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.
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.
This term has two meanings in English, one being
asexual reproduction and the other "Absence or nonrecognition of marriage, or absence of a pair bond", according to
wikt:agamy. The current target is because it existed as a duplicate page of
Agami, which would be a transliteration/translation, a synonym/alternate term, or a misspelling. I think Wiktionary is the best target. And it should be noted that it would mean
agamy [
pt;
ca;
simple (
agamia in Romance langauges), so this could be {{
R with possibilities}} (until a better disambiguator exists). --
MikutoHtalk! 00:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No longer mentioned at the target after a 2012 merge/redirect AfD closure. A high school's stadium does not need to be a redirect to the school if the stadium has no discussion at the target page, although the history may need to be dealt with. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on dealing with the history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlikely search term. Could refer to lots of frozen bodies of water, and not mentioned at the target article. It may have been mentioned at a point when Wikipedia was more lax with its standards, but it would not fit with Wikipedia standards today.
Jontesta (
talk) 22:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlikely search term. Not mentioned at the target article. It may have been mentioned at a point when Wikipedia was more lax with its standards, but it would not fit with Wikipedia standards today.
Jontesta (
talk) 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
He is not a pharmacist and the page makes no mention of him being a pharmacist or having a medical career otherwise. 0 page views in the last year, not linked from any Wikipedia pages. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 20:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Originally created as a redirect to
exhibitionism before being retargeted to
anasyrma, this term is mentioned at neither of the articles in question and is not something that we have good coverage on at the moment, with the only mention of this word anywhere on Wikipedia being at the
List of paraphilias. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect back to exhibitionism, since this term apparently refers to sexual arousal or gratification arising from exposing one's genitals (some definitions seem to specify male genitals), while anasyrma seems to be primarily a jesting or ritual exposure of genitalia (frequently women's) in a religious context or to ward off evil. As with all nominations dealing with "the term is not mentioned in the target article", it would be a good idea to find somewhere to mention and define it within the article, thereby making renomination less likely.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Peo" (from
wikt:πέος) refers to male genitals in Greek so those definitions are more etymologically correct. In any case, exhibitionism is obviously a more appropriate target due to the "-philia" suffix.
Nickps (
talk) 14:28, 22 April 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! 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No mention has yet been added to Exhibitionism. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention at target, I propose deletion.
Veverve (
talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a discordian concept (e.g.
[1]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism.
Furius (
talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all.
Veverve (
talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore relevant section, which can be found
here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (
WP:BURDEN).
Veverve (
talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.There's a time and a place to use
WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC))
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can
WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (
WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects.
Veverve (
talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and...
Oh hey look,Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/eIn any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can
find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Okmrman (
talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, but restore if the secondary sources mentioned above are used to write about the Law of Fives in the main article.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 20:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ending with ":" is not a plausible search term.
Gonnym (
talk) 11:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know what the policies are anymore, but according to the edit history, it's not there to catch a search term, it's there to catch an external link. —
Toby Bartels (
talk) 12:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't they have the same target? --
MikutoHtalk! 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep – I can't think of a better target for each. It makes sense for
WP:RACIST to redirect to the policy on contentious labels; I don't think racism is relevant to that policy in the same way. It wouldn't make sense for
WP:RACIST to redirect to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination. It would be better if there were a policy
WP:Racism could redirect to, but I couldn't find one that was relevant and useful.
MClay1 (
talk) 14:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:No racists feels like an appropriate target for
WP:Racism (without having any background knowledge of the essay or redirect) – in fact,
WP:Racism would seemingly be a better page name for the essay. But I think
WP:RACIST should be kept to its current target. I don't think they necessarily need to have the same target.
MClay1 (
talk) 01:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
How about disambiguation between the 2 uses above and no racists? Crouch, Swale (
talk) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:SMALLDETAILS and
WP:AINTBROKE. The RACIST shortcut refers to the policy subsection about not using contentious labels and lists "racist" as its second example of words not to use, while WikiProject Discrimination is an appropriate target for someone looking for Wikipedia writings about the subject of racism and the project that directs those efforts. Both have been around for many years without being a problem, both have hatnotes to possibly related topics (but not to each other, interestingly), and I don't think that wanting things to be the same is a good reason to mess with these titles.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No substantial mention of "Pinkblood" anywhere on Wikipedia; is only stated once in a citation on a different article. If this is a possibly notable group, seems to be worthwhile to keep as a red link to encourage article creation. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Per this article from the Korea Times
[2], this is what I could find on Pink Blood from SM. While there might be an argument to keep the first 2 redirects after using the info from the article to expand the SM Entertainment article, the remaining redirects should be deleted as Pink Blood is clearly not a future kpop group but rather a made-up term for fans of SM Entertainment.
