TRAINWRECK is about how each one of these redirects has something else potentially wrong with it-- or in one case, has nothing wrong with it-- and thus we can't weigh them on the same merits, meaning that the resulting discussion gets confusing fast. I say a minor trainwreck-- and only minnowed you instead of a full-on trouting-- because there's only three redirects in the discussion, so the discussion is at least somewhat navigable.(See
WP:UPPERCASE for more "Wait, I thought this shortcut meant X but it's actually talking about Y" stuff x3)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Which pages should be deleted, if at all? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Catalk to me! 16:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all - As Thryduulf points out the "First f" redirect is likely based on the logo, that looks exactly like a stylised "First f Great Western", which someone could think is the name of the company. "First Greater Western" is the real name of the company, as said above. I've found some reference to "First Great Western Express" being at some point a
rebrand of some First Great Western service. Redirects are cheap and it's clear what topic they are aiming for.
BugGhost🪲👻 18:57, 10 June 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,
CycloneYoristalk! 03:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure why a redirect needs to explicitly be referenced in the target?
Deku-shrub (
talk) 09:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Because otherwise we would have hundreds of malapropisms redirect to this target, with no indication of notability.
GnocchiFan (
talk) 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure how plausible this search term is but if kept, would
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga be a more appropriate target?
मल्ल (
talk) 22:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as is I take you you didn't watch "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga", since that isn't a road movie. "Mad Max: Fury Road" is a road movie. "Furiosa Road" was a common nickname for the film when it was released.
[2][3][4][5][6] -- so is a good search term. --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
i think most forests have leaves, i don't see what makes this one special. leaf forest is not mentioned in the target, and the lowercase f suggests any random forest with leaves cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
should note that while "leaf forest zone" would narrow it down considerably, it would also be wrong, as it's not referred to as a zone in the game cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"sonic ds" was a working title for sonic rush. "sonic e3" was not. more than one sonic game has been shown at e3 since 2005, so rush might not be the primary target cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
the title of an official album, apparently. not mentioned in the target outside of sources that happen to have the name in the title. delete, or see if a mention can be added? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
that's the japanese name for the franchise, with this redirect missing the subtitle associated with this specific game. redirect to
klonoa, or leave as is? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
left as a redirect because there weren't any sources that could warrant a list for individual klonoa characters, and i still haven't found anything noteworthy about any single character (not even klonoa himself) cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:RETURNTORED. Her only connection to celebrity jeopardy is that she appeared as a contestant during one tournament. I mean just based on the premise of the show, you have to be more notable for something else than for simply being on the show.
Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Those are two different treaties. The redirection creates confusion. I suggest deletion of the redirection
Anthere (
talk) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Create a set index article at this title. There are three main international trademark treaties, the WIPO 1994, Singapore, and the
Madrid Protocol, and we should have one place that lists them all, and possibly any notable bilateral treaties that may exist.
BD2412T 20:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
article about Iran village (not a city like said!) called Gahru even doesn't mention "Kahru". And Kahru to be reserved to Estonian village
Kahru, Rõuge ParishEstopedist1 (
talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no indication that this is referred to as a "station", either officially or unofficially, by anyone. I'm not sure whether or not a plain "Valinor Hills" redirect would be more suitable. It doesn't seem very useful, but it would make more sense at least.
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note -- I removed the (unsigned) template transclusion as clutter; anyone can click on the link themselves to see it. I know
MOS:OL is about article content and not talk pages, but holy crap, please take it to heart, because it's really hard to find the one important link among your sea of useless ones (why in the world did you feel the need to link "wp:redirect"? Please put some thought into what you write). More to the point, none of what you said addresses my concern that "Station" specifically is unwarranted. If someone added it inappropriately to a template, the proper course would be to remove it from the template, not to add an erroneous redirect.
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as possibly made up. 0 hits on Google. We already have the "station-less"
Valinor Hills created at the same time and pointing to the same target. Jay 💬 12:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - No clear target. The creator may have been under the impression that the "i" in iPhone is short for "internet", which it isn't - and from searching it doesn't look like this is a common mistake. Could arguably be retargeted to
Mobile operating system, but that article isn't strictly related to the internet - there are mobile operating systems that don't have internet connectivity.
BugGhost🪲👻 13:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Our article on
iPhone says According to Jobs in 1998, the "i" word in "iMac" (and thereafter "iPod", "iPhone" and "iPad") stands for internet, individual, instruct, inform, and inspire. Regardless, I agree with nom and everyone that the current redirect target is incorrect. External searches refer to specific patents, and unless
Mobile operating system has mention of the exact term, Delete. Jay 💬 12:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Mobile operating system. While it's true that not everything there relates to the internet, everything that this plausible search term could relate to is listed there (i.e. it's a redirect from a narrower term to a broader article) .
Thryduulf (
talk) 14:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget as per Thryduulf. He's right in that that's the best target we have (the only "internet phones" that can possibly have an operating system would have said operating systems listed there), and the fact that it's one less word than the one that starts with Apple helps a bit with my ability to believe its plausibility.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep as a {{R from member}} since deleting the redirect would hinder navigation, even considering
WP:RETURNTORED. That, and if the nominator sees the potential to create an article, nothing is really stopping them from overwriting the redirect with an article.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per the target article, without sources, seems the subject of the redirect has a
WP:ONEEVENT-ish connection to its target, considering other subtopics of the subject of the redirect seem to not have articles.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirects to an article where there is no mention of him.
Lost in Quebec (
talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia either.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
He was mentioned on there, until that was removed. He should be mentioned, considering that he received wide coverage in connection with his father's retirement in 2016. This was not incidental naming, but news articles directly about Drake LaRoche.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirects doesn't make any sense.
M S Hassan (
talk) 07:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
M S Hassan: I made these redirects (when I was going through the
list of Indian film series), as a chronological search aid for theatrical films in order of release for the series.
These, 1 and 5, should be targetted to the relevant articles (for the 2012 and 2024 film) respectively. Cheers.
Gotitbro (
talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
2024 Sonsio Grand Prix at the Indiapolis Motor Speedway
Delete - Unplausible search target/cleanup after target article was initially created here (due to a newer editor being unaware they could overwrite the old redirect at the target). ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Accurate and harmless, deletion wouldn't bring any benefits.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Indiapolis" is such an unlikely misspelling of
Indianapolis that those who know linguistics could potentially believe "Indiapolis" is a city in
India. (To add to this, seems the only valid use of "Indiapolis" on Wikipedia is for a subject named "Indiapolis, Indiana: American Trust Publications" in some references, but in that case, based on where the instances of this phrase are located on Wikipedia, seems the title has intentional affinity to
India, but I could be completely wrong on that and those uses of "Indiapolis" could be misspelled as well; apparently, an entity named "American Trust Publications" is/was based out of
Chicago, which is rather geographically close to
Indianapolis.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comparing the current target of this redirect, the former targets
Bourgeoisie and
Means of production, and
Factory which doesn't seem to mention "owner(s)" ... it does not seem that there is a specific article readers may be attempting to locate when searching this phrase.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
business magnate as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Industrialist. I wouldn't be opposed to disambiguation though as while I think the other suggests are less likely they aren't completely implausible.
Thryduulf (
talk) 08:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Why would the English Wikipedia redirect to non-English Wiktionary entries?
Fram (
talk) 10:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Eh? The target is an English Wiktionary entry.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Wiktionary entries for non-English words or terms. Wiktionary starts with the languages an entry is in (the heading), and the only such heading here is "Japanese". For comparison, the entry for "bread"
[7] has headings "English", "Middle English", "Old English", and "Spanish", so that is an English Wiktionary entry.
Fram (
talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Because
English Wiktionary explains in English the meaning of the Japanese word that forms the character. I don't know that there is any exact meaning of
point (disambiguation) that is represented by ㌽, so I leave the readers to find out what works in their case. --
Error (
talk) 11:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
But why would we have redirects to explain words in other languages? We could add millions of redirects if we do this, for every word in every language.
Fram (
talk) 12:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. We have articles and redirects for characters (not words), because people want to know what they mean and look them up in Wikipedia. In this case the English Wiktionary entry is better than anything we have locally, so the soft redirect is the most helpful to readers.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Why would we allow redirects for foreign-language characters because people want to know what they mean, but not for words because people want to know what they mean? What makes characters so special?
Fram (
talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Because characters and words are not the same thing. The reason we don't have redirects for foreign words is expressed best at
WP:RFOREIGN, those considerations don't occur for single characters.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a non-answer if ever I saw one. Why A and not B? "A and B are not the same, and here we explain why not B". Well yes, but you argue to keep A, and don't give a reason why the arguments would be different. Further, the page you list to is about internal redirects, not about redirects to Wiktionary or the like. You also claim that "those considerations don't occur for single characters", but most of the arguments in the "Rationale" section of that page apply just as well to single characters.
Fram (
talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To editor
Fram:: Is your objection to redirects to Wiktionary, redirects from non-Latin characters or redirects from CJK characters? --
Error (
talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirects from characters, words, ... not in use in English and without an article here.
Fram (
talk) 14:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
is there a reason the target is a search, and not the thing that would be searched? if not, retarget to
wikt:㌽. otherwise, keepcogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's how interwiki soft redirects work (my guess is that it's so that you get search results rather than an error if the target page doesn't exist, but you get taken to the page if it does) so your suggested retarget is the current target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you please wait before you create more similar redirects. You have now added
㍀ and
㍁, but if this one gets created, then adding more of the same onbly creates more work afterwards.
Fram (
talk) 12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment There are tens of thousands of Han characters/Kanji. Is the plan to redirect all of them (or at least the reasonably common ones) to Wiktionary entries? What about characters in other scripts, or words in other languages? I actually agree that there is some value to a reader, however if you
search for a Han character (arbitrary example) on Wikipedia, the corresponding Wiktionary entry will already appear in the search results on the side under the heading "Word definitions from Wiktionary". If the desire is to make the link to Wiktionary more prominent, that could be done much more efficiently with a few lines of CSS or JS instead of creating thousands of redirect entries. Just my 2¢.
98.170.164.88 (
talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I realize that the entry above is not Kanji but rather a "square katakana" symbol, of which Unicode has only ~100, but I think the general reasoning may still apply.
98.170.164.88 (
talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a Unicode 'codepoint', but it is not in any normal sense a "character"; in fact it is plainly a word - ポイント - consisting of four characters. These "block" things are a legacy typographical kludge, not a normal part of the Japanese writing system.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 04:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Wiktionary explains what this character is and how it is used, and it does so in English. We have the information, we should point to it.
Fieari (
talk) 02:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Strictly speaking this is not true: Wiktionary does not describe this "character" (it isn't a character), nor how it is used. For example it does not mention that in vertical writing (where I suspect such use may be more common) the four elements of the character-space, written l-r, t-b, would be ン ポ ト イ (because actually they would have to be written t-b, r-l). In other words the actual appearance shown in the Unicode CJK compatibility box is not necessarily how the "character" would appear in actual use. And there is no obvious evidence of this "character" actually being in use [as opposed to "mention"] in an Internet search. If there is an established principle that WP does not provide links to Wikt for just any foreign word, the argument for needing a redirect for non-standard representations of such words strikes me as infinitely weak.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 05:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Changing !vote to Retarget to
CJK Compatibility per Nickps below. An on-wiki redirect is significantly preferable to a cross-wiki one.
Fieari (
talk) 23:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
CJK Compatibility for the reasons
Imaginatorium brings up. Opposed to deletion however since the character is covered in the English WP.
Nickps (
talk) 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "covered". Is the J word ポイント "covered"? Actually I think that of course it is (just about) acceptable to describe (non-)characters like this in an article about obscure features of Unicode, but it is also OK to have an article on the Hungarian language - but this does not mean that just any Hungarian word should redirect to it. And yes, this (non-)character appears on web pages, but I can only find it on dictionary and similar pages, where it is often just some sort of redirect. Challenge: can you find a single use of this (non-)character in use in a document on the Web?
Imaginatorium (
talk) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Covered" means that the character U+333D㌽SQUARE POINTO is explained in
CJK Compatibility. CJK Compatibility is a
Unicode block containing square symbols (both CJK and Latin alphanumeric) encoded for compatibility with East Asian character sets. Therefore, someone who searched for "㌽" now knows why it exists. That's a helpful redirect. Your argument would make sense if the nominated redirect was
ポイント, but it's not. It is entirely possible that someone who puts "㌽" in the search box actually wants to know about the Unicode character itself and not about the Japanese word
wikt:ポイント.PS:
Noncharacter has a specific meaning as far as Unicode is concerned. U+333D is not a "noncharacter".
Nickps (
talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
CJK Compatibility per Nickps and other discussions on Unicode symbols.
CJK Compatibility also helpfully links the character to the Wictionary entry in case a user needs further clarification on what the symbol means. ―
Synpath 03:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
CJK Compatibility#Block, which seems to be the best of choices more preferable than the current target. Whether or not every such character should have such a redirect is a larger question to be addressed elsewhere (if it has been, I am unaware). —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Search considers ㌽ and ポイント to be interchangeable. Therefore, currently
Special:Search/ポイント leads to
㌽. Therefore, I propose that if this RfD closes as retarget per my !vote, regular
ポイント is created as a crosswiki to
wiktionary:Special:Search/ポイント. I consider this a case of
WP:SMALLDETAILS.
Nickps (
talk) 11:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
But this seems to show up the absurdity of this whole mess. If ポイント should have a redirect, surely every other Japanese word should also have a redirect?
じゃないの?
Imaginatorium (
talk) 11:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
surely every other Japanese word should also have a redirect. Not really, only the ones that have associated Unicode characters. The redirects from individual Unicode characters are useful. Apart from what I've already said above, consider {{unichar}} which links to the character page if an empty |nlink= parameter is passed to it. U+333D㌽SQUARE POINTO works fine right now. Why break it? On the other hand, yes, keeping the redirect creates a pretty
astonishing result for anyone who searches regular ポイント. But we don't need to delete to fix that; creating
ポイント also works. I think the usefulness of the ㌽ redirect is enough to warrant the
WP:RFOREIGN exception I'm asking for here.
Nickps (
talk) 12:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You say the "usefulness" of the ㌽ redirect. Can you describe a plausible scenario in which a non-Japanese-speaking user could have this Unicode value "in their hand " so to speak, in order to paste it into the WP search box? Unless of course they got it from a dictionary/Unicode site, and already know what it is? Can you cite a single instance of this Unicode value in a document on the net? And please avoid using the term "Unicode character" to describe something which is not a character.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 03:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't really need to accommodate your nonstandard definition of "character". A
Unicode compatibility character is still a
Unicode character. Can you describe a plausible scenario in which a non-Japanese-speaking user could have this Unicode value "in their hand " so to speak, in order to paste it into the WP search box? This Wikipedia is made for English speakers not "non-Japansese" speakers. Some of these English speakers who understand Japanese at some level but still prefer to use enwiki may end up on e.g.
[8] or
[9] and then search the character.
Nickps (
talk) 04:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Why would you be fluent enough to end up at [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/
https://www.city.iwaki.lg.jp/www/contents/1522805848362/simple/shouhinn.pdf your first example], but then rely on English Wikipedia to explain this to you, instead of Japanese Wikipedia? Why would you expect Enwiki to explain everything about every language?
Fram (
talk) 07:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Target section does not mention Epsilon Eridani c. Also, the former section named "Planet c" was removed from the target article in
Special:Diff/1154409029 (as shown in the "Broken anchors" note at
Talk:List of nearest stars).