⁂CountHacker (
talk) 11:13, 25 April 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) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Pawanism" at the target page. 7 years ago, it was said that "Pawanism isn't notable on its own, but should be discussed on Pawan Kalyan" in an edit summary. However, it is not. There are multiple people named Pawan on Wikipedia; "Pawanism" is too vague in its current state. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:47, 21 April 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) 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think the term is related to him.
[3][4][5] I don't see harm in keeping the redirect and adding a short note somewhere in the page, although admittedly I'm not quite sure where it'd fit in.
Golem08 (
talk) 21:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No note has been added to the target so far. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pluri indeed means plural, but the current target is about grammatical person, and this prefix is used in other contexts (eg.
plurinational,
plurisexual, etc.) and it's not mentioned in the target page either. It could be dabified in line with
multi. --
MikutoHtalk! 22:46, 20 April 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) 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that
Plural isn't a good target as it doesn't explain how the prefix operates. Exploring what would go into a
Pluri DAB page turns up only
Pluri Inc. as a PTM and a list of articles that have a pluri- prefix that maybe could go into a See also section. Such a page might ignore too many DAB guidelines while trying too hard to guess at what might be useful. Perhaps a soft retarget to
wikt:pluri- is most helpful to searchers. ―
Synpath 23:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For an opinion on the Wiktionary suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This has already caused me some confusion. I can only assume that this started as a mixup of their two last names, but on top of that, Anna becomes Alan in the redirect. Delete per
WP:R#D2 to prevent anyone else from going down a confusing rabbit hole. -
2pou (
talk) 22:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: No reason for this redirect to target that particular page, because controversies over GM organisms go far beyond just controversies over GM foods. There is no single page that this redirect is particularly appropriate for; there are numerous equally plausible targets in
Category:Genetically modified organisms in agriculture and
Category:Anti-GMO movement. This redirect resulted from undoing an inappropriate page move by a misguided student editor; details are at
Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Genetically modified food controversies. The exact wording is not a particularly plausible search term, and it's probably best to delete it. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 20:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The nom basically summed up my thoughts on this too, so I don't have much to add to the redirect not really have a good home. I agree with Ivanvector there's a case for
WP:R3 here too given the history of how the page came to be with a student editor moving the GM food controversies page to the more general title here (thereby creating it).
KoA (
talk) 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. There is a sensible target at
Genetically modified organism#Controversy, but the construction makes it a weak search term (search is case insensitive) and useless as a link in article editing. ―
Synpath 14:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Long standing title. Keep as {{
R from move}} or at worst, dabify. —
Kusma (
talk) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) This is an {{
R from move}} - from what I can see, the page now at
Extrasolar planets in fiction was at this title from its creation in August 2006 until less than a week ago. Because of this, I'd be very wary of supporting this redirect's deletion (per
WP:R#K4); however, given the
WP:XY issues, I'm currently leaning in favour of turning this title into a disambiguation page pointing to both articles. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 20:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural renomination. For context, this redirect was
nominated yesterday, but that discussion was closed early due to a speedy deletion that has now been undone. The page previously at this title (which had article history) was
moved without a redirect to Undead (Yoasobi song) after being undeleted, and I recreated a redirect from this title. This is a procedural nomination only, I do not personally wish for this redirect to be deleted.
Pinging participants in the previous RfD, and the previous page's creator (given that they were notified about the previous RfD on their talk page):
PepeBonus,
CycloneYoris,
KjjjKjjj. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 19:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(Nominator and recreator) I believe that this redirect should be kept, as I believe that putting the name of the song in quotation marks is a plausible mistake, and - in any event - unambiguous and
cheap. Song articles on Wikipedia start with the name of the song wrapped in quotes (which is also how links to such articles are
formatted on disambiguation pages); so, to me, it's reasonable to think that a reader could type a song's title with quotation marks when looking for information about that song (as evidenced by the fact that the article was
created at this title). I don't believe that any of the reasons for deleting a redirect apply in this instance (hence why I recreated this title as an {{
R from move}}). All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 19:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect was created in October 2022. I'm proposing deletion, as - like the
nomination below this one - this rcat-redirect is potentially ambiguous: a redirect to a publisher is not necessarily a redirect from a creative work.