GTrang (
talk) 13:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this planet candidate is still mentioned by name in the target section: The JCMT images show signs of clumpy structure in the belt that may be explained by gravitational perturbation from a planet, dubbed Epsilon Eridani c.SevenSpheres (
talk) 15:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per the reasons given by SevenSpheres.
21 Andromedae (
talk) 16:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If this is retargeted,
Papa Emeritus II and
Papa Emeritus III should probably also be retargeted. Might be worth adding both these (and possibly
Papa Emeritus) to this discussion. Alternatively, if it seems to be uncontroversial where these should all point, they can be retargeted without any RFD discussion. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 00:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue is that both targets (
Tobias Forge#Ghost, which is what this should be refined to if Kept, and
Ghost (Swedish band)#Papa Emeritus) discuss Tobias's role as the Papa Emeritus character in *all* incarnations of the character-- Papa Emeritus I, II, III, 0, and IV. That said, I'm leaning towards Refine for this specific redirect; the incarnation Papa Emeritus II does get a little more discussion in Tobias's article compared to Ghost's article.Either way, I do think the two sections need to be hatnoted together-- they talk about the same thing, so they should get a "See also" connecting them.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It should redirect to Motswana. Not sure why this got reverted, the authority is wikitionary or however you spell it. Botswanan is not a proper word.
[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] OK I think I’ve made my point.
48JCL 01:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
oops wrong place
48JCL 01:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
48JCL: I have reverted your bold retarget and restored the redirect with the RfD tag as nominated to allow for proper consensus to be reached on where to target this. As stated at
WP:RFD, please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 04:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment48JCL I think you maybe need to give a bit more of an argument for why it should be retargeted. Even if Botswanan isn't a "proper" word I think for most readers the main Botswana article is a good target; it also mentions the
Tswana people in the lead paragraph for example.
Skynxnex (
talk) 15:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Botswanan" not being 'a proper word' isn't really an issue-- the question is if it's *a plausible word*. Adding an -n, -an, or -ian suffix to the name of a place is a typical English way of signifying "from this place" or "people from this place", see
American,
Mexican,
Canadian,
Italian, ect, just like "-ish" (English, Spanish, ect) or "-ese" (Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, ect). I can easily see someone unfamiliar with the term
Batswana to invent terms like Botswanese, Botswanish, or, yes, Botswanan.That said, I would Retarget to the
Tswana DAB, simply to match the other 'from this place' words above. The searcher is clearly looking for information on *something* from Botswana- let's both inform them of the correct term, AND offer up the multiple meanings for said word. After all, who's to say they're not looking for
the language they speak in Botswana?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well if a broad-concept article is to be written it could be done so otherwise per
WP:MALPLACED the DAB should be moved back to the base name. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
MoveLGBT in Russia (disambiguation) back to the base title. Personally, I find "LGBT in [place]" awkward and ungrammatical, but this discussion is about this redirect in particular. I checked a few other "LGBT in [place]" to see how we treat them, and did not find a clear pattern.
By all means, yes, there should be a general article for LGBT topics in Russia, but simply moving the disambiguation page doesn't accomplish that. --
BDD (
talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention in article Isla🏳️⚧ 00:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment added
Sendirian Berhad to this nomination (the expansion of the abbreviation sdn bhd, which points to the same target). Best course of action here might be to add a mention at some existing Malaysia-specific article (e.g.
Companies Commission of Malaysia) where it could fit as a subtopic, and retarget there temporarily as a {{R with possibilities}}. The current target is extremely UK-specific.
59.149.117.119 (
talk) 06:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Cross namespace redirect that existed for 22 minutes.
Gonnym (
talk) 10:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Template → Wikipedia CNRs are uncommon but only problematic if transcluding the target would be harmful in some way (or it conflicts with something else). In this case it's not harmful (transclusion works fine) and it doesn't appear to be in the way of anything else. That said it isn't transcluded anywhere and I can't think of a reason why it would be transcluded (unlike {{OAFD}}). Ultimately I think I'm neutral.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Since this is redirects for discussion and not deletion, when was the last time Frank Blackmore was mentioned here or in
List of former Emmerdale characters? (in other words, not currently mentioned at target) Not only that, it was also a section link and now its broken. I wondered what had happened to it. Could this be retargeted to
Daniel Coll where Frank Blackmore is mentioned?
I am also nominating
DI Frank Blackmore for the exact same reason. (As a side note, I can't believe most of my edits today are to do with Emmerdale, where you normally sea me being involved with UK railways and video game related topics)
JuniperChill (
talk) 22:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A very unlikely search/link term considering that it clearly violates the capitalization rules. I have (or will have) just created the proper '
Emmerdale character list (new)' redirect.
JuniperChill (
talk) 21:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, did not find any reliable sources using the term.
मल्ल (
talk) 20:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The Z, according to edit history and hinted at by the non-neutral tag, is meant to signify "Zoophilia". This was apparently made as a redirect with the excuse that the redirect
LGBTP (similarly lumping pedophilia in with the LGBT) existed at the time.
That redirect just got deleted, and unlike that one-- where the needle swung between outright deletion and retargeting-- there's no handy redirect target like
LGBT grooming conspiracy theory or
Anti-LGBT rhetoric#Conflation with pedophilia that it could hypothetically be retargeted to.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - per Lunamann.
Raladic (
talk) 21:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete - Per above. The LGBT community doesn't tolerate beastiality.
Ahri Boy (
talk) 22:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, I thought it was part of the intentional/joke misspelling LGBTXYZ, which would have no meaning, however this is supposed to be about zoophilia, which is an anti-LGBT rhetoric. But even then, XYZ is also used by anti-LGBT. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - per above arguments.
BugGhost🪲👻 08:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
unlike p, which someone blessed with innocence could mistake for standing for "pansexual", there's just no excuse for z. speedy delete, and do not daftifycogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 11:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Anyone using this term is likely looking for the general topic of historic church buildings rather than this specific church. Historic building is itself a redirect to
List of heritage registers. I'm ambivalent regarding whether this redirect should also point there or just be deleted. —
Compassionate727(
T·
C) 17:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't keep as is This is a {{R from move}}, the target article was created at this title and stayed there for 7 weeks but that was back in 2006. While it will surprised nobody to learn that "historic church" appears in many, many articles it surprised me to learn that the redirect and its target are the only times it appears in the title of pages in the article namespace. I'm honestly torn between retargetting to the list of heritage registers (on the grounds that it's better to keep the revision history where we can, and that is a better target than the current one) or deleted (on the basis that it's too generic a title to be a good disambig and the heritage registers list is two steps removed from the search term so not the most helpful). I don't support keeping it as it is, but that's about the only thing I'm sure of.
Thryduulf (
talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)
I can't find anything in Enwiki about a 1968 album, here, or at
The Hollies discography (which in any case would be a better target).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Hollies' Greatest, a 1968 Greatest Hits album by The Hollies that was released in Germany.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Thryduulf - looks like that's the intended article
BugGhost🪲👻 09:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete.
Hollies' Greatest is a British album released by Parlophone. Per the edit history, the West German album was released by Hansa Records. The track listings are also different, which all but confirms these are different pressings. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't find any non–user generated sources, but I'm fairly certain that the West German album and
Hollies' Greatest are in fact separate (they seem to have separate covers for one), so that is not a good retargeting option. Retargeting to the discography would be a good option if it was on there, but it's not, and I know too little about the area to properly search for sources to add it to the discography. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 21:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a plausible search term that could refer to the network of multiple of the railway companies listed at
Great Western Railway (disambiguation), possibly (but I don't know how likely) the network of flights operated by
Aura Airlines and possibly the radio network of
GWR Group. Either retargeting to the existing
Great Western Railway (disambiguation) with a hatnote to one or both the other two, or a separate disambig page are the best for readers here.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think we should include Aura Airlines as while that is the ICAO airline code, I don't think anyone refers it to that (and also a relatively obscure airline), just as the code for
Greater Anglia is officially (de jure) LE, but it's most commonly (de facto) shortened to GA instead. Maybe retarget to
GWR instead? Since idk what should happen, we should wait for other users to see.
JuniperChill (
talk) 13:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are only two entries on the GWR page that could plausibly have networks and which do not appear on Great Western Railway (disambiguation) (the airline and the media group), but there are multiple railways that have networks which are listed on the longer-titled dab page but not at GWR. So if a separate dab page is not the chosen outcome,
Great Western Railway (disambiguation) is, in my opinion, a better target than
GWR. Obviously there is no need to take action before other people have had a chance to express their opinions.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
{{redirect|GWR network|the airline with the ICAO code|Aura Airlines|the radio network|GWR Group}}JuniperChill (
talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retargeting proposal? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JuniperChill: We don't put hatnotes in disambiguation pages. Jay 💬 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure thing @
Jay / @
Lunamann if consensus is to retarget to Great Western Railway (disambiguation0.
JuniperChill (
talk) 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Simple search term leads to a section that has detailed information about the search term. This is textbook redirect usage.
Catalk to me! 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Ca. Someone searching for "Elephant population" which is unquestionably something people will search Wikipedia for, will find the information at the target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added a see-also link to that page at the current target as it's relevant wherever this targets. I'm happy with either target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or Retarget, Lean Keep -
List of elephant species by population is in the section hatnote, which is why I'd lean towards just keeping it... but that link does provide more information than the section, so I can see the argument for just skipping straight to the point. Either way is fine by me, to be honest, and my preference for keep is VERY slight.
Fieari (
talk) 04:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 18:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: If it goes to the list, someone will see "populations of Proboscidean species" and could get very confused, whereas the prose and elephant pictures under the Status section are clearly relevant. Also I would add "R with possibilities" as I could see the section expanding and describing the individual populations with prose - the "notes" column in the list article is quite detailed.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk) 20:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've changed Proboscidean to elephant, which matches the title. --
Tavix(
talk) 21:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Long term, retargeting to
List of elephant species by population is probably more helpful. There's currently little body text, but there probably should be more, and the only reason I see to prefer
Elephant#Status at this moment is that it provides more information. The fix to that is adding information to the list article; I'd do it myself if I had any understanding of the subject, and I may tackle it anyway if nobody else does (no promises, though). Skarmory(talk •contribs) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget 1 and 2. Delete 2 Delete 3: per WhatamIdoing. Cos(
X +
Z) 20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Daask (
talk) 21:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget 1 and 2. TOM was originally an acronym meaning To One Matching, so "TOM" was the original capitalization and should not be deleted.
[19]WhatamIdoing (
talk) 22:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
1) Retarget, 2) Retarget, 3) Delete per WhatamIdoing. Good catch.
Daask (
talk) 23:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentTOM (programming language) should not be deleted. It contains the early history of the proposed target. I have added {{Copied}} to both talk pages to indicate that. I have also added the ur-redirects
TOM computer language and
TOM programming language to this nomination. Their fate should be considered, too—
Ketil Trout (<><!) 17:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article, which I created, uses an incorrect title. I moved it to the correct title but the redirect is not a name ever used in sources for this topic, so it's not a plausible alternative name that could justify a redirect. No articles link here. Propose deleting it to avoid confusion or it becoming a Wikipedia reflection on the Internet
Whizz40 (
talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not good at Islamic naming or there about but I can find any clue with this particular redirect. It is also a near close and unlikely when searched on web browsers. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's the internal link version of that external link,
fa:ابن_سهلان_ساوجی, since we can do that.
Steel1943 (
talk) 13:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A good place to check for these kinds of things is OCLC. All the best: RichFarmbrough 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC).reply
Delete as confusing, since there's no evident connection between the redirect and its target, and we don't even know if both are the same person.
CycloneYoristalk! 20:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I do not know any Arabic nor Arabic naming conventions, but the two names might refer to the same person. Encyclopædia Iranica lists him as EBN SAHLĀN SĀVAJĪ, Qāżī ZAYN-AL-DĪN ʿOMAR. The two names identify the same father and have similar first names (Omar and ʿUmar).
Catalk to me! 07:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My mistake, I got tripped up by the Arabic script, which apparently Persian uses.
Catalk to me! 13:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:29, 3 June 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 💬 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Editor-coined term for a since-merged series of events. Not in usage anywhere outside of Wikipedia mirrors.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (
talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support This is not a named event nor are the events that the former article referred to independently notable. No good reason to keep this.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep to preserve history, as content from the page continues to exist at the current target. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
fan speculation for its english name, on the same vein as
laxbe which i nominated a little under (or was it over?) a month ago. unlike laxbe, i found a few results, but they pretty solidly established this as a fan name that was dropped in favor of its admittedly inferior official name cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep if a reference to this as a fan-name is added. If it has a few results it seems to be a decently plausible search target, however niche.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk) 18:13, 29 May 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) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Plenty of edits to the target during the time of this discussion, but none related to the redirect topic. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per above.
48JCL 12:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target subject unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems to be related to a website called
Science Update. Their about page states that they are an "re-incarnation" of an AAAS-produced radio show of the same name.
Catalk to me! 09:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Few minutes of searching around on old newspapers in newspapers.com did not give anything substantial, though I did find a
Boston Globe Issue. With the
Common Sense Media source, a mention might be able to be added.
Catalk to me! 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Mention not yet added to the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Previous target
P Sharp was PRODded. No mention of anything related to P♯ in the current target. Either delete or retarget to
♯P.
Nickps (
talk) 13:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The redirect should have been {{Db-redirnone}}-ed after its original target was deleted ... if it weren't for a bot retargeting the redirect after the deleted article was converted to a redirect prior to being restored and deleted anyways.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, do not retarget to
♯P. For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a likely or helpful misspelling of "♯P", given that the nominated redirect has already been proven to mean something specific, given the nominated redirect had a valid target with a title match previously.
Steel1943 (
talk) 12:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to #P as, at the very least, a plausible typo. FrankAnchor 10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Changed to neutral based on analysis by Nickps below showing much more difference between P# and #P that I had previously thought. FrankAnchor 20:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm changing my !vote to delete per Steel. P♯ and ♯P are different things and P♯ and P♯ have some
uses in math as well. Any potential for confusion is not worth it.
Nickps (
talk) 13:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fairly common phrase (I thought of
Battle Hymn of the Republic); redirect to this relatively obscure song would likely be surprising. May merit a disambig page instead.
Rusalkii (
talk) 00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per nom. There appear to be several songs with this title in addition to those songs which simply include the phrase in their lyrics. Several uses of this phrase on enwiki. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 15:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget as per Fieari and Chaotic Enby.
BugGhost🪲👻 16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per the above.
Cremastra (
talk) 12:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect is simply incorrect. It stems from a misinterpretation of a redirect in a paper encyclopedia printed over 100 years ago.
Druysk is an
agrotown in
Vitebsk Oblast, Belarus, near
Braslaw. It is situated over 200 km away from Kaunas, Lithuania. The mixup arose because the
Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) contains
the following entry:
DRUISK. See Kovno.
However, this just refers to the fact that Druysk belonged to the
Kovno Governorate of the Russian Empire, an administrative division which covered a fairly large area, including Braslaw and its environs. For confirmation of this fact, one may consult
this 1864 map of Kovno Governorate. Druysk (Друйскъ) is in fact the easternmost labelled locality on the whole map, found within the yellow-green (i.e., primarily Orthodox) region centered around Braslaw (Браславъ).
The Jewish Encyclopedia does this with other localities as well. For example, the entries for
Dusyaty (
Dusetos; Russian: Дусяты Dusyaty) and
Eiragoly (
Ariogala; Yiddish: אייראַגאָלע Eyragole) also redirect the reader to Kovno, and the entry for
Eishishki (
Eišiškės) points to
Wilna.
What's even more confusing is the online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia hosted on StudyLight.org, cited in the previous RfD discussion, which includes full entries for these redirect entries that just
transclude the content of the redirect target, without any indication that this is what's happening. Thus,
the entry for Druisk is identical to
the entry for Kovno, except for the header; the same applies to
Eishishki and
Wilna, and so forth.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to solidify the argument for deletion by showing that other written sources that talk about “Druisk” are in fact referring to the city in present-day Belarus and not using it as a synonym for Kaunas.
"Druisk" is mentioned alongside other towns in Belarus (e.g.
Braslav,
Glebokie,
Dolhinov) and eastern Lithuania near the Belarusian border (e.g.
Swienciany,
Podbrodzh). None of these locations are near Kaunas.
“Druisk” is described as being on the
Dvina River, in the Vitebsk province. Mostly accurate, but the author (or I) might be slightly confused. Druysk is not directly on the Dvina, which actually forms the border between the nearby towns of
Druya, Belarus and
Piedruja, Latvia. The Dvina is approximately 10 km from Druysk. In fact, the place-names Druya, Druysk, and Piedruja all refer to the
Druya/Druyka tributary of the Dvina. In any case, nothing to do with the city of Kaunas.
“Druisk” is described as being in the region of Braslaw, listed alongside other nearby Belarusian localities such as
Opsa and
Ukolsk. Again, this description definitely does not apply to Kaunas.
By the way, in the course of researching this, I also noticed that
Eiragoly →
Eiguliai is probably another incorrect redirect. As mentioned above, this refers to Ariogala (
here's a source to support the identification), not the Eiguliai neighborhood of Kaunas whose name is pretty different anyway. I hypothesize that the author of this redirect also created it based on the Jewish Encyclopedia, but in that case tried to make sense of it by finding a part of Kaunas with a somewhat similar name.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the redirect creator's talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Very thorough, I'm certainly convinced. Druisk should ideally redirect to an article about Druysk if/when created. –Ploni💬 00:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think per above that deletion (or retargeting) is fine if there isn't a good current target with no objection to recreation if a suitable target is found or content added to one. (I voted keep in the earlier discussion.)
Skynxnex (
talk) 15:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Target has no information about this organisation
Kevin McE (
talk) 07:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. It has the information that it has stood in at least one UK Parliamentary election.
JASpencer (
talk) 07:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
And the link can only be found in other places where it has stood/is standing in an election. One learns absolutely nothing about the party, its history, its policies or its leadership by following the link: it is an apparent link to details that are not provided. JASpencer is the user who created the redirect.
Kevin McE (
talk) 07:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - per
WP:RETURNTORED - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.BugGhost🪲👻 13:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per BugGhost, better to keep it as a red link for an article to be written in the future.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Tagged by
CaribDigita in May but not correctly nominated. According to him, Can be deleted, site not online.. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Were these ever domains used by Google? If so, keep, if not, delete.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 01:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete No mention of those links in Google/DDG, and bb isn't even a valid
top-level domain.
Catalk to me! 04:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment .bb is the real
ccTLD for
Barbados, so if these domains have existed (they don't now anyway), they must have been Google's mirrors for that country. google.ca (for Canada), google.de (for Germany) and many other parallel sites exist and follow the same pattern.
Glades12 (
talk) 06:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres
Delete to encourage article creation, similar to all other individual event redirects created by a now-blocked user
Yoblyblob (
Talk) :) 00:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, valid article topic.
StarMississippi 01:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Technically not useful as the redirect Double disc album (the correct spelling) already exists and MediaWiki isn't case sensitive.
Killarnee (
talk) 22:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
...what? I often use the URL bar to type in my searches, and if I make a capitalization error there outside of the first character, it doesn't take me to the correct place. Keep as MediaWiki is case-sensitive, and I'd recommend withdrawing unless you want to go against the precedent of the entirety of
Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations. (
WP:RCAPS is also worth mentioning). Skarmory(talk •contribs) 00:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I often use the URL bar to type in my searches, and if I make a capitalization error there outside of the first character, it doesn't take me to the correct place. Here's a tip: While the URL bar is case sensitive (and has to be; we have plenty of articles where
case is relevant; see
MAVEN vs
Maven), the Search bar isn't, unless there are extant separate articles for each capitalization.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I know that much, but it's a habit that's hard to break. I do it while knowing the search function is better; who's to say there's not people that do it while not knowing much about the search function? Besides, this excerpt from
WP:RCAPS shows some other areas where case-sensitivity is important: While Wikipedia's search function is generally case-insensitive, these redirects aid linking from other articles and external sites.Skarmory(talk •contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Was created as a duplicate of article
Horrorcore but couldn't find any sources (checked Ngram and Scholar too) for this spelling.
Killarnee (
talk) 22:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - redirects are cheap, unambigious where it's intending to go. If the redirect existed in the first place then the user wouldn't have gone to the trouble of trying to create a duplicate article.
BugGhost🪲👻 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, plausible spelling variant that a reader could search for.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as plausible spelling variant. --
Lenticel(
talk) 06:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The page to which this page redirects mentions nothing about any formation. So this redirect is at this moment misleading.
Dajasj (
talk) 15:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Ambiguous between the Truss and Sunak ministries but not worth a disambig page. The search engine is well equipped to handle phrases like this.
Glades12 (
talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per arguments above
BugGhost🪲👻 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Doesn't look like a good redirect. Could not find other countries redirecting "Men in (country)" to their respective citizens and/or nationals.
Sanglahi86 (
talk) 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Several pageviews per month (600+ in the last year), and I can't find a better target. Appears to be useful. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 00:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete to encourage article creation. Per
WP:R#DELETE #10, the current target provides no information about men in philippines in particular, only as a people. Deleting would encourage article creation for the counterpart of
Women in the Philippines.
Delete per Ca. The topic is relevant and likely notable, so having a red link is better than sending the reader to a much wider topic that doesn't mention it in detail.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The subspecies of P. m. melanoleucus is distinct from P. melanoleucus; for example, see
P. melanoleucus's range vs.
P. m. melanoleucus's range. As a result it is harmful to have a redirect from one to the other; this would imply that they are the same.
ReadItAlready (
talk) 13:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as the Pituophis melanoleucus article is currently the best place to direct readers for information on P. melanoleucus ssp. melanoleucus. It distinguishes the subspecies of this snake and even describes differences in the ranges of the subspecies. ―
Synpath 03:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a redirect from a subspecies. P. m. melanoleucus is included in P. melanoleucus, therefore it makes sense to redirect the former to the latter.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:RDEL#10. This redirect was created by an indef blocked user, and does not link to any article. The subject person has already landed a main role in a high-profile Netflix series and had multiple personal interviews, which suggests the article currently meets GNG on the borderline and once they receive another notable role, they will likely pass NACTOR as well. The subject person is very likely to warrant an independent article, while
3 Body Problem (TV series), a project they were involved in, has zero coverage of their life or career. Therefore, I think this redirect does not have a reason to exist and should be deleted per WP:RDEL. Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul) 10:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Multiple typos, implausible typo of plausible misspelling "Vlatava", unused, nonsense for native speaker, also "Vllatava" not found by
global search. Should be deleted. —
Mykhal (
talk) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(Well, nonsense for native speaker subreason might be somewhat misleading, as the word Vltava itself does not have (other) meaning in current Czech, too.) —
Mykhal (
talk) 09:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no such thing as "BoBoiBoy Galaxy: The Movie", redirecting it to
BoBoiBoy: The Movie is pointless.
M S Hassan (
talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no such thing as "BoBoiBoy Galaxy: The Movie" - I am aware - I am not suggesting creating an article with that title. I am suggesting a redirect to a different article because it is very likely where the user is attempting to go to - it is not pointless.
BugGhost🪲👻 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
BoBoiBoy Movie 2. The BoBoiBoy franchise is split between the first TV series, simply titled
BoBoiBoy, and the second series, titled
BoBoiBoy Galaxy. While the first BoBoiBoy movie--
BoBoiBoy: The Movie-- came out right between and was meant to be a chronological bridge between the two series (and notably has a logo quite similar to the Galaxy logo, which does lend the idea that someone could slap the Galaxy moniker on it),
BoBoiBoy Movie 2 came out duringBoBoiBoy Galaxy, between its first and second seasons. If any movie gets to be "BoBoiBoy Galaxy: The Movie", I believe it's BoBoiBoy Movie 2.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(Also, for the record, I'm not terribly opposed to retargeting to
BoBoiBoy: The Movie-- as stated, it immediately preceded BoBoiBoy Galaxy and its logo does resemble Galaxy's logo more than the original series's logo-- and more than Movie 2's logo does, ironically enough. If everyone else believes that to be a better target, I'm not going to put up much fight.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
BoBoiBoy Movie 2, being the movie that came out during the Galaxy TV show run.
Fieari (
talk) 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Useless
WP:XNR. The page obviously should have never been moved to draftspace in the first place as it is not a draft. No need to leave a redirect after moving it back to the correct namespace. (I wasn't sure if
WP:G6 applied so here we are.)
Nickps (
talk) 19:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah I'm fine with deletion here.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 20:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I see no reason for this redirect to stick around. If the page didn't belong in draftspace, then this redirect shouldn't exist either. —
AP 499D25(talk) 09:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: There's at least
tens of similar redirects. Assuming that this redirect gets deleted (for other reasons than
G7), the other ones should presumably be deleted too, though I haven't individually checked each of them for substantial page history or pageview oddities.
Dsuke1998AEOS (
talk) 18:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for obvious severe neutrality concerns. There's also "Gaza concentration camp" and "Gaza extermination camp" which I'm too lazy to include at the moment.
Anonymous 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Retarget to
Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), per
WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not need to be neutral. The term has seen some use
[20][21], however I am not sure if it qualifies as common use. However my suggested retarget contains more information about deaths in Gaza strip.
Catalk to me! 08:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget as per Ca. As mentioned,
WP:RNEUTRAL dictates that redirects do not need to be neutral; not only are redirects much harder to see (your average reader isn't going to use the "what links here" tool), but also, if someone were to use a non-neutral search term for whatever reason (for example, "hey, I've heard this term being batted around, what the heck are people talking about?"), we shouldn't keep them from reaching the information we have on the topic.I agree that the Gaza Humanitarian Crisis article is a better target than Gaza Strip. However, barring the retarget, I would prefer keep over deletion.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
However,
Lunamann, in your example, the person would not actually learn anything about the term and simply be redirected to a vaguely relevant article. You are certainly right that being useful is more important than neutrality when it comes to redirects, but the fact that the redirect has had exactly one view barring yesterday, having been around for about a month, does not help its case on that end either.
Anonymous 18:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget as per Ca.
BugGhost🪲👻 12:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, at most this is a flowery epithet. It may not even be a single term, "death camp" serves as a descriptor for Gaza
[22][23][24]. The term serves no navigational use as a redirect, anyone who knows about the Gaza strip would be searching for that, and anyone who is genuinely seeking it out as a term will only be obliquely helped by redirecting to the humanitarian crisis. Another consideration is that searching Gaza death camp without quotes on google brings up actual specific camps, such as the
Sde Teiman detention camp, and it does seem a plausible descriptor for that too.
CMD (
talk) 07:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, deprecated, WP:CBALL, check the talk pages for the complete rationale
Artem S. Tashkinov (
talk) 13:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – this redirect is definitely 'obsolete' as "Skymont" now officially refers to the E-core architecture used in
Lunar Lake, see sources here:
[25],
[26], which is completely different to the Cannon Lake processor series. The "Skymont (microarchitecture)" redirect is especially misleading, as Cannon Lake is a microprocessor series, not a microarchitecture, which are two highly different things. Though, I should mention that this redirect doesn't need to be deleted per se for someone to create an article about the Skymont E-core architecture; you can just simply overwrite the redirect with an article. —
AP 499D25(talk) 09:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Partisan or
Partisan (military). My impression is that "Partisan movement" is a generic concept that does not imply Yugoslavia. For example, it could refer to Italian partisans, among others. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but add a hatnote. Searches indicate that the current target is the clear primary topic for this term, but there should be a hatnote either to an existing dab page or a new specific one.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to partisan, as this is a generic term, and this is not the Balkan-topics-only Wikipedia --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 04:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no content about cat poisons in the article, and very little about toxicity of foods to cats in either this article or
Cat food. There's a couple sentence stub in the article history, but I doubt it would survive AFD in its current form, so I think this can just be deleted, because I don't see a good retargeting option that I can think of. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget as per Traumnovelle and Skarmory. Anyone looking for what might be poisonous to cats via searching "cat poison" would be well served by this new target.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per above, straightforward retarget.
Catalk to me! 05:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per the above.
Glades12 (
talk) 06:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The target is obvious as above, but I just want to raise the point that it's possible this redirect is unethical. Someone searching this specific phrase is likely looking for the analog to "rat poison", as in, a substance to deliberately put out to kill cats... and it sits wrong with me that we would so quickly provide that information. I know, I know, wikipedia is
not censored... just want to raise the concern here.
Fieari (
talk) 23:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Cat health#Toxic substances per above. Fieari's concern is appreciated although my GSearch seems to show that this term's result is mostly about what to do if you suspect you're cat has been poisoned. --
Lenticel(
talk) 06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This title is not a plausible error for "professional wrestling", to put it mildly. My searches for "Pkiro Wrokestling" didn't turn up any meaningful results, though weirdly a Facebook account mentions it.
However, it would appear that this redirect has "non-trivial page history". Its original content is identical to a past version of the main article (01:06, 12 April 2008). My guess is that the user who created it was upset that their "professional wrestling is fake" version of the article had been reverted and decided to surreptitiously create a
fork by messing up with the title. Anyway, while I agree that pro wrestling is not a genuine sport, delete this redirect for being patently implausible and for not having page history worth preserving.
Dsuke1998AEOS (
talk) 18:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Any substantial page history it has is, as noted, already preserved in the history of
Professional wrestling. It's not a genuine sport because it's a theatre performance. Full-contact, no-holds barred, theatre. Calling it fake is like going to a stage play and calling Macbeth fake, like yeah, it is, but is that really the point??𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Stone Temple Pilots (1994 album)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn.
The title seems ambiguous over whether it should refer to guest stars in the series (in which case it would redirect to
List of The Simpsons guest stars (seasons 21–present)) or in-universe fictional characters who are celebrities (the current purpose of the redirect).
Xeroctic (
talk) 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I call for a deletion of this title as it isn't/wasn't its proper name for it. Created by now-inactive user who was at first unsure about a proper titling of this article.
Intrisit (
talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If this is unambiguous it seems harmless.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --
BDD (
talk) 18:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - the redirect is in a standard form and therefore likely searchable.
GiantSnowman 18:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per GiantSnowman's response. —
Jkudlick ⚓
(talk) 20:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no mention of "Megabucks" at the target, meaning that this redirect is confusing or unnecessary.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 11:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect should be deleted, as all it serves is to redirect the Singaporean Basketball player Kelvin Lim to the completely unrelated criminal Kelvin Lim Hock Hin. There is no relation mentioned anywhere online or on Kelvin Lim Hock Hin's page.
JubaTuba (
talk) 05:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is a
WP:PTM and nom clearly lays out how it could be harmful. I will note that unless someone makes an actual page for Kelvin Lim, this issue will still persist in a form-- the search results pulled up by searching Kelvin Lim will still likely have Kelvin Lim Hock Hin at the very top of the list due to it being a partial title match.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 06:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The nom has not established notability of the basketball player. There's no case for REDLINK, since this is a valid alternate spelling of the name for the criminal. It is his "English name" in the Singaporean context. If the basketball player gets an article, then this can be revisited. --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 07:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for safety. If someone is named Kelvin Lim, it could be devastating if someone googled their name and got this page. This is a
WP:BLP-adjacent issue.