Unlike the nomination listed below, this redirect has been to RfD before; with a discussion that did not receive comments other than from the nominator and the page creator, and which resulted in a 'no consensus' close. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 16:17, 29 April 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) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not necessarily ambiguous, but there's no guarantee or expectation that the tagged redirect will be from a "work", leaving the current target erroneous.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect was created in September 2023. I'm proposing deletion, as a potentially ambiguous rcat-redirect. A redirect to an artist is not necessarily a redirect from a creative work, and I'm not aware of a more appropriate rcat template that this could be retargeted to. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 16:01, 29 April 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) 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, redirects to an artist could also be from, say, an art style or artistic movement, or an artistic period of their life.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 17:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not necessarily ambiguous, but there's no guarantee or expectation that the tagged redirect will be from a "work", leaving the current target erroneous.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Television series by CBS Television Studios
A category redirect created by an indefinitely-blocked user which should be eligible for
WP:G5 but I tagged this as a
WP:C1, which
Liz reverted and suggested I list this here for deletion. This category is like other cats moved to newer/later titles without rdr by JJMC89 bot III.
Intrisit (
talk) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - There's not really any harm in it, and it could help if someone adds the category—the category redirect function will fix it automatically—but I don't think it will be added anymore (4 years after rebrand now), and the category renaming procedure typically does not leave behind a redirect as the nom states. -
2pou (
talk) 01:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A TV episode for a program not on Wikipedia, and not discussed at the hosting show article either. Not currently a helpful redirect for people interested in this topic, as it would otherwise not exist for people that read the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:46, 26 April 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) 14:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - while it's marked {{
R with history}}, it seems that none of its content has been reused in the target article (it never mentioned this show specifically), thus it is not required to maintain the history. And since there is no content on this topic at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia, it should not be a redirect.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The target does not disambiguate (or mention) "Shams ud Duha"
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentShams ud Duha is a variant spelling of the name, which is also sometimes also rendered as Shamsud Doha, or Shamsuddoha, including in biographies linked on that page.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:814B:EA3E:5ED7:3206 (
talk) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's as may be, and explains why
Shams ud Duha redirects there, but none of the entries on the name page are of that form.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 15:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I was merely explaining why someone would create the redirect, though it is possible, even if unlikely, that a notable person who's name is usually rendered that way will be listed at some point in the future.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DDE1:EF29:F8DF:334 (
talk) 03:53, 28 April 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) 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No character called undertow at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:30, 26 April 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) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This competition has zero to do with the redirect target.
Bgsu98(Talk) 23:30, 28 April 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) 14:42, 6 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) 14:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I expect that this redirect exists because (according to the article) East Midlands Trains ran services called "Mainline". I do not know whether they were ever called "East Midlands Mainline" by anyone, but it would not surprise me too much. —
Kusma (
talk) 20:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
East Midlands Mainline may not be common, but It's not hard to find examples, often in the same item that also calls it Midland Mainline.
Council urges electrification of East Midlands Mainline
[6]
an interchange station with the East Midlands Mainline is to be located
[7]
East Midlands Mainline commuters were told back in 2017
[8]
Find us ... Leicester is on the East Midlands Mainline route
[9]
three sections of fibre running alongside the railway, each connected to a FOAS interrogator. These cover a section of the East Midlands mainline from
[10] (at
[11])
this contemporary station stands as a pivotal piece of the city's infrastructure, strategically positioned on the East Midlands Mainline
[12]
"entoptic" refers to things in eyes. it's not necessarily "psychedelic", as it can (probably) refer to anything that can be seen. "entopic" isn't the right word either, as it refers to things that are in their usual places cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:24, 29 April 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) 14:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepLarissa Hodge, we have information on this person and it's found at this target. It doesn't matter that it's very little information - this is what we have and that's where it is. Delete the others as they are unsourced alternates and nicknames and also not described at the target.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Larissa Hodge is shown as her contestant name Bootz which is referred to as Larissa Aurora in another section of the article. So I'm not on board with the logic of keeping one but not the other. Jay 💬 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Rail", "Sim" or "Pro" at the target article. Was redirected here after a 2015 AfD as an "obvious alternative to AfD", but this topic seems to have never been discussed at the target before, and certainly not after. Not a helpful redirect in its current form. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:34, 25 April 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) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - according to
Fandom this was a planned release expected to reinvent the
Trainz series after Trainz Railroad Simulator 2006. Instead the developer went belly-up and sold the rights to the series to N3V, who then continued publishing several more Trainz titles. We have no information on this game and the redirect should be deleted.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This was formerly a disambiguation page consisting only of two redlinks. The now-defunct Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs redirected it instead of asking for G14. Delete.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 14:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
GNIS lists four "Huntingtons" in South Carolina in Cherokee, Richland, Sumter and Laurens counties. Which one was the deleted item?
Vsmith (
talk) 01:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Or which were the two redlinks?