Fieari (
talk) 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The current target article's person is named "Kelvin Lim", it's right there in the infobox. Does that mean we need to delete all redirects to all criminals? Make criminal biographies impossible to find? What if there's some other person who is named "Kelvin Lim Hock Hin without an article somewhere in the world? Does that mean we need to hide this biography? There are many people in the world who share names with criminals. That's just life. People get harrassed at airports all the time because they have the same name as someone on the no-fly list. These incidents sometimes show up on local news.
WP:NOTCENSORED Wikipedia is not censored. --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep because practically there was no other person on a Wikipedia article with the same name by the way. But I still understand your reasons (all of them are valid) to nominate this for deletion or something, and I accept it even if the result is delete. Alternatively if in the future, another Kelvin Lim made his way into Wikipedia as another unrelated article, I suggest we can still revive the redirect to include the same Kelvin Lims into a sort of disambiguation page. --
NelsonLee20042020 (
talk) 06:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Besides, I checked the Wikipedia and search on Google, but I did not find a Wikipedia page about the Singaporean basketball player who got the same name. --
NelsonLee20042020 (
talk) 06:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This person has an English given name "Kelvin" and a surname "Lim" and a Chinese given name "Hock Hin", thus this is a valid redirect from the "English name" rendering of his name "Kelvin Lim". It is a valid redirect. There is no other topic article on Wikipedia who uses this name. Alternately, disambiguate with Kelvin Lim Yong Sheng, a Singaporean field hockey player and silver medalist at the
Field hockey at the 2007 SEA Games. Kelvin Lim Leong Keat, a sailor who won gold for
Malaysia at the 2001 SEA Games, Kelvin Lim Kok Peng, a Singaporean zoologist, for which the species
Tioman Island rock gecko (Cnemaspis limi) is named for. Kelvin Lim, the defence lawyer in the
Orchard Towers double murders case and
Koh Swee Beng case and
Yishun triple murders and
Murder of William Tiah Hung Wai case. Clearly the basketball player isn't more notable. --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 07:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Is this basketball player also called Kelvin Lim Hong Da / Hong Da Kelvin Lim / Kelvin Hong Da Lim / Lim Hong Da / Hong Da Lim ?
[28][29]. Because, that should be the name of the basketball player's article then, and not just "Kelvin Lim" --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 07:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - per 64.229.90.32 and NelsonLee20042020. "Kelvin Lim" is a name that Kelvin Lim Hock Hin used - it's listed in "Other names" in the infobox, and he is referred to as just "Kelvin Lim" 5 times in the body of the article. Whether or not there's also a basketball player who has a similar name the redirect is valid and correct. If the basketball player ever becomes notable enough to get an article and it's also asserted that they are recognised by the name "Kelvin Lim", then maybe a disambiguation page can be created - but for now it's fine as-is.
BugGhost🪲👻 11:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Rhododendrites.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and mark historical per Tavix and Steel below is a much better idea.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Until very recently the page looked like
this, but I redirected it to preserve history (not sure if
WP:MFD is better, but the ones sent there were never used IIRC), and then Wow sent it here. I redirected it because (1) it has not been transcluded at
Talk:COVID-19 for quite some time (not sure when it was removed), and (2) all three points are clearly outdated. Point 1 mandates using text that is not used anymore, including the long-disproven claim that COVID-19 is not airborne. Point 2 is about not using the "current" template; this is obviously pointless now. Point 3 refers to a gif that appears nowhere in the present version of the article; it was clearly superseded at some point. All 3 points are from March and April 2020, hence over four years old. Crossroads-talk- 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I'm good with restoring and marking as historical. I just didn't know what else to do in this unusual situation. Crossroads-talk- 00:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If a redirect is unwanted, how about just slapping a {{historical}} template on the page and call it a day? --
Tavix(
talk) 21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, restore and mark historical was my vote, but then the edit got lost with a real life interruption.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and mark as Historical as per Tavix and Steel. Seems like a better method of preserving history while still making it clear that the points presented are outdated and unused.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bear with me. This was originally an article by the now-blocked editor User:Kintetsubuffalo, which was deleted at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakh Guide Association. After deletion it became a redirect to
Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan, pretty much a disambiguation page with only one blue link, to
Organization of the Scout Movement of Kazakhstan. That Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan would be a redirect to the Organization article is fair--but the rest of that content is just not of encyclopedic value, and the "Guide Association" material has only
this as sourcing, a primary Girl Scout document which doesn't even mention the association. So I have turned Scouting and Guiding into a redirect (in three steps, explaining why), but this is not a valid search term/redirect. The very existence of the term is already questionable: Google offers nothing but things derived from Wikipedia.
Drmies (
talk) 22:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Matriotism" not mentioned in target, let alone the British flavour.
Matriotism itself redirects to
Cindy Sheehan, where it is also not mentioned.
This article claims she "founded a movement" called matriotism, but redirecting to her (American) article would not be appropriate for this redirect in any case.
Possibly
Matriotism should be retargeted to
Frances Payne Adler, the coiner of the term, and then British matriotism retargeted there as well? But that's a bit of a stretch. Overall, in favor of deletion of this redirect (and retargeting
Matriotism).
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Adler's claim is dubious at best. See
this 1894 publication. Perhaps
wikt:matriotism (uncapitalized) is the way to go (for 'matriotism'), as it also lists 1894 as the origin.
Matriot does not exist. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteBritish matriotism as we have no good target. CrosswikiMatriotism to wiktionary, which was a very interesting read actually; the diverse cited meanings and dates for those citations kinda tell a story in and of themselves!
Fieari (
talk) 23:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I cannot find any references referring to the target as such. However, on third party search engines, I did find recipes for burger sandwiches containing peanut butter and a ground beef patty, which is not what the target article is about.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure what you mean. It's the Elvis sandwich. The article is about that. They sold peanut butter burgers at
Sonic Drive-In for a while there. It was just a variant of the Elvis sandwich.
Here is where the article discusses peanut butter burgers.
Noah Tall (
talk) 05:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know about you but around here peanut butter burgers have nothing to do with Elvis. It's your standard burger, but you replace the sauce/mayonaise/condiments with peanut butter. E.g.
[30] "PEANUT BUTTER BURGER: Fresh beef patty, peanut butter (on both buns), lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, cheddar cheese, and bacon."
I'm not so sure, Noah.
Here's an article about the Sonic peanut butter burger, and it clearly has a ground beef patty and no bananas in sight. Also, the "discussion" in the article regarding peanut butter burgers is a single sentence, which could be easily removed from the article without breaking the flow of the article, only states that "burgers done Elvis style have become increasingly popular in the United States", and whose only source given is
this recipe for an Elvis burger.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of modes of transport being numbered on the target page. the phrase "fourth mode of transport" doesn't appear to have a common specific referent, though there do seem to be four common modes of transport generally talked about. google gives lots of quizzes about "what are the four modes of transport", but they don't seem to have any particular canonical order. "Fourth mode of transport" has only 3 hits, all of which talk about adding a fourth mode to some existing network.
Rusalkii (
talk) 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as vague. I'm getting GSearch hits ranging from the hyperloop and mobility as a service to walking as the fourth mode of transport. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep "4th mode" is a generic term to refer to a non-traditional form of transport that is supposedly to take the world by storm, and become the next regular transport mode. As such the target covers various modes of transport, so people should be able to look for some unusual or non-traditional form of transport from those listed at the target. --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as unmentioned. If the IP is correct, and "fourth mode of transport" is a term for "the next great currently-nontraditional form of transport that WILL take the world by storm, I promise, don't look at all the failures before us", then this being redirected to
Modes of transport is a bad idea-- someone searching for "fourth mode of transport" would be ill-served by being given an article about modes of transport in general, with zero information on the term in question.
WP:REDLINKing would be better help-- inviting someone to write an article about, say, the history of the term, what forms of transport have attempted to use the term as their claim to fame, et cetera.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, giving this some thought, I do not think this is correct. The phrase is not mentioned in the target article, and most likely readers searching this term are intending to either find some topic related to
Alarm or a quote from some media ... which the latter can be difficult to pinpoint since there is apparently a lot of media that reference an "intruder alert" either in context or a quote.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
insert berzerk joke here per the discussion three entries below this one. also delete as too widespread for a primary topic but too unremarkable on its own for a disambig cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 20:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. Worth noting that
Intruder is a DAB page, and probably wouldn't be a good target for this redirect.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
it pains me to say this, but the pokémon games don't seem to be the primary topic for mentions of those two specific minerals together. torn on retargeting to
garnet (steven universe) as she's a fusion of the characters known as ruby and sapphire, to the
list of steven universe characters as it includes ruby and sapphire, or just deleting, but will lean towards retargeting to the list cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keepRuby and Sapphire as marginally the primary tropic for that capitalization (over the Steven character{s}). RetargetRuby and sapphire to
Corundum as the primary topic for that capitalization. DeleteRuby / Sapphire due to ill-formatting and ambiguity. Hatnote as appropriate. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteRuby / Sapphire and RetargetRuby and sapphire as per Godsy; his argument as per Ruby / Sapphire being ambiguous and poorly formatted is sound, and the lowercase "sapphire" means that it shouldn't be taken to be a proper name. Keep with hatnoteRuby and Sapphire; while Garnet is and remains my favorite ship (and ship name) in all of media, I find the idea that she's Primary here (over the best-selling GBA title) to be a case of
WP:RECENTISM.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
DisambiguateRuby and Sapphire as there are multiple possible meanings. RetargetRuby and sapphire to the disambiguation and delete the third one as oddly formatted.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 22:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Under
WP:TOOSOON and
WP:CRYSTALBALL. As
Spleodrach said, this by-election may never happen. Until it does, we don't need a page for this, or for the other vacancies which may be confirmed by this evening.
Iveagh Gardens (
talk) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Spleodrach and Iveagh Gardens. Not announced, may never happen, and if it does, it is perfectly possible that it could actually be held in 2025.
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"intruder alert" currently redirects to
trespasser. don't think this line is or can feasibly be primarily associated with berzerk quite like... all the other lines. google's results are confusing, but mostly seem to point to assorted movie lines and an achievement in a lego batman game. a little torn on voting for retargeting or deletion, but will lean towards retargeting cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. A quote used in several media sources that would be improper to redirect to
Trespasser since it's probably most famous as a quote. (Hmm ... I wonder if this quote is on Wikiquote ... haven't checked yet, not sure if I will.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
...Okay, so I
searched Wikiquote, and this phrase appears in several places. Yeah, best to delete as vague.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
how confusing would it be if all those instances coincidentally happened to be references to berzerk? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article. The target article mentions used of technology, but the use of the word "technical" is not exclusive to technology. In addition, if the word "technical" is meant to refer to technology, then arguably the most technological-heavy music genre is
Electronic music. Probably best to delete this vague redirect.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to refer. Third party search engines do not seem to know what this means either ... given the top results I receive when looking up this phrase relate to
Justin Bieber.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nonsensical topic. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 18:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Telling google I really do mean "Bienver metal" when I put it in quotes finds only this redirect and derivatives.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can confirm the above. I also checked out what "Bienver" on its own went to, and it seems this is a common name in some part of the world. My bet is that someone with this name, or a fan of someone with this name, wanted wikipedia to say that their name was synonymous with heavy metal.
Fieari (
talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above editors' findings --
Lenticel(
talk) 08:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Redirects are cheap, and this is unambiguous. Also, it doesn't seem like an unlikely search term IMO. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 17:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to DAB page as per Mathnerd and Thryduulf, while also tagging as Incomplete Disambiguation. I will admit, I was about to recommend that the redirect be kept as per Presidentman before I saw Thryduulf note that
Under the influence was a DAB page. That said, even if you take "...of alcohol" as a disambiguator, that still leaves
Alcohol intoxication and
Driving under the influence as potential hits, both of which are near the top of the DAB page.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I normally like DABs as redirect targets, but this one has so many entries for unrelated albums and intoxication by means other than alcohol that I feel being targeted here might cause
WP:SURPRISE. The trouble is that this really does have two potential targets:
Alcohol intoxication or
Driving under the influence, both of which are located at that DAB amidst everything else... but again, I'm worried that the weight of the "everything else" could cause confusion. Does anyone else think a mini-DAB with just those two links would be okay, or am I impugning the intelligence of potential wikipedia users by thinking they'd get confused here?
Fieari (
talk) 23:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, the thing is, both of the potential targets here are at the very top of the
Under the influence DAB, separated by exactly one non-alcohol result (
Altered state of consciousness, and even that DOES have information pertaining to alcohol-- after all, ethanol itself IS a drug). Add on the fact that I'm fairly certain most of the music/media links are using "Under the Influence" as a shorthand for "Under the Influence of Alcohol", and I'd say that it shouldn't cause too much confusion or surprise.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with your reasoning in opposing simply retargeting, but I still feel this term is unambiguous enough to warrant keeping as BugGhost elaborates on below.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 22:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - if a user searches "Under the influence of alcohol", its extremely likely they want
Alcohol intoxication. There's no implication they're searching for anything related to driving (you can do anything "under the influence of alcohol") and the inclusion of "of alcohol" in the term means they weren't searching for drug-based intoxication, or any of the various topics that are simply called "Under the influence" listed on the
Under the influence disambig page.
BugGhost🪲👻 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason someone might be looking for
Driving under the influence is that "under the influence" is specifically the term used within a DUI, whereas it's not common to speak about intoxication in those terms outside the context of the law about "no drunk driving". But you're right that someone searching the term might be interested in general alcohol intoxication as well since they expressly dropped the "driving" part of the search... which is why we've been suggesting disambiguation. Both possibilities are there for what the searcher wants.
Fieari (
talk) 23:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand your suggestion, but this might just be a cultural thing - to me "under the influence" isn't a phrase that is linked to driving. I am aware that in North America drunk-driving is called DUI, but that isn't (as far as I am aware) a global term. There's no reason to assume they they expressly dropped the "driving" part of the search, for the same reason you can't assume anyone who went to
Sandwich really was searching for
Ham sandwich and but dropped the word "ham". There are a lot of usage of "under the influence of alcohol" that have no relation with driving - eg. this Nature article:
[31], this Forbes article
[32], this article by The Conversation:
[33] - all of these directly relate to
Alcohol intoxication. "Under the influence of alcohol" is a direct synonym with "Alcohol intoxication" - a redirect to any other article (or disambiguation page), in my eyes, would be incorrect.
BugGhost🪲👻 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The Porsche Taycan 'Turbo' models don't actually have a turbocharger, it's just a namesake for a higher-performance model of a car. In that sense, it's kinda misleading. I did a google search, and 'electric turbo' doesn't seem to be a common nickname for the Taycan Turbo models either. Now, looking at retarget options, there does exist
electric supercharger (I know technically there's no such thing as an "electric turbo" but that's what {{R from incorrect name}} is for), but having a look at that article, there also exists
electrically-assisted turbocharger, so I'm not sure where to retarget it to. —
AP 499D25(talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 17:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate the term can also refer to electric-motor-assist power boost (ie. hybrid vehicle with electric assist drive mode, to add power to the gasoline engine's power output) as "turbo" can just refer to a power boost. --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For some reason, the Hungarian name of a TV show was redirected there in 2007, without explanation. It's obviously unused, nor are other language names for the same TV show redirected, and there is practically no reader traffic. Diacriticless variants were created next year by bots as well.