Vsmith (
talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Vsmith: in this case the page wasn't deleted so you can see what it was in the page history. See
this revision for what was on the page before it was turned into a redirect.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As an exercise, I drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect, listing the cities where the various Huntingtons can be found according to GNIS (I only found three Huntingtons in South Carolina). However, my !vote is to delete (and also delete Huntington, South Carolina (disambiguation)) - other than this dab page identifying them, we have no information on Wikipedia about any of the Huntingtons, neither on the city pages nor on the county pages.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Ross" or "Rachel" at the target singer's page, but also no mention at
Jake Miller discography either. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:20, 25 April 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) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems to be an alternate language version of exhibitionism, not mentioned at the target, and with no strong association to the target outside of what would be expected of
WP:RLANG. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:22, 25 April 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) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Web search indicates this is a
computer game where the main character is an exhibitionist. A red link seems preferable here. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 16:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - my search (which I inadvisedly did at work) came up with similar results to Presidentman. It could be a Japanese synonym but the topic is not especially Japanese, otherwise it's a non-notable erotica game.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of RTV News at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:29, 25 April 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) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - the Bangladeshi network
RTV (Bangladeshi TV channel) operates a Youtube channel called "RTV News", but I don't see any evidence of any corporation with this name. I don't understand the link to Paramount and the earlier discussion doesn't help.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. only found several wikia entries and listings in my GSearch. Apparently it is a CBS Corporation
subsidiary. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of a "scary sharp" method of sharpening at the title. The word "scary" does not appear at the target, and the only time "sharp" appears is in the form of "sharpening", but nothing about a "sharp" on it's own. Non-notable technique which was BLAR'd this time last year. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:48, 25 April 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) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Scientific" is only said once in the lead, and "sexism" only appears once in the body, both in entirely different situations. While listed as an alternative name, there is nothing in the article to indicate that this is the case, and there seems like there'd be other sexism articles that this could refer to, as there are also mentions of "scientific" at
sexism as well. Seems as if this is an otherwise ambiguous term that has a lot of possibilities due to the lack of clarity between "science" and "sexism". Utopes(talk / cont) 03:52, 25 April 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) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Targets the manufacturers section, but solowheel is not listed as a manufacturer of electric unicycles at the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:50, 25 April 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) 14:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of this word at the target, although it's pointed here since 2012. Perhaps a wiktionary redirect would be more appropriate? Not sure if there are other encyclopedic topics where this title could be a shoo-in.... :) Utopes(talk / cont) 04:36, 25 April 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) 14:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This refers to
birational maps. Right now the target article has a hatnote for three of the arrows redirecting there, but I'm not sure expanding that indefinitely would be the best option.
1234qwer1234qwer4 23:56, 26 April 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) 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Birational geometry#Birational maps or the more general
Rational mapping (which also uses either this or the similar notation ⤏), someone copy-pasting this specific symbol is much more likely to look for what it means than for a generic "arrow symbol" page.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep / refine to the "Usage" section and mentioned dashed arrows there. They also occur in
sequence diagrams and various other places including
commutative diagrams. —
Kusma (
talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Neither Opera mail nor "OperaMail" are mentioned at the target, much less its supposed .com domain. This domain currently exists on the web as a redirect to opera dot com, and as for Wikipedia, without a mention of operamail this does not seem to be the most helpful currently. (Even if it's a mail site that was acquired by Opera from 2010 to 2013. Notably, this redirect was created in 2011 when the "opera" description was accurate, but Fastmail became independent again very shortly after and has been so for the last decade.) Utopes(talk / cont) 01:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 07:03, 27 April 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) 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: I've bundled Operamail.com as there's been no votes and it should have the same outcome, I believe (pinging
Utopes).
Skynxnex (
talk) 17:29, 6 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) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Nutrient" at the target page. Was created as a redirect without mention at the target. Afterward, the creator proceeded to link this term in the See Also sections of high profile pages that had very stringent connections to the "Recovery and Reuse of Nutrients". Seems to be an effort to establish notoriety to this term, which appears nowhere on Wikipedia in an academic context, sans the randomly piped See Also mentions. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 07:04, 27 April 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) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-existing thing, ctrl + f shows no mention about this. 🥒
Greenish Pickle!🥒 (
🔔) 12:25, 28 April 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) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Facility is a bit of a stretch since it's more like a rooftop tent used by the bad guys in
Resident Evil: Extinction. --
Lenticel(
talk) 08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It wasn't called like this, but Umbrella Corp only. 🥒
Greenish Pickle!🥒 (
🔔) 12:30, 28 April 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) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article. At this point, the only article that mentions this phrase is
Kaz Firpo, but that may not be appropriate since apparently, the subject of this redirect also has a connection to the subject
Ridley Scott; in other words, delete per
WP:REDYES.
Steel1943 (
talk) 14:08, 28 April 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) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Cannot find any evidence that such an album was ever planned to exist. There is a single of the same name, but I don't see any sources claiming an album under this name was ever meant to be released. Doesn't seem like much point in keeping a redirect for something that isn't real.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 05:23, 29 April 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) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete criterion
G3. The creator is a sockpuppet of a vandal known for creating false pages about nonexistent music. This can be presumed to be another of their hoaxes.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of this singular joke-line from the show at the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Perry the Platypus. I'm normally a stickler for
WP:DABMENTION and
WP:R#D8, but I think it's good enough that 1) in context, the phrase is unambiguously referring to Perry, 2) there's really no other sensible target for it, and 3) the phrase does appear in the show, rather than being some
WP:MADEUP neologism. --NYKevin 01:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The thing about this, though, is that there's basically a different variation of name every episode, and none of which are discussed at the proposed target (no mention of a plumber version of Perry). There's whole
compilations of the different outcries, and I don't think we'd need
Perry the Banjo-Playing Platypus either. Is basically a single-use gag, and such types of single-use gag redirects are unlikely to be useful. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
delete, and look through the creator's other redirects, they're also mostly oddly specific phineas and ferb lines cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 12:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:41, 29 April 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) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'll note, they are in many occasions, such as
[13][14][15], none of which use the "summer" qualifier but do refer to the 2024 as Games. These aren't the Winter Olympics. There's the colloquial Olympics, and the Winter Olympics. The word "summer" is often dropped on most occasions when discussing the Olympics that take place in the summer, so I wouldn't consider the winter games to be on the same level.
2008 Games and
1992 Games are current redirects to their respective Olympics and have existed since 2007 and 2006, respectively. This is in conjunction with similar titles such as
2006 Winter Games and/or
2014 Winter Games as expected. These were created through AfC so I don't have a strong attachment, but if you have any alternate titles that have a higher significant usage of "2020 Games" that could be useful to note. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
disambiguate, or retarget to
2020 in video games, since it ignores the winter olympics and those other things people refer to almost exclusively as "games"
would suggest "2020 summer games", but that also seems to refer mostly to games released in the summer of 2020 cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't think this is a useful redirect, and I don't think it would be a useful dab page either. If you search for "2020 games", ignoring this redirect, you'll get results that take you to the likely spots mentioned in this discussion. --
asilvering (
talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but reopened upon request for additional consideration of the arguments above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Utopes, the Summer Olympics are commonly the Games, and are referred to as, say, "Games of the XXXII Olympiads". The capitalization makes it clear that this is not about, say, video games, but one specific event.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - too nonspecific. There was a time at RfD (I recall 2015-ish) when we had many discussions about redirects that fit this description: often made by a character-substituting bot, they were strings of characters from different languages which actually made no sense at all, they just looked plausible, and it was common to write them off as mojibake. It's not exactly right to say that the resulting titles were "unintelligible" - you could tell what they were supposed to be, they just ... weren't that. Except that occasionally they
really were gibberish. But an "unintelligible sequence of characters" could be pretty much anything, so I think it would be better for a reader to see search results for this.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure about this. The redirect used to be an article, blanked and redirected by @
Tintero21:, but targeted at
Roman emperor rather than
Holy Roman Emperor which seems to me a better target (or, at least, uses the expression more).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to Imperator. Roman emperors did occasionally use this specific title. Although imperator was originally a title given to victorious generals until the early empire, the emperors later used it alongside various other titles titles such as princeps, augustus, caesar, dominus or basileus. The article Imperator discusses the nuances of this term, and also mentions its use in the Holy Roman Empire and other post-Roman states.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Holy Roman Emperor. As described there, Imperator Romanorum is the title, or part of the title, they used from Charlemagne on. It's true that Romans sometimes called leaders imperator, and it became one of the titles of Augustus and his successors, but it was unnecessary to specify that as Romanorum until much later.
NebY (
talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to "Holy Roman Emperor" per NebY. If Imperator Romanorum was used by the Holy Roman emperors, it makes a logical target; the Roman emperors didn't need to say who they were emperors of, since they were the original ones, and no others were invented until Charlemagne. The existing hatnote is sufficient to get people to "Roman emperor" if that's where they meant to go.
P Aculeius (
talk) 12:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to "Holy Roman Emperor" per NebY.