Joy (
talk) 17:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
while this is a key symptom of anemia, this redirect does not lead to the actual topic, rather a cause of the symptom Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Is there another disease that causes conjunctival pallor? –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 14:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's only really observed in anemia, but this is because it is mostly looked for when diagnosing anemia. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Anaemia isn't a disease, it's a symptom of many diseases. I am not aware of any condition that causes it aside from anaemia but I still see it as a bad redirect.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 22:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Scientists of the early modern period often encoded key discoveries as anagrams to establish priority before publication. These should all target
Anagram#Establishment of priority, or they should all target the relevant topics they encode:
Rings of Saturn#History for the first two, and
Hooke's law for the latter. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep 1 and 2, neutral 3** – This is fascinating. I think this article describes the anagram itself the best. It's not a particularly useful redirect, but you can imagine someone hiding this specific anagram as an easter egg in some work, in which case this redirect would serve very well. The third one is only explained in a note, which makes me more happy to delete. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah the target seemed to be the biggest question. I think we should simply make the target wherever the nature of the anagram is best explained. Further needed wikilinks are there. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat) 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
All should point to the Anagram article. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget/Keep all three to
Anagram#Establishment of priority, which also links to the articles about the actual discovery as well, so all needs are covered. The primary topic is definitely the anagram itself, however, which is why they should target the anagram article section where it is discussed in detail.
Fieari (
talk) 23:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hurt (Witt Lowry song)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
Disambig. There is no clear primary topic on Wikipedia, with both current and proposed targets being in use alongside
Multiple working#First-generation. On Google there is a clear primary topic but it's plants not any of the preceding. Looking closer there are at least three different types referred to an
Aglaonema, Ornithogalum dubium and a
Hosta cultivar.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to K-type main-sequence starStellar classification#Class K per
WP:DIFFCAPS and
WP:PTOPIC. For the plant names above... if the google hits Thryduulf mentioned qualify as
WP:RS, then the information should be added, and
Orange Star (with the title case) should be made into the disambiguation page (and a hatnote on the
K-type main-sequence star should link to it). However, without the title case, I don't think the plant names would really count here, and capitalization matters. This is reliant on the google hits being reliable sources, however. Currently, closest mention is that
Ornithogalum dubium says it is sometimes called a "sun star", not an orange star.
Fieari (
talk) 23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter whether uses of a term are in reliable sources or not, only that they are used. In the case of most of the hits I have no idea if they are reliable or not (it's not a topic area I'm familiar with) however the
Royal Horticultural Society is definitely reliable.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If it was a matter of being a redirect directly to one of the flowers, I'd agree that a reliable source is not needed, just evidence of use... but for creating a user-facing disambiguation page, I'd think we do need a reliable source. (Please correct me if I'm wrong though, I try to be aware of wikipedia policy, but I don't know everything.) Certainly we'd need a reliable source to put it in the articles directly, and it would be flat-out weird to have a disambiguation page pointing to an article that didn't mention what the DAB says.
Fieari (
talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: if this redirect is retargeted, it should point to
Stellar classification#Class K as {{R from avoided double redirect}}, because
K-type star redirects there. Because the title of the redirect is 'Orange star' and not 'Orange main-sequence star' or 'Orange dwarf', this could also refer to subgiant, giant or supergiant stars, so it should not specifically target
K-type main-sequence star and should go to K-type star (or in this case where K-type star redirects).
InterstellarGamer12321 (
talk |
contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Good point! I'll adjust my !vote above.
Fieari (
talk) 23:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I watch at the horticulture and gardening project, and I came here from Thryduulf's note. My impression is that the plant names, as common names, are not as useful as search terms as the Latin binomials, so I would go with retargeting the redirect according to the astronomy nomenclature, whatever that may be. It might be fairly common to refer to the Ornithogalum that way, but I think it would be somewhat atypical for Aglaonema, and downright bizarre for Hosta. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I like that DAB page. I sort-of like the second idea, of keeping it as a DAB page and using hatnotes, but I think that depends on what the astronomy-oriented editors think about what should be the primary topic, and I'll defer to them. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 20:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My feeling is that the star is still likely the
WP:PTOPIC, but there should be a hatnote linking to the very good DAB you've made there. (A section hatnote in this case, since the star redirect points to a specific section.)
Fieari (
talk) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The evidence from my searching is that there is no primary topic. The dab should be at the base name.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Per the
page view comparison of the current target, the nominated redirect, and Doug Lawrence (jazz) (which I have since moved to
Doug Lawrence (musician), which is now included in the page view analysis), it really does not seem as though readers searching "Doug Lawrence" are intending to locate
Mr. Lawrence. I'd recommend disambiguate since it is not clear that readers are looking for the jazz musician either.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, especially as there is also a third person,
Douglas Lawrence, who could/should be included on a dab page. This person is an organist, which might explain the "(jazz)" disambiguator.
Rosbif73 (
talk) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
...And
Doug Lawrence (disambiguation) created, now that there are >2 possible targets; the page can be moved to the redirect's title if the consensus is to disambiguate.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirect has a different target than it had during the RFD in 2019, but still has the same problem: The redirect is not exclusive to Canada as there are French speakers around the world, like in ...
France and
Louisiana, neither part of Canada.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In Canadian French, "Francophones hors Québec" refers specifically to French speakers that live in a Canadian province or territory that is not Quebec.
[34] It does not apply to those living in other countries. That being said, this is en.wiki, and I don't know if English-language sources use "French-speakers outside of Quebec" in this sense.
162 etc. (
talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. While the expression can be found in English-language Canadian publications, where the context makes the "elsewhere in Canada" meaning clear, it does not make much sense without that context, nor does it appear to be a widely used set expression that people might search for or link to. Indeed, there are no incoming links to this redirect.
Rosbif73 (
talk) 07:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer or identify. The closest subject I could find for this title is
Ragnarock, but given that is an article about a record label whereas this redirect has seemingly always targeted a page about music genres, I do not believe readers would be trying to find the record label when searching the redirect's title.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM. The target subject no longer untitled, and the article was moved to its current title in February 2024, 4 months ago, which is greater than
WP:UFILM's 30-day minimum.
Steel1943 (
talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Once again the point of UFILM is not that we wait exactly 30 days, but that we wait until the redirects have ceased being useful (30 days being the bottom end of the typical range of time when that occurs). In this case it's still being used on more days that it isn't indicating that the redirect still holds value and the nomination is premature.
Thryduulf (
talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
See also my reply above regarding page views. 12 views in 30 days is closer to minimal than the 27 you are claiming above, but double figure views spread pretty evenly through the 30 days strongly indicate utility. That it's been longer than the minimum time means nothing other than it's been longer than the minimum time, as I explained in the comment you are replying to (did you read it?). There is no maximum time - if it's useful (which the evidence shows it still is) then it should be kept, regardless of how long it's been.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for validating that my page view claim contains factual information.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf. I see no valid
reason for deleting and "someone finds them useful" is good enough for
WP:R#KEEP. Delete it once the film is released or another is in production, when the redirect might cause confusion with the next film.
Daask (
talk) 22:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding revisiting this when "...another is in production...": That means this redirect should exist for an estimated average of almost 40 years!? I may no longer be able to care by then for multiple reasons.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The evidence shows otherwise.
Thryduulf (
talk) 23:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM, no longer untitled post 30 days. --
Tavix(
talk) 21:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf's "it's useful to someone" argument, which is a valid keep reason.
Fieari (
talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A quick explainer on the history of this redirect: Initially,
Raisi had been a redirect to
Raisi, Razavi Khorasan (an article about a tiny village). Later on, I moved the article to its present title, intending to disambiguate the base title. However, I then noticed that
Raisi (disambiguation) already existed, so I made a request at
WP:RM/TR, which was promptly fulfilled. Thus,
Raisi became a dab page, with
Raisi (disambiguation) a redirect to it. In the last chapter of this saga, IP user
2601:646:8003:6B20:894E:7841:319C:88CA redirected the page to
Ebrahim Raisi, so the page
Raisi (disambiguation) was automatically retargeted as well. However, since it has (disambiguation) in the title, it's eligible for deletion under
G14 if kept as is.
I see two (or maybe three) options out of this strange pickle:
Firstly (and what I advocate), we could restore the dab page at
Raisi, and retargetRaisi (disambiguation) to
Raisi. This restores the previous status quo.
Secondly, we could have
Raisi as a redirect to
Ebrahim Raisi, and
Raisi (disambiguation) be the dab page. I have at least two issues with this: firstly, that
Ebrahim Raisi might not pass
ten year test, despite his newfound fame due to his death. Plus, here's also the technical history of attribution when dabbing
Raisi (disambiguation). However, if there's enough support for it, I could see this work.
Thirdly, and the option I'd oppose the most, we keepRaisi, speedy deleteRaisi (disambiguation), and handle disambiguation via some sort of massive hatnote(s) on the article
Ebrahim Raisi. The reason I'd oppose this so much is because the hatnote(s) would have to be enormous - the previous dab page had ten entries, plus one see also.
Option 1: Restore Raisi as a disambiguation page. Ibrahim Raisi was not primarily known by that name, so
WP:DABPARTIAL applies. --
Ahecht (
TALK PAGE) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think option 2 is best. The late president is certainly the primary topic here and most likely was even before his death. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 12:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option 2, even if the president doesn't hold that much power compared to the Supreme Leader, he is still the primary topic here.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If the hatnote on top of the village article is actually correct, and there is substantial ambiguity about what a toponym of "Raisi" means in Iran, we should keep a disambiguation list. The location of the list, whether at the base name or separately, depends on whether the average English reader strongly associates the term with the person. It looks like we already have articles about
Heshmat Raisi and
Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi, so this word is not uncommon in anthroponymy. I'd err on the side of caution and put disambiguation at the base name, and observe traffic patterns for a few months afterwards. If we see that the preponderance of readers go for the single person, then we go for the redirect. Because of the recent death of the proposed primary topic, there's obvious
WP:Recentism here. --
Joy (
talk) 11:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlikely misspelling of "Catholic" not commonly found in the world, or in comparable redirects to any other of thousands of diocese with articles in Wikipedia.
BD2412T 23:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ca: Is it really a "variant", or just a scanno/typo (e.g.,
[39])? Whatever it is, it's certainly not "common". For example, Newspapers.com gets about 70 million hits for "Catholic" and 11,000 for "Catholid", but almost all of those are immediately apparent as scannos.
BD2412T 01:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point. The examples I cited appear to be errors. However, I think it is still a realistic misspelling since it can be also viewed as a missapplication of the suffix
-id.
Catalk to me! 13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I realize this is a bit of stretch, so I am crossing out my earlier keep; weak delete.
Catalk to me! 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead? In any case, this article title has 35 letters on it. A typical letter on a QWERTY keyboard has on average, roughly 5 adjacent other symbols (not including the space bar here). That means that there are about 2910383045673370361328125 possible one-letter-off typos for this article title alone. This one only exists because someone happened to make it when creating the article before it got moved, leaving a redirect in its wake. It's thus not a useful redirect. And RTYPO even says "This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future." There's no real need to keep this; it just pollutes article space and the search bar.
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead?....What?2910383045673370361328125 of possible one-letter-off typos for this article title aloneThis is irrelevant as per
WP:OTHERSTUFF; pointing out how many "similar redirects" can be made does not and cannot be a measure of how useful a redirect is. (This is also simply a restated
WP:PANDORA argument, so
User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box still applies.)RTYPO even says ""This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future.""It's still what I feel to be the most relevant test we have considering the only thing wrong with this redirect is that it is a single letter off.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per the IP. When you have this long of a title, a single-character typo becomes less useful, especially for something where you switch hands from the previous character (OLI are on the right hand, and then you switch to left for C/D). It's not like
United Stated, where the error is at the end of nine letters all typed by the same hand, and thus more likely to make. It's also not like "
Cath0lic", where the characters are both adjacent and somewhat similar in appearance. Also, because it's so much longer, probably many people visiting this article will copy/paste the title from somewhere else, unlike my contrary examples, which are short enough that almost everyone would just type them. Finally, check the dictionary for "literally"; it contrasts with "figuratively", which wouldn't make sense here, so you didn't need "literally" at all.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a turn of phrase, idk why y'all are getting so hung up on my use of the word 'literally' x3
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That same dictionary also lists "literally" as a synonym of "really", or "actually". The word literally helps to place emphasis on one's words.
Catalk to me! 16:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Plausible typo as demonstrated by Ca above, which makes it a valid redirect. I likewise reject pandora arguments, as redirects are
WP:CHEAP. The questions should be "Is this ambiguous? Is it harmful? Will it cause confusion? Is it implausible?" and the answer is no to all.
Fieari (
talk) 23:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a misspelling. I changed the redirect target because i believe that 'IRC +10414' is a misspelling of IRC -10414 and is the better redirect target so far. An article about this star likely will be never created due to notability issues.
InTheAstronomy32 (
talk) 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This was never an article, and it isn't mentioned at either target. No pageviews in the last month. I really don't see how this redirect is helpful. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Agreed with Presidentman here and Kusma from the prefious RfD, but I'd like to add that the naming scheme of the star is very intentional (from
Two-Micron Sky Survey: index consists of two numbers - declination rounded to multiplier of 10 degrees, with sign, and star ordinal number within declination band) and if you typo the sign you should expect to be taken to a different star or nowhere. ―
Synpath 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 10:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per the consensus of arguments in the previous RfD, which I find more compelling than the alternatives.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, not mentioned at
Two-Micron Sky Survey, and people looking for the other star and making the typo might believe that the star actually doesn't have a standalone article, while a red link can be more indicative of them having made a typo.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 19:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete it isn't a usable misspelling since it is a different star. That star is not currently in Wikipedia. so either stub up an article, or delete the redirect --
64.229.90.32 (
talk) 08:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
An article about IRC +10414 is likely to be never created, it is just a faint Mira variable that fails
WP:NASTRO. Deleting also would not be helpful, it is better to retain this page as a redirect to
IRC -10414 since it is a plausible misspelling.
21 Andromedae (
talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Could also refer to subtopics of
Chemical element or
Periodic table. However, I'm thinking the best course of action is delete since I do not believe retargeting this redirect to
Metal (disambiguation) is a feasible resolution since there doesn't seem to be sufficient entries there that relate to this redirect, and I'm not sure if they belong there either.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I...probably agree? I'm not entirely sure what this redirect is supposed to be alluding to. Do they mean "metal group" in the same way you'd allude to a heavy metal music band as a "metal band"? If that's the case, the disambiguation of it makes no sense.
Sergecross73msg me 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Revising to Delete. As mentioned below, it looks like this was simply a
WP:BLAR that was a quick-fix for eliminating a bogus article many years ago.
Sergecross73msg meSergecross73msg me 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. It looks like the page started as a joke article. It's too ambiguous to be redirecting anywhere.
Nurg (
talk) 08:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - there are too many interpretations for Metal (group). They could be looking for a specific metallic group in the periodic table (such as
Alkali metal aka
Group 1 element), or under the misconception that
metals are themselves a
group in the periodic table. They may be looking for heavy metal bands in general, or for a specific band called "Metal" that does not have an article yet. To vague to have a redirect to anywhere specific
BugGhost🪲👻 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Ambiguous, especially due to the unique relationship this word has with 'group' in varying contexts. No good section at
Metal (disambiguation) either. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: For what it's worth, the only band named just "
Metal" (and not "metal" plus other words) is from Australia, they started in 2006, released an album in 2013, and... that it. It's even unclear if they're still active or not. In any case, they will likely not pass the threshold of notability. It may have also meant "Group (metal)", as in "heavy metal band" ("Grupo" is sometimes used in Spanish to talk about rock bands, but although that word translates to English as "group", that specific meaning does not). If that was the idea, it was so badly written that it is useless as a redirect.