Celia Homeford (
talk) 13:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the United States weren't a thing in the pre-Columbian era for obvious reasons. A retarget to
History of the United States (which does mention the pre-Columbian history, but makes it clear the US didn't exist back then, calling it the lands that became the United States) would also be an option.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Immediately I wish I could be more civil but there is no better way to put in back in 2006-2009 I was a toxic cunt, how I didn't get banned back then is a mystery to me. There are far too many pointless redirects I made back then some people aren't even aware of. That's the main reason I want ALL my editing history gone and start entirely from scratch. And even after recovering I doubt my stance will change.
Blaze The Movie Fan (
talk) 14:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
History of the United States - while it may not be an ideal title, the fact of the matter is that if someone is looking for information from the ancient period on the landmass known as the United States, this article is where it is. If they're looking for information on the country from the ancient period, well then they might just learn something.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good point indeed! I'm honestly split between retarget and delete on this one, both are fine with me.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Ivanvector. The new target is more geographically specific than the current, and is more similar to the target of
Ancient Germany. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
History of the United States per Ivanvector. Not exactly the best fit but I agree that this is the closest target for it. --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nomination. Ancient United States simply isn't a thing that existed. TarnishedPathtalk 10:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the title makes it obvious why. Yes, it's technically pointing to the correct page, but seriously. I doubt "Sucking peepee" is really an encyclopedic redirect to have.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Redirects are allowed to be "unencyclopedic". This is an unambiguous redirect, so it's valid.
Fieari (
talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Being a comprehensible synonym isn't sufficient grounds to include an expression. Yes, redirects are cheap—very cheap—but that doesn't mean we need to go
Full Neelix and include every possible comprehensible synonym that no one would ever use. If there are actually instances of people searching for this, I'd be fine with it; but are there? Google Trends
says no. (That one spike today is me just checking.) Please delete this, before someone decides that if this works, then so does hoovering hoohaa, lapping labia, tonguing twat, and savoring snatch, none of which are on Google Trends.citation needed (Actually, I didn't bother to check; but wouldn't it be something if one of them *is* on Trends, whereas sucking peepee is not? Then what are we gonna do?)
Mathglot (
talk) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Mathglot. Can successfully get to this target from a plethora of different searches, including but not limited to, Google. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unlikely/unhelpful search terms.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
torn between voting to delete based on "peepee" being a general term for the thing that expels the bladder juice (i'm sure there's a better term for that), and to keep based on it being funnyultimately though, i'd say retarget them to sexual intercourse or a more general target. can't check for a specific target at the moment, my isp would have me killed within the next 3 hours cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Utopes. Jay 💬 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Mathglot; we don't need redirects for every euphemism people might invent. And when it comes to sex acts, there are a lot. Crossroads-talk- 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:CHEAP and as plausible search terms, and tag with {{
R from colloquial name}}. To respond to concerns in the nomination, redirects are allowed to be unencyclopedic - I’m not aware of a policy/guideline that disallows such redirects, and
WP:RNEUTRAL states that perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Arguments have been made above regarding the likelihood of these as search terms — however,
google:"sucking+peepee" tells me that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet, and these therefore strike me as plausible search terms (engaging
WP:R#K3). The question I’m asking myself is ‘could these redirects potentially refer to articles besides the current target?’ - and, from what I can see, they seem fairly unambiguous.Would I have created these redirects myself? Probably not. However, are they problematic such that they
require deletion? My answer to that question is no — and therefore, my !vote is to keep: just because Wikipedia doesn’t need these redirects doesn’t mean that the project and/or readers are harmed by their existence. To respond to Mathglot’s and Crossroads' concerns regarding potential other redirects being created,
pandora’s-box-style arguments are a form of
WP:OTHERSTUFF: if such redirects are created, they can be judged on their own merits (including deletion per
WP:R#D8 if a novel or very obscure term without a mention in the article) - and the currently nominated redirects should be judged on their own merits likewise. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If your argument is based on a google search telling you that "that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet" I would have to respond, "Do you have any idea how small a number 49 results is on the entire internet?" That is functionally equivalent to zero. Some statistician among us might estimate the number of unique English bigrams on the internet with over 49 hits, and that number would be enormous, but they don't all rate redirects, only the ones searched for possibly do. There is
no evidence that anybody searched for this bigram (at least, before this thread was started).