Cambalachero (
talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A redirect in Hindi language, I don't think anyone is going to search Baalveer in hindi on English Wikipedia.
M S Hassan (
talk) 09:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Based on observations by DreamRimmer and Ca below. --
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This is the Hindi name for a Hindi television series, so there is sufficient affinity that this is not a straightforward
WP:RFOREIGN case. Whether it useful though, I'm undecided.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is definitely a useful redirect. I don't see any reason to delete it. –
DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It is unambigous and directs readers to the correct location. Many people use Wikipedia in Hindi-speaking countries. They may have forgotten the correct romanization in English.
Catalk to me! 12:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ca Baalveer is a simple name and easy to remember in its romanized form. Given its straightforward transliteration, it's unlikely that users will forget its English spelling. Additionally, this article exists on Hindi Wikipedia, which caters to users searching in Hindi script. Therefore, maintaining a Hindi script redirect on the English Wikipedia seems redundant and unnecessary.
M S Hassan (
talk) 15:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
wp:rlang says it's fine if something is notable in and/or originates from any given language are fine to keep so for example, "
brasil" is a perfectly usable redirect to brazil, as that's its name in whatever language brazil uses, but
Брази́лия wouldn't be as fine, since it's in a completely unrelated language (in this case, russian). so keep per that cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Michael Aarons
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete (G6) as unambiguously created in error
Keep: when you search "Bible Videos" in Wikipedia the first entry was the
List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, the other article that would make sense under this redirect was
BibleProject, but this is an organization, and yes they make Bible videos too but they are less popular than the Church makes and they separate them as "Old Testament" and "New Testament", and not "Bible Videos", in their YouTube channel description, they dont say they make "Bible Videos", but "free resources to help you experience the Bible".
Furawi (
talk) 05:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but add a hatnote. I was very surprised to find that the current target is the clear primary topic when googling for "Bible Vidoes" -Wikipedia but it is.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per above. The LDS have apparently done some really effective SEO here, but speaking as a former Christian, I'm pretty darn sure that "bible videos" is a generic term for any Christian or other religious media that tries to depict a story from the bible, or is a video taped sermon/lecture/bible study.
Fieari (
talk) 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
disambiguate. keeping would feel like if "
music video" redirected to
iosys, or if "
fast food" redirected to
mcdonald's. there's really no point in redirecting a basic concept like this to a single entity cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 02:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify as per Thryduulf. While it's true that Google points to the LDS as "primary", that's something I find baffling-- Surely at the very least
Veggietales or
The Prince of Egypt or any number of other mainstream, more-generally-Christian videos and films would be primary over the Mormon videos. The lists Thryduulf grabbed have links to those films and more. Good work!
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect was originally set up as a redirect to Next United Kingdom general election at a time when it could have been held in either 2024 or 2025. Now that it has been announced that the next election will be held in 2024 and with the United Kingdom having five year terms, it is very unlikely there will be a 2025 election. Propose deleting.
Broanetar (
talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century. There was much speculation in reliable sources that the election would be in 2025, so it's not an implausible search term. However there isn't any real discussion of this in the article so that isn't a good target. If we take people to the list of elections then they can find whichever one it is that they are looking for.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget agree with Thryduulf, not unreasonable to assume people will search for this. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Schwinnspeed (
talk •
contribs) 06:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Thryduulf, deleting it doesn't really make sense, anyone ending up there either made a typo or is looking for the 2024 general election.
AlexandraAVX (
talk) 17:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The current target discusses that the date was potentially to be in 2025. Oppose retarget to
List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century, that list does not contain any information about a 2025 general election. Is there any actual confusion with another election? The table ends at 2024... --
Tavix(
talk) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, for now - there's been headlines that mention a 2025 UK election, such as:
[40],
[41],
[42], but they are all referencing same topic of the 2024 election, just with a different/questioning date of it arriving. It's reasonable to think there are people who believe it's happening in 2025. After the election has happened, I would fully support deleting the redirect but for now while there's still potential confusion, the redirect should stay. Agreeing with Tavix re: the
List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century redirect, it's unlikely the searcher wants information about any other election.
BugGhost🪲👻 09:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target article. Only appears in the article for
June 11 which is not a date listed anywhere in the target article.
DrowssapSMM 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I created this redirect as a replacement for the piped link [[Public holidays in Libya|American Evacuation Day]] in
June 11.However, if there's no evidence that this day exists as a public holiday, I'm happy for it to be deleted. (And if so, the link in
July 11 should be removed too.)
Colonies Chris (
talk) 21:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment there are lots of sites that list "American Evacuation Day" as a public holiday on 11 June, but nothing that stands out as definitely reliable and independent of Wikipedia.
This Indian Express article could be used to verify that it is (or at least was) a public holiday but doesn't give a date. It isn't listed at
[43] but it's unclear whether that is a complete list or just ones of relevance to the Aviation authority.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not mentioned in the target article. Third party searches are not really helping matters to identify what subject these redirects are meant to refer either. On one hand, searching "The Stand Off Netflix" on some third party search engines returns results for miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse; however, I was not able to find any information stating that miniseries was known previously as "The Stand Off". In addition, there is also the subject at
Standoff (film), made in 2016 ... but, there is also a different film which we apparently do not have an article for, which was also made in 2016, called "The Standoff"
[44] starring
Olivia Holt. Probably best to delete these unless a strong connection can be made between these redirects and at least one of the aforementioned subjects (or one that has yet to be created.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Upon further research, seems the subject of these redirects is not the miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse. According to an article written a few years back
[45], apparently, the subject is about a screenplay (probably intended to become a film) written by
Mark Heyman, but in that article, there is no mention of a subject by the name of the nominated redirects.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to the dab at
Standoff where two films are listed. "Stand off" is obviously a very plausible search term for most things listed at the dab page, "Stand Off" equally so for at least the media productions and the Canadian community. Similarly "The Stand Off" and "The Standoff" are both completely plausible search terms for the other, but what about for things without the definite article? My gut feeling is that it's not impossible for someone to misremember the name of the media productions, but I'm not familiar with any of them hence the "weak".
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirect pages
Bush Derangement Syndrome and
Bush derangement syndrome already exist, though when I type "Bush derangement" into the search bar, only the redirect with the misspelt title is listed, and I have to finish typing "syndrome" into the search bar in order for either of the correctly-spelt redirects to appear. –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 11:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I added {{R from misspelling}} so if it is kept, it'll be categorized better. (I'm leaning weak keep since in general off-by-one misspellings can be useful although omitting trailing letters matter a bit less in general.)
Skynxnex (
talk) 16:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Extremely low utility. (3 non-RfD views in 90 days). Clearly this is not a common misspelling for such a long title.
Catalk to me! 12:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Given
Bush Derangement Syndrome and
Bush Derangement Syndrom link to the same place, the fact that the misspelling appears and the correct title doesn't in the search bar is... okay-ish? Where it's NOT okay is the autocomplete feature in our editor-- if I type [[Bush Derange into the editor, it ALSO only pops up with
Bush Derangement Syndrom, which is... considerably more annoying, as you then have to go back and fix the erroneous link. ...Does tagging as Misspelling impact that?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This was flagged up at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Searching for "Blagger" currently redirects to a page with no mention of the word. by
user:Oathed with the comment seems weird that it doesn't link or disambig to Blagger (video game). Not sure how to mark a page for "Disambig page needed".
At the very least this does need a hatnote to the video game, but I'm not acutally sure the video game isn't the primary target. Neither the present target nor
Pretexting (linked as the main article) use the term. The only other uses I'm finding (
Blaggers ITA (formerly known as The Blaggers) and The Blaggers Guide would be at most see-alsos on a dab page. The video game article was created at this title but moved in March 2018 by
Zxcvbnm with the summary "Merge, in order to disambiguate" but they just changed the redirect target and added a hatnote. The hatnote was
removed without explanation by an IP in 2020, but the mention of "blagging" had been
removed in July 2018 as part of a cull of unreferenced information by
Michaelgt123. None of "blag", "blagging" or "blagger" has ever been included in the
Pretext article.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirect made at least some sense at the time it was created. The article
Pretext, as it appeared at the time, was about the general well-understood meaning of a "pretext"; a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. It had only a single paragraph describing the social engineering trick.
Meanwhile, the article
Social engineering (security), as it appeared at the time, in the section
Pretexting, said "Pretexting..., also known in the UK as blagging". So that made at least some sense as a target (although even then, I think the video game article would have been a more appropriate target).
The video game seems pretty clearly to be the primary use for "Blagger"; if the "blagging" text is re-added to the Social engineering (security) article (as it probably should, there seems to be sufficient documentation of that, e.g.,
[46] at the
BBC), it can be dealt with by ordinary disambiguation (hatnote or a
Blagger (disambiguation) page, as appropriate).
TJRC (
talk) 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The page mover / redirect creator Zxcvbnm was notified in the nomination, however I have just notified at the talk page as well. Jay 💬 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate "Blagging" is another term for social engineering (see
here and
here). If that isn't the primary topic, then it should be disambiguated between
social engineering (security) and the game, not have the game moved back here. That would be the height of folly when it could simply be re-added with a single sentence referenced to a reliable source.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 13:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Should the page
Blagger be a disambiguation page? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Catalk to me! 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, move
Blagger (video game) to it, then add a hatnote. "Blagging" is an informal term in UK that has similarities to social engineering, but it's not quite the same thing - it's just a phrase that sort of means "bullshitter", someone who can make up lies quickly - social engineers will blag, but not all blaggers are social engineers. For example most improv comedians are good blaggers, but that doesn't mean they are doing anything nefarious. Seeing as
Blagger (video game) exists, it should be the primary topic.
BugGhost🪲👻 13:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate: Agree with nomination. Not everything is about the US and if there are
WP:RS demonstrating the terms usage in reference to other occurrences then this redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a dab at this title? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Anyone feel like drafting a disambiguation page? It seems' nobody's willing to do it, hence delete by default.
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Pppery: why would/should delete be the "default" choice? It's not a "disambiguation or delete" binary, there's a strong case to make that the San Andreas Fault is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term regardless of other uses. --
Tavix(
talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
At the time I made that comment there was a consensus to disambiguate. If nobody is willing to write a disambiguation page then the closest way of implementing that agreement would be to delete and let search results perform the role of disambiguation.
* Pppery *it has begun... 14:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep without prejudice to disambiguation. I can't find any mentions of this term being used on Wikipedia to refer to anywhere other than California. If that changes then we can disambiguate but until then keeping is best.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That lack of mention in that article (and other articles) is exactly why I made the recommendation I did.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. "The Big One" is discussed at the current article but not in other articles. If there is discussion elsewhere, then we can consider other targets. --
Tavix(
talk) 02:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep until such time as mention of "The Big One" is added to other faultlines or earthquakes or other articles that would merit disambiguation. At such time, no objection to creating said disambiguation page, but until then, this is the
WP:PTOPIC and all the information we have on anything called "The Big One".
Fieari (
talk) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I want to say delete, as what little content this page previously had is reflected in the current, separate articles, and the old references are broken links to the Nature website. However, I vaguely remember there being licensing reasons to keep old page histories for attribution. Retarget to
European Molecular Biology Organization#Conferences and journals may be the way to go if that's right. ―
Synpath 04:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's nothing in that redirect's history that was ported over the other articles. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Taking another look, I see that now - striking retarget suggestion and delete. Thanks ―
Synpath 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. However nothing in the redirect appears to be copied to other articles? Still, I don't know much about guidelines regarding histmerges, so I don't have any opinions of it.
Catalk to me! 14:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge history or simply delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge history and delete: the title which is listed here at RFD is implausible and ambiguous, but the target title best describes the info of these two titles.
Intrisit (
talk) 19:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect is protected, discussion created on behalf of
2600:6C44:117F:95BE:9460:4DA2:ADC1:9976. Their request was the following:Bui Quoc Huy and Bùi Quang Huy are 2 different names in Vietnamese. They're not interchangeable names. Bui Quoc Huy page should not be a redirect page. It should be deleted and applied article creation protection afterwards due to persistent sock activities in the past. Those socks have been trying to write a PR article on Bui Quoc Huy for years in Vietnamese Wikipedia too. See
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smagzine for more information. This page is a direct result of a sock master. It was later turned into a redirect page.Tollens (
talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom unless someone can give a convincing reason for keeping. These appear to be completely different names, so I can't see why we would redirect one to the other. —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm relisting this as it hasn't been previously noted that the page has an extensive edit history and was discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bui Quoc Huy which concluded in favour of this redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So, for some reason the first move by Alexcreatorcaa to hijack
Bùi Quang Huy ended up deleted from the page history (
Special:Undelete/Bùi_Quang_Huy) and instead we just see their subsequent moves through Wikipedia space and back. It seems that other than the attempted hijack, there is no reason for there to be a redirect between these names, and we have no obligation to preserve the sockpuppet's edits, so delete seems appropriate. I think the AfD discussion erred in presuming that the redirect was somehow useful. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are numerous variations of what the subject apparently said on his death bed, with only some close to this topic title. That said, I can't see how two full sentences would ever be a useful search term and it isn't even the one used in the subject's article. I'd question it even if the quote was closer to what is most commonly reported. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Agreed with the rationale presented by Bungle and Hydrangeans. --
ARoseWolf 17:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. An article on this topic is clearly a problem in multiple ways.
With respect to where the sense of the quote probably came from:
The most authoritative secondary source is
Remini. His in-depth
three volume biography as saying: Where is my daughter and Marion, God will take care of you for me. I am my God’s. I belong to him, I go but a short time before you, and I want to meet you all in heaven, both white and black. Then a bit later...What is the matter with my Dear children, have I alarmed your Oh, do not cry—be good children and we will all meet in heaven.
Remini's primary source is a letter written by Andrew Jackson Jr. to Alfred Nicholsen, which was written 9 days after Andrew Jackson, Sr.'s death. A version of this letter is
available in JSTOR from the 1947 Tennessee Historical Quarterly.
An early alternative is from Jackson's first biographer, Parton, who published his work in 1860, 15 years after Jackson's death. He quotes
Hannah Jackson as stating: Be good children, and we will all meet in heaven.Wtfiv (
talk) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Refine to § "Later life and death (1837–1845)". I'm a bit confused by the rationales here. This is a verifiable variant of a quote that is mentioned in the article. What's implausible about that? Someone could recall the quote, start typing it in, and be led to this article either by search suggestions or results either on-wiki or on an external search engine. However, since the phrase won't come up if typed literatim into ctrl+f, this should be refined to the relevant section. --
Tamzin[
cetacean needed (
they|xe) 17:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or refine? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I can see, there's only one river known (in Roman times) as Macra, and that's
Magra (and even that claim is unsourced). I've removed a claim at the translated page
Maira (river) because it isn't present in the source of the translation [
[47]]. And anyway
Macra (river) is red, so delete both these redirects.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete we don't have plural qualifiers for things in the singular even if there were multiple rivers with this name. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a redirect so that concern shouldn't apply. All the best: RichFarmbrough 17:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC).reply
Having a plural redirect to the DAB may suggest to readers there is an article about multiple rivers. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So a random reader is looking at the DAB page, clicks "what links here" and, because he sees a plural parenthetical disambiguator, makes an assumption that there will be a page about multiple rivers on the disambiguation page he has left. Seems very unlikely to me. However we could redirect to section where that section is "Rivers". This seems to be pure in the sense that we would redirect "Mayors of Foo" to a mayors section on
Foo if there was one, or a list of mayors of Foo, or a dab page, or section of a dab page. All the best: RichFarmbrough 17:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC).reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:30, 28 May 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) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
1) Keep, 2) Delete per
WP:R#HARMFUL b/c the first link contains non-trivial edit history.