Mathglot (
talk) 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If it would help, I could link individual pages which use this term. In my mind, the question is whether or not this is a novel or very obscure phrase, and - based on the usage I found from the search - my opinion is that it doesn’t meet that bar. (As a side note, I’m unsure where 49 results originates from - for me, the search returns ~1,700.) Given the size of the internet, lots of terms could be said to have a usage functionally equivalent to zero; however, if a redirect from such a term would potentially be helpful, and its existence wouldn’t be
problematic, I don’t see why it couldn’t exist - just because a phrase is insignificant compared to the internet as a whole, doesn’t necessarily mean that that phrase is novel or very obscure. While evidence of usage can be a
factor in favour of keeping, a lack of usage is not a reason to delete a redirect. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And you voted 'Keep' there, per... this discussion. Hmm.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - if a reader wants information on these topics, the current target is where they will find it.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – an Unlikely and unhelpful search terms.
Drdpw (
talk) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or delete? (I count 9 deletes and 4 keeps.) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 07:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per arguments already put forward above, and also anyone who actually searches for this term is likely to be a child. Plenty of other
redirects lead to fellatio (
65 in total) and as far as I can see none of them are as juvenile (with the possible exception of cockgobbling) and unlikely to be searched. Obviously, juvenile content is allowed on Wikipedia but together with the rest of the arguments put forward is it really necessary in this case?
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, not because it is particularly bad, but to avoid a repeat of the
WP:X1 Neelix issues, even if those were more prominently about breasts. —
Kusma (
talk) 12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Kusma: Forgive me for asking this, but isn't this just
WP:OTHERSTUFF? If this redirect isn't particularly bad, I don't see why it should be deleted based on the idea that other redirects might be created - if they are, RfD can deal with them as/when they occur. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My reading of
WP:NOTDICT is that it applies to the content of articles rather than redirects, and so would be applicable if e.g. someone wrote a dictionary-definition article on a slang term (which is where Wikipedia is not a...slang...guide would apply). However, per
WP:R#K3, redirects from plausible search terms for article subjects are allowed - redirects existing from colloquial terms doesn't violate NOTDICT by my understanding. Best, —a smart kitten[
meow 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "lax" or a lax team at the target, inferred from history. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: We mention they have a facility that they use for lacrosse a regulation-size field for men's and women's soccer which also can be used for other sports such as lacrosse and they do have both men and women's lacrosse. So improving the article would be fine; but there's no reason to delete this redirect even as-is.
Skynxnex (
talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as noted by nominator, "lax" isn't mentioned at target. Also, Scranton is a big place with a population of over 76,000. It's conceivable there might be other lacrosse teams and players, at one of the secondary schools or in one of the 8 other higher education establishments in the city. Only
5 pageviews in the past 90 days, all of which seem to be after this RfD was opened, so it's not a commonly searched term.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 12:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - for those like me that didn't get it, "lax" is short for lacrosse. The only mention of lacrosse at the target, and not in the target section, is that one of their sports fields can also be used for lacrosse, which is a bit like mentioning in an article on a highway that it can also be used for cars to drive on. It's not useful information for a reader looking for information on this school's lacrosse activities.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of this former cult member at the target article, in any form, it seems. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. He is actually mentioned. According to
CBS News this was Chuck Humphrey's cult name. Humphrey is mentioned here. I could add a mention this was his name in the group, if you'd like?
PARAKANYAA (
talk) 01:43, 25 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,
Duckmather (
talk) 07:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "Shuggie" as a nickname at the target article. Could also be confused with
Shruggie. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate. Shuggie and
Shug are Scottish diminutives of Hugh, but we can't forget about
Shuggie Otis. -
Eureka Lott 05:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as noted, Shug and Shuggie are Scottish nicknames for Hugh. I don't see the need for a disambiguation page though, perhaps add
Shuggie Otis to the
Hugh article instead. I've already added Shuggie to the infobox as a nickname.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is not the Scots Wikipedia, and "shuggie" could be confused with a diminutive form of "sugar".
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ivanvector Just to note, Scots is a distinct language.
Scottish English is a recognised variant of English. We use American English, British English, Indian English, Canadian English, Australian English, South African English, etc. as appropriate on the English language Wikipedia. I don't think that Scottish English should be ignored and relegated to the edition of Wikipedia in another language. See
MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." This isn't to say this particular redirect should be emphatically retained (I've indicated my preference above), just that the use of a nickname (or word in general) predominantly or exclusively in Scotland doesn't automatically mean it's a Scots word. I don't speak Scots, aside from some vocabulary which has made its way into Scottish English, but I do use "Shug" and, to a lesser extent, "Shuggie" as a nickname for people called Hugh.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's hard to see how someone imagining "shuggie" to be a diminutive form of "sugar" (!) will be helped by deleting Wikipedia's redirect to the actual
Scottish English usage.