Special:Diff/232665485 contains the (unsourced) claim that Macra is the Latin name of these rivers, which seems likely to be correct and is not reflected in any of the sources before us. Kudos to
Rich Farmbrough for finding what sources we have.
Daask (
talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete both as we do not have any articles about a collective group of rivers named "Macra".
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Victims of a shooting generally do not have articles unless they become notable in their own right. It isn't appropriate to associate a search term of their names with an event which took their life. The individuals would already appear in search results on the event article without the need of an explicit redirect. I am unsure if there is specific policy around this, as
WP:VICTIM merely mentions outright articles specifically. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is poor and is not in itself a reason why the aforementioned should be kept as redirects. We have to ask for what benefit and purpose does an article or redirect serve in its existence? I don't see any value in these redirects and as the victims are all deceased, cannot decide themselves if they'd want their identities associated with such an atrocity. I don't see any policy specific to this circumstance, which is probably why there is no agreed precedent. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
well like i said, most articles on mass tragedy events have redirects with the victims names. If you think its morally wrong or u dont agree with it, you should make this a bigger discussion and not just solely on the FedEx shooting.
Elizzaflanagan221 (
talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I hear what you're saying, but a poor existing precedent (generally speaking) isn't necessary justification to pursue further of a similar nature. That is the reason I brought them to rfd, as it's a community decision, not solely my own view. As for the bigger discussion, maybe it is warranted, but it's quite a minefield and this only concerns these redirects yet to be reviewed. If the consensus is to keep, then it's a moot point anyway, though in such a scenario i'd hope to see a better rationale than "others exist too". Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 21:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Existing precedent is the primary source of policies and guidelines, assuming that the policies
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are to be believed. If we have no written rule against it, and it is frequently done, then it probably is the community's normal practice to do this.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 22:18, 5 June 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) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm surprised there isn't a clear policy on this. We should be guided by
WP:RPURPOSE. If the victim's name is widely known enough that "Killing of EXAMPLE" is a plausible article title and existing redirect, then I accept a redirect from "EXAMPLE" as well, because it is a plausible way that a reader might search for the relevant article, eg.
Philando Castile,
Jeff Doucet. Otherwise, I think we should avoid these redirects. I hold this position even, and maybe even especially, if the person is approaching notability for an article in their own right for reasons unrelated to their death. If there are other relevant articles on their life apart from their death, we don't want to usurp those by redirecting rather than showing search results.
Daask (
talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
wiktionary has nothing on a direct link between "kkk" and "kakaka" besides an unsourced, unquoted example on
"ka", experience in brazil tells me people do not want to type more letters. if you want to argue in favor of "ka" as a phonetic spelling of the letter k in portuguese, go ahead, i guess. either way, weak retarget to
lol if it can be proven that anyone uses it, delete otherwise cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment purely in academic interest - there actually was
an AfD in 2005 where the closer made a bold decision to redirect. Jay 💬 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sweartgar
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: delete all
This redirect has targeted
Psychological stress,
Stressed Out (disambiguation) and
Stressed Out, the Twenty One Pilots song. Its was pointing to the DAB from 2019 until last month and I changed it back to the DAB today. In terms of the discussions it seems there is a consensus that the Twenty One Pilots song is primary for the title case version per
WP:DIFFCAPS, see discussions at
Talk:Stressed Out and an older one at
Talk:Stressed Out (A Tribe Called Quest song)#Requested move 26 November 2015. In terms of Psychological stress I understand we aren't a dictionary but at the same time it could be argued that its safest to disambiguate the lower case. In terms of the options, option A, target Twenty One Pilots song, option B, target DAB, option C, target Psychological stress. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
B either the generic meaning or Twenty One Pilots song could be primary so its probably best to have no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
162 etc.: The closer of the 1st RM
Special:Diff/694445799 created a redirect to Stress (psychological) in 2015 and it was
changed to the DAB page in 2016 and ended up targeting the Twenty One Pilots song as it was moved to the base name in September 2016 which seems to have been an error from the page move or just people not thinking DIFFCAPS was appropriate. It was changed back to the DAB by me in 2019 and stayed this way until last month when you changed it to the Twenty One Pilots song. I then changed it back to the DAB. So the undiscussed change to target the Twenty One Pilots song need discussion here as it could arguable be changed back to the original target. If all the uses were upper case and
Psychological stress didn't exist I agree the default would be to follow the primary topic title case but there is a generic meaning though as noted I'm not sure how likely it is. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
C with a hatnote to the disambiguation page. At this capitalisation,
and capitalisation matters, my judgement is that most readers are looking for the feeling of
psychological stress and not a song. There's no merit in B because all the entries on the dab page are Title Case.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
With
fewer than one hit per day on average, no incoming links and no article that would actually be titled "stressed out", it could really be deleted (option D, anyone?). Although capitalization certainly does matter, it's also true searchers often do skip using the shift key. If "stressed out" really were a likely alternative search term for "psychological stress", I'd say proper capitalization wins out, but I don't see many readers expecting that, and I'd hate to put a hatnote on
psychological stress pointing to list of songs, so I'd avoid option C. And just as we shouldn't assume searchers skipping the shift key want a lower-case article, we also shouldn't assume they want the upper-case title, even though with a hatnote already on
Stressed Out, that's less of an issue. So option A is reasonable, but because capitalization matters and because we can't say with certainty what most of the tiny number of readers landing on the redirect want, absent deletion I lean toward option B.
Station1 (
talk) 06:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Should
Stressed out be deleted, typing "stressed out" in search would result in a reader reaching the page at
Stressed Out. This means that "option D" would result in the same thing as option A.
162 etc. (
talk) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good point. And I suppose someone would just recreate a redirect eventually anyway.
Station1 (
talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Target to Stressed Out, regardless of whether that's kept as the current primary topic, or made into a dab page as primary. Reward the folks looking for something specifically named this. I suspect the vast majority of folks looking for information about psychological stress are going to just look up "stress" instead (already a dab page).
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 00:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
C - Sorry that this is spreading out the consensus more, but I really and STRONGLY agree with Shhh's assessment that capitalization matters, and that psychological stress is the best target for this particular capitalization. As a secondary option, I would grudgingly accept the disambiguation page, but I strongly object to making this target the song as the primary topic. Capitalization matters! I also object to deletion, as there really should be a way for a user to easily reach psychological stress from this search string, and the default search is unlikely to get there easily.
Fieari (
talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
C. When not written in title case, psychological stress is the clear primary topic and we do our readers a disservice by not taking them there. A hatnote to the dab page and song will cater for everyone not looking for the primary topic.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Gastrosexuality existed as its own page before, though the correct term is gastrosexual because it's named in reference to lifestyles like
lumbersexual,
spornosexual,
retrosexual, cosmosexual, frustrosexual, megasexual,
ubersexual, ultrasexual, macrosexual, cinesexual, machosexual, and many others. --
MikutoHtalk! 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Gastrosexuality? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete both. If you want to send the latter to AFD, or even treat it as a soft delete/expired PROD, I don't think that's unreasonable either. I also don't think a soft redir to Wiktionary serves any useful purpose here, and just impedes normal searching.
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 15:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect Gastrosexual to wiktionary, delete other. Wiktionary contains useful information about the subject. I am not sure how this would impede normal searching. The history is useless since the text was not incoporated anywhere, and thus carries no attribution issues in deletion.
Catalk to me! 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
RestoreGastrosexuality without prejudice to AfD. The discussion cited was just one person saying "do you mind?" and the other saying "I don't mind", that's not consensus for deletion. Gastrosexual should target Gastrosexuality if it is kept or wiktionary if it isn't.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Population 0
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Subject is not known by the name "Alia Bhatt Kapoor". A redirect such as this should not exist for married women who haven't changed/added their husband's name after marriage.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 18:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I have no strong feelings about this, but when it comes to redirects it doesn't matter what the person is commonly known as. This is not the article's title. As long as some sources refer to her as such the redirect can serve a valid purpose when it comes to looking for the subject. Examples include
this one which refers to the Newlywed Alia Bhatt Kapoor in the text. The name also yields
results on Google. In short,
redirects are cheap and they don't need to be 100% accurate; that's why we have ones such as
Jennifer Pitt. Keivan.fTalk 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The question isn't what they are "commonly" known as. We should not assume that a married women should take her husband's last name, and that extends to poorly researched sources that call her by that name simply because she's married. It's highly misogynistic, unless ya'll create the same redirects for Ranbir Kapoor Bhatt or Virat Kohli Sharma.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not for me to assume whether a woman or man has taken up her/his spouse's last name. When sources write something down we simply follow, and redirects are meant to ease the navigation process. Unfortunately, "Ranbir Kapoor Bhatt" doesn't yield any results anywhere, but "Alia Bhatt Kapoor" does and if someone decides to look that name up here after coming across it somewhere else, the redirect will take them to the actual article. Keivan.fTalk 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources can call an actor many things. In
this source, Kareena Kapoor Khan is called KKK, as do other sources such as
this and
this. Does that mean KKK should redirect to her article?
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course not, because obviously
Ku Klux Klan is the
primary topic. However, if the name they are using for the person is inherently unique, then I don't see why it can't serve a purpose as a redirect. Keivan.fTalk 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Why does it have to be unique? KKK (actress) is unique enough for a redirect. All I'm saying is that there are many ways to call a celebrity, doesn't mean they should all be redirects, especially when it comes to giving women identities that's not theirs, which is exactly what's problematic in the case of "Alia Bhatt Kapoor".
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - we don't know if she changed the name in her passport and other documents, but
she did announce it. Jay 💬 18:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
MergeFrances Lockridge and
Richard Lockridge to a
joint biography at this title. The articles are almost identical. The differences are biographical in nature and can be combined in a biography section with sub-sections dedicated to each person. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having created the Frances Lockridge article, merging the pages seems like an OK alternative, although Richard's career continued for a decade or two after Frances' death. I just would prefer not to have a joint page directing to Richard specifically, or have only Richard have his own page but not give Frances her own, which would feel dismissive of Frances. —
Bookworm-ce (
talk) 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As an alternative proposal, how about dabification? This probably isn't a standard outcome for
WP:XY-type redirects; however, given that this is a valid search term (as opposed to a combination of 'X' and 'Y' that isn't used anywhere else), I'm leaning towards
ignoring the rules to the extent necessary for this proposal. I'd be in favour of this outcome as opposed to merging, due to the fact that (in my opinion) RfD isn't the ideal forum for considering/discussing article mergers, and I'm not sure if it's strictly within its remit -- to be clear, a merger could still be discussed, but by a process such as
WP:PAM rather than at RFD. I've started a draft disambiguation page
below the current redirect. Pinging previous participants: @
Bookworm-ce,
Presidentman,
Roman Spinner, and
Tavix. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why we would need three pages where one is sufficient. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
One may turn out to be sufficient, but I don't personally feel comfortable opining on that matter in this discussion; as (to me) it's more of an article content question than one regarding redirects, and due to the fact that the two pages in question aren't aware that a merger is being considered at this RfD. If the consensus at (e.g.)
WP:PAM is to merge the articles, this proposed dab page would no longer exist - however, prior to such a merger (if one occurs), this disambiguation page would serve as a navigational aid. My view is therefore that RfD could dabify this redirect, but without prejudice to a merger discussion (which would, in my view, be better suited to make that determination). All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Articleify into an article about their collaboration under a pen name. The articles with their individual biographies can be kept if they meet GNG outside of their collaboration, otherwise a full merge could work.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are a bunch of proposals here that involve outcomes outside the scope of RfD, and hence we can't force anyone to do any of those. What the RfD closing admin should do is delete and allow the merge/articlefy proposals to be done if someone actually does them.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Steve Lacy (musician)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
ELMatronmaker/sandbox2
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: move without redirect
Substantial
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: procedural close
Pole (Venezuela)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Redirect should be deleted so editors know which seasons still need to be made, otherwise every season would be a redirect.
poketape (
talk) 21:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note page history. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 23:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Looking at {{Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball navbox}}, blue links are articles, not redirects. 1930–31 is the odd one out, and gives the false impression that we have an article on it.
Reywas92's edit summary while making the redirect said merge to main, but I don't see that a merge was done. Jay 💬 04:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Google says that this term is strongly related to/correlated with the
Ogg file format... top result says that oggcast is an RSS equivelent for ogg-format podcasts specifically, while other sources state that it is a streaming protocol for ogg format audio (of any sort). I suppose the google top result is why this redirect was created. I wonder if this term is notable enough to get a brief mention on the
ogg page, and then we could redirect there... but I'm not sure, so I'll refrain from !voting at the moment.
Fieari (
talk) 05:38, 9 May 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! 08:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dan Bloch: can comment further. While the removal mentioned in the nomination said ..no longer notable. The only third party source is from the Internet Archive., just one day prior,
DanBloch had reduced the multi-sourced 3-4 paragraph section to a single liner (alongwith removing sections such as Political podcast and Podguide). Jay 💬 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what sort of comment you're looking for from me. Per the nom, oggcast is no longer mentioned in the article (nor should it be, per
WP:BALASP), so this isn't a great redirect. Redirecting to
Ogg would probably be better, especially if someone added a mention there. But mostly it doesn't matter because
no one uses it. As far as I'm concerned either solution is fine, or even leaving it is fine.
Dan Bloch (
talk) 20:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What I was looking for was comments or explanation regarding the removal I mentioned, of 11,446 bytes where the edit summary only said Variants: cleanup. From your response I now see that you removed it as per WP:BALASP. Jay 💬 11:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try... Delete or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 04:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Article-ify using information that ended up removed from the Podcast article by
user:Danbloch in 2020 as per the edit pointed out by
user:Jay. The reason that the section on Oggcasts was removed from the article was due to
WP:BALASP, not because the information was non-notable. I also wouldn't be opposed to using said info to add enough information to
Ogg or
Vorbis to justify a Retarget.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's also non-notable. It may have been of more interest when the content was introduced in 2011, I don't know. But there are no recent mentions.
Dan Bloch (
talk) 17:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What does recent mentions have to do with anything? Usually wikipedians prefer older things to be written about, rather than
WP:RECENTISM...
Fieari (
talk) 23:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A fair point, but as I see it, it's the 2011 flurry of edits that was
WP:RECENTISM and
WP:TOOSOON. Oggcast did not take the world by storm. Note that it started out as a standalone article, and it had a "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline" tag then.
Dan Bloch (
talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Articleify per Lunamann, without prejudice to an AfD or merge. A "May not meet..." tag is one editor's opinion, not a consensus and sources may be available now that were not available 13 years ago.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Germany 2024
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Its prod expired, so ANDSF (disambiguation) is no more
mwwvconverse∫
edits 21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nominator. Internet search results for "ANDSF" alone refer overwhelmingly to the former military. --
NFSreloaded (
talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget and add hatnote per nom.
Okmrman (
talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, since the current target is also known as "ANDSF" and a hatnote has already been placed there.
CycloneYoristalk! 01:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or Retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the disambiguation page (first, restore the dab, as there is
WP:NOPRIMARY). Google search ANSDF is dominated by military, ANSDF abbreviation - by 3GPP. --
Викидим (
talk) 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget, restore
ANDSF (disambiguation) and round-robin move them, as neither of the two articles seems to be an overwhelmingly primary topic.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have restored
ANDSF (disambiguation) as a PROD deletion, and updated it to no primary so it doesn't get deleted immediately because of ONEOTHER. I'm neutral, and this is not an indication of my support here for NOPRIMARY. Jay 💬 10:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to dab and round robin, internet results heavily favor the Afghan organization, Google Scholar results heavily favor the internet protocol. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indian films sometimes do this thing were they reshoot 10% or less of the film in another language. Either way, there is absolutely no need for this redirect when
Baak (film) exists. only 10% or less of people interest seeing
Aranmanai 4 will likely opt to see this version due to low key release.
DareshMohan (
talk) 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is obviously linked with the Afd of
Baakghost. Here too, I suggest to Keep the redirect (and then rename. Baak (Telugu film) if needed, and maybe ask for page protection. Like that, history can be kept and further work on the article is easier. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
Baak (film) without redirect as the title has incorrect capitalization which is arguably an RDAB error. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
Baak (film) without redirect to keep editing history.
Hzh (
talk) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting together with the other similar RfD below. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Refine to the relevant section.
Baak (film),
Baak (Telugu film) and
Baak (Telugu Film) all exist and all are useful and plausible search terms for the target. Plausible alternative capitalisations in the dismabiguator are no more a reason to delete a redirect than plausible alternative capitalisations outside the disambiguator are.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Both of these redirects have no point. Both these redirects (
Baakghost and
Baak (Telugu film)) along with
Baak (Telugu Film) were initially created by
SenthilGugan as Articles for the Telugu dubbed version of
Aranmanai 4. After seeing no need for another article, when there's already a primary article and an
Afd the pages were turned to redirects. But, there is no need these many redirects, as not even the Google recognizes these names. I only included two redirects because, the other one has already been
Rfded.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Vestrian24Bio, what's the reason for nominating this redirect for deletion? I could be missing a potential problem with it; but, from what I can see, this title is mentioned at the target under
Aranmanai 4#Release. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am typing it; please wait for me to post it.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, sorry - I was confused as to why the redirect was nominated without a rationale, but that makes sense. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that the above !vote was made underneath the entry for
Baakghost, before the two nominations had been combined - see [49]. Best, —a smart kitten[
meow 12:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but make the target more precise to a section in the article:
Aranmanai_4#Theatrical The title in the target section of this Telugu version of the film IS Baak. The second R was Redirected after an Afd and the first BLARed as ATD, so that the pages history and credits could be kept, which is always good. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. Then, in order to preserve history and credits for both, rename the second (but then the double redirect needs to be fixed) OR change target so that it redirects to the Assamese folklore page (which will preserve the history, only upon a different topic). A DISAMB page can also be considered. Thanks. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I’m concerned, yes, I think that’s a good solution. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:53, 19 May 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! 00:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My comments remain the same. Hopefully this is no longer a dispute. Kailash29792(talk) 03:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I also agree that an apparent consensus seems to have been reached. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Refine Baak (Telugu film) to
Aranmanai 4#Release, not #Theatrical. Delete Baakghost as a made up compound word. No need to retain the page history as a 3rd copy created by the same author in a span of 10 days. No need to salvage the page by renaming to a convoluted title of a different topic for the same reason (retaining page history). Jay 💬 17:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The target of this redirect should likely be reconsidered. The most helpful solution may to turn this into a DAB, merging with
Turkish Bath (disambiguation).
Reason: The term "Turkish bath" in a Western context is fairly generic and might also denote other types of
steam baths, in addition to the mainly Islamic ones covered at
Hammam. Since this was last discussed in 2021 (see
here), a more fully-fledged
Victorian Turkish bath article now exists. Other articles might also be relevant to link.
Note: This came out of a discussion at
Talk:Turkish Bath (disambiguation) between myself and
Ishpoloni. Feel free to read there for more context & explanation.
R Prazeres (
talk) 00:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget: I don't know the correct Wiki terminology to use, but searchers from different communities seeking information on so-called 'Turkish baths' (which no longer appears as an article) could equally be looking for
Hammam or
Victorian Turkish baths and some type of 'See:' reference should offer these two clear redirecting link options.
Hammam is neither primary nor secondary. Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths only have in common that they are baths, and are both derived from the ancient Roman thermae. Victorian Turkish baths are not steam baths. Nor are they really, as the Hammam article states, "A variation on the Muslim bathhouse"—which is why in France and Germany they are called Roman-Irish baths.
On Wikipedia, we follow our own
policies and guidelines, not library science (for better or for worse, I can't say). The guideline for how to deal with ambiguous terms (like Turkish bath) is
WP:D. The first step is to determine whether there is a
primary topic. One way to do that is to look at page traffic.
The page traffic for Hammam shows that most people get to that page via an "other-search", such as searching for the term "Turkish bath" via an external search engine, but that only 15% of people then click away to
Victorian Turkish baths from that article. We can infer that most readers were, in fact, looking for
Hammam when they searched "Turkish bath". We can also look at
comparative pageviews, which shows that Hammam gets far more views than Victorian Turkish baths. Then, if we've determined a primary topic, the guideline tells us to
redirect the ambiguous term to that page, with
hatnotes to the appropriate disambiguation pages.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Having had time to familiarise myself more with the often complicated Wikipedia guidance notes, I now believe that the most equitable solution is the one suggested above by R Prazeres, ie, to change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with
Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This could either be based on the existing one or, perhaps preferably, like the
Mercury page example given in the guidance notes. I believe this is a solution on which we should easily be able to reach consensus.
Reasons:
1. Of the 22 reasons for a redirect given on
Wikipedia:Redirect the overwhelming majority relate to different forms of words, grammar, punctuation, etc. Not one exemplifies a redirect of one subject to another subject.[a]
(b) making links so that a term points to the correct article;
(c) "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis)
In case there are Western European readers of this Wikipedia, there should be Redirects < Irish-Roman baths and < Roman-Irish baths > Victorian Turkish baths.
Ishpoloni (
talk) 07:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
^For any newcomer to the discussion, 'Victorian Turkish baths' is not a subdivision of 'Hammam', Hammam being an Islamic steam bath and Victorian Turkish baths being Victorian (Roman-Irish) baths using hot dry air. Both are direct descendants of the Roman thermae.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:39, 1 May 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) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A. The identification of a primary topic only seems to apply when there are synonyms for the terms used to name a specific subject, or for grammatical clarifications (see Reason 1 in my previous reply).
B. When there are two completely different and separate subjects, ie,
Hammam &
Victorian Turkish baths, there cannot be a "primary topic" simply because both are types of hot-air bath, any more than there can be a "primary topic" between
Apple &
Pear simply because both are types of fruit.
C. Wikipedia's object in the case of multiple subjects (see 2.c above) is to enable readers to speedily find the subject wanted, whichever one it is.
D. The current situation where a reader, perhaps the (wo)man on the Clapham omnibus rather than an academic, seeks information on
Turkish baths and is willy-nilly diverted to an article on hammams—and so may never discover the existence of an article on Victorian Turkish baths—cannot be equitable, or helpful.
E. The solution suggested above by R Prazeres to retarget to
Turkish Bath (disambiguation) not only follows Wikipedia principles, but provides the speediest route to either of the two subjects sought. It should now be adopted as a win-win solution for both subjects, and will in practice lead readers to articles on subjects they may not previously have come across.
Ishpoloni (
talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The argument in B is off-base, as these two topics can both be referred to as "Turkish bath" in colloquial English. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - pageviews analysis suggests that Hamam is the primary topic, with that page receiving far more views per day (of which views coming from the redirect are only a fraction). Arguably even stronger evidence is that even sources contemporary to Victorian England identify the Hamam as the Turkish bath (see page 34 onward
[50]). Those looking for the Victorian topic can be directed by the existing hatnote at the current target. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Erasmus Wilson, on page 34 of his 1861 book which you mention, is specifically using the term Hamâm in describing it "…as it exists at the present moment in Constantinople", a bath which (p.36) "…is moistened with a thin vapour"—the very opposite of the dry Victorian Turkish bath. And when he describes the bath in the British Isles (p.50 et seq) the terminology moves from Arabic and Turkish terms to Roman ones, beginning a paragraph (p.96) "As the British thermae is at present in a state of infancy…". From this moment, the inspiration for British hot air bathing moves from Turkey to ancient Rome and becomes what will later be identified as the Victorian Turkish bath. Today, this is dying; in contrast, the hammam is starting a revival. This does not make the subject of the Victorian Turkish bath less important, or a "secondary topic".
Ishpoloni (
talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The fact that these baths are distinct is not the crux of this discussion, the question at issue is, which bath is someone looking to read about if they search for the phrase "Turkish bath". The evidence available suggests that the answer to that question is
Hammam. The fact that the Victorian Turkish Bath is not a hammam is the reason why we have a separate article for that topic, and why we have a hatnote at
Hammam differentiating the topics; it is not a reason to have
Turkish bath point to
Victorian Turkish bath given current pageviews and reviews of coverage suggest that the readers searching the term are more commonly looking for the actual Turkish style of bath. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Rosguill's arguments are convincing.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget Have those in favour of keeping the redirect read the two articles concerned? Are they the same subject in any way other than that they are both baths? Redirect guidance has no example of a subject redirected to another subject—the proper function of a 'See also' note. Primary and secondary refers to preferred terms when the terms are synonyms or grammatical variants. Look at the two subjects in Google; there is no overlap between the pages. Contemporary sources do not refer to Victorian Turkish baths for the same reason Elizabeth I did not call herself Elizabeth I. They were only invented in 1856 and no hot-dry air bath from that date onwards was ever written about, or spoken about as a hammam by the Victorians (they more likely preferred Anglo-Roman or Irish-Roman) though a very few orientalists named their establishment '*** Hammam' or '*** Oriental baths'—sources would be welcome for 'any' discussion of these baths as hammams. There seems to be no neutral reason why a redirect to the Turkish bath disambiguation page is not an easier way for searchers to find either unique 'subject'.
Ishpoloni (
talk) 14:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
An instance. Mary Doe reads a newspaper article on The life and death of Colonel Blimp mentioning a Turkish bath. Wanting to find out what this was, she refers to 'Turkish bath' on Wikipedia and is automatically given an article on Hammams. How clever.
Ishpoloni (
talk) 21:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect in draftspace created as a result of disruptive article creation by an IP user over an existing redirect, and NPP not reverting the disruptive edits, but instead draftifying their "work" (which consisted of a lazy, unreferenced stub). Suggest deletion. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)HistSplit per 2601:5CC:.... ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
HistSplit or just override the redirect with the previous draft, noting attribution in the edit summary if more convenient. Too soon applies to articles, but drafts are fine. Should have been histsplit the first time as the existing redirect should not have been deleted, but we can remedy that now.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A165:7AFC:68F9:104D (
talk) 20:11, 16 May 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! 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably delete per nom.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:29, 29 April 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! 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think keeping these are necessary, but if kept, I think the best target would be
Somali Civil War#TFG, Islamic Courts Union, and Ethiopia (2006–2009). Sections below that one continue through present should someone be seeking more recent events. That said, the more recent events don't document any Islamist insurgencies. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - may have been useful as a search term years ago, but isn't any longer. No incoming mainspace links. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 03:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Also bundle the uppercase P version
Islamic Insurgency in Somalia (2007-Present). To solve the page history problem, move without redirect to a title that does not have "present" in it. Jay 💬 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Bundled with the uppercase redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not in favour of Thryduulf's solution as having "Present" in the redirect would be misleading per nom. Jay 💬 08:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Any misconceptions will be cleared up by reading the target. We don't help readers by making it harder for them to find the content they are looking for or by needlessly breaking old links - indeed that makes it more likely that misconceptions will remain uncorrected.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
By that logic, incorrect redirects never ought to be deleted by virtue of being old. Jay 💬 20:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Being old is always a reason to be cautious when deleting redirects (it's why R3 is limited to recently-created redirects) because there is a greater likelihood of incoming links that will be broken (and breaking links is a bad thing). However being old is not a reason on it's own to keep a redirect, just as being incorrect is not a reason on it's own to delete one. We have to balance whether it is plausible that someone will use the incorrect redirect and if so whether we have anywhere appropriate to take people. In this case it's very plausible that they will be using the redirect, not only by following links from when the conflict was still ongoing but also because they could be conflating two different conflicts in Somalia (for a variety of reasons). The disambiguation page will educate them that they have followed an outdated link and/or misremembered what is happening and take them to whichever encyclopaedia article it was they wanted to read (where they will be further educated about the topic) without having to navigate search results (which may be several clicks/taps away) and which are not guaranteed to contain the relevant article(s).
It is not true that this will apply to every redirect that is both old and incorrect - we need to evaluate each of them on their own merits, but this is why they are discussed at RfD rather than speedily deleted.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the
War in Somalia disambiguation page where anyone using these search terms (or, more likely, following old links) can find whichever conflict they want to read about.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
1930–31 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team
This redirect is categorized as follows: A meme quotation from film and television, that is not mentioned at the article. Wikipedia is not an infinite compendium of unmentioned memes. Not a helpful redirect as people who want to read about The Godfather would search for The Godfather. Specifying a meme implies a search for specific content that we don't have on WP. Delete. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, how often do people search for films via quotes? Regardless a simple search engine search will tell them the film's title and they can search for the title from there.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Ivanvector; people could be searching this redirect in order to find out what the quote is from.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a meme, people are attracted to the novelty, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of memes to gawk at. Searching for a phrase on Wikipedia to see the movie it comes from is an absolutely unreliable method that works 0% of the time. A google search is more effective in 100% of situations due to the usability and predictability it offers, which are two things that "typing a quote and receiving a redirect coupled with no context at the target page" does not provide. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Utility Utilization per page stats is does not necessarily indicate usefulness. Readers looking for the meme, or a context of it, will be disappointed. Jay 💬 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. If you're looking for this, knowyourmeme or google are going to get you the answer. Wikipedia will not; we don't mention it at the target. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: it's a page about a meme (memes are frequently notable, or later become so) and it redirects to what the context is.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
keep although usually if you search it in english Wikipedia it showed wikiquote
Baratiiman (
talk) 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this is a direct quote and it seems plausible someone might search for it.
CMD (
talk) 07:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not opposed to the soft redirect to Wikiquote.
CMD (
talk) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The Wikiquote page for the Godfather contains context for the quote, unlike the Wikipedia article. Since this redirect has utility (130 views last month), I suggest soft-redirecting to
wikiquote:The Godfather.
Catalk to me! 02:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If deleted, incoming links from 75 pages need to be fixed if we don't want this to be a redlink. Jay 💬 09:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the rationale for
WP:REDLINK would apply here given that we do want information on this station. --
Tavix(
talk) 02:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete unless sourced and
WP:DUE information can be added at a target. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Best cite that I got was it
exists with address at the former
Nichols Air Base. With that said, I don't think we have any material to work with to warrant a mention in any related articles. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - a redirect from a radio callsign to relevant information like where it broadcast[s|ed] from is useful, like if you saw it on an old navigation chart or something. It's not very useful but it's also harmless.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per
Ivanvector. This is the
only source I found about the station's ownership. Though, I don't know which part of the article this piece of info can fit. Nonetheless, a redirect is deemed
harmless. ASTIG😎🙃 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep per Ivanvector. Although it is not mentioned, it gives information about where it broadcasts from.
Queen of Hearts (
talk) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's not appropriate to mention it at the target (for reasons Lenticel and others said) then why is it appropriate to subtly hint that it is in some vague way related without explaining how and leaving people confused. That's just mentioning it by the back door.
* Pppery *it has begun... 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and add a mention. That the station exist/existed and the location it was broadcast from is encyclopaedic information.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, and recreate/restore if a mention is added. I do disagree with an above point that it gives information about where it broadcasts from. It instead vaguely implies that there may be some connection with
Philippine Air Force. Any additional "information" is reading too much into it. --
Tavix(
talk) 02:49, 11 June 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.