NebY (
talk) 15:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Shuggie Otis describes the nickname: "short for 'sugar', according to his mother", and also see
wikt:shug#Etymology 2. Fair point about Scottish English vs the Scots language, I'm just not sure that this is the best usage for this redirect. Besides Shuggie Otis there's also
Shuggie Bain; only one of those is about a person named Hugh. I feel like search results would be better.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A topic not discussed at the target page, as "supple" nor "supplement" ever appear at the target page. Was BLAR'd in 2017 as being based on almost entirely unreliable sources, but does not serve its purpose as a good redirect if there is no content to be read about this at
PageRank. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Google's Supplemental Results (technically still there - just not labeled as such) were not relevant to an article about the PageRank algorithm. Technically, the Supplemental Results are all the low-value content for which Google makes room available in its index, but they're not likely to be selected for competitive (high-interest) queries. Nor are the pages likely to be recrawled or refreshed very often. The only real connection anyone from Google ever confirmed was that these types of pages usually had very little PageRank. It would be more appropriate to redirect the page to the article about Google and add something there, assuming a suitable resource could be found (probably one of Danny Sullivan's articles from Search Engine Land from around 2006-2010).
Michael Martinez (
talk) 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of this term at the target article. Almost assuredly has a plethora of other uses outside of... just Fark. The portmanteau of "mod" and "admin" is likely to come up in a number of other more relevant contexts related to moderation and administration. Cautiously though, this term has zero mentions on all Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to just "retargeting and calling it good". Utopes(talk / cont) 06:56, 18 April 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) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. If there were incoming links, wikt would have been a useful target. Jay 💬 14:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete? Retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Jay, doesn't feel like a common enough term that would justify a soft redirect.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per points already raised. Does not seem necessary to redirect to wikt, and almost definitely used on more than just this one website.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 12:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: per Jay. I know it's a semi-common term in Facebook groups but this isn't there and there are no incoming links. TarnishedPathtalk 10:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep both "Supercops vs Supervillains" redirects, which are perfectly plausible search terms. No opinion on the others for now.
CycloneYoristalk! 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I noticed. But miscapitalization is not that big of a deal, and not enough reason to warrant deletion. That is why {{
R from miscapitalisation}} exists.
CycloneYoristalk! 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the other 4 redirects? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepSuperCops vs Supervillains and Supercops vs Supervillains and tag as "R from miscapitalisation". Delete the rest per nom. --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't determine why this redirects here.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: it seems like her screen name used to be/occasionally was, based on the IMDb
[17] page and (all following links may contain pornography)
[18] and just general Google search results showing video titles that mention both names
"Bailey Jay" "quinn". Now, redirects don't need quite the same level of reliable sourcing to exist so I'm still on the fence if this is useful enough to exist and if a mention of the name could be added in the article.
Skynxnex (
talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, better if mention added at target. If people are looking for information on this pornographic pseudonym, this person's biography is where they will find it.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on
LadybugStardust's findings? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in main article
Australian Greens. Not a plausible search term, appears to be an attempt at a POV-fork.
AusLondonder (
talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The section this pointed to was
removed just two days ago, and there are ongoing discussions at the talk page. It may be better to wait until consensus is reached on whether or not to include this content before having an RfD. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural close: Wait for the talk page discussion to finish.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nomination, it's not mention in the article and I doubt that it will be back given that the sourcing was a bunch of op-eds from politicians opposed to this particular party. That's unless some sourcing can be found from academic sources which are subject matter experts, which I highly doubt. TarnishedPathtalk 11:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete, or wait for the talk page discussion to end? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's ended. One editor proposed inserting poorly sourced content, two editors opposed. There's been no further discussion in four days.
AusLondonder (
talk) 08:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, talk page discussion ended and no mention in article.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 12:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete now that the talk page discussion has concluded, and consensus is against including this content. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 16:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Similar to
Ruby on Яails, this is another typo (from Eubot), so I also suggest deletion.
Duckmather (
talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Unnatural misspelling, gets 1-2 views per month.
Air on White (
talk) 05:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Meant to post this for the similar nomination today, my bad. This one actually got 0 views in the past 90 days.
Air on White (
talk) 05:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, Eubot often did that. I thought we had made a speedy criterion for them similar to
WP:X1 for Neelix redirects, but maybe it was just something that was discussed a lot.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pretty much a textbook instance of a
unnatural typo (the creator wrote in their edit summary "someone lock this so Willy can't do anything bad" though), so I suggest deletion.
Duckmather (
talk) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect targets a section that doesn't exist. Also, "virtual technology" is not the same thing as "technology" in general. I would guess that a more useful place to point this to would be something like
Computing or
Virtual world or
Virtual reality or similar. However, this phrase also seems inherently vague so I would understand it if anyone !voted for a delete.
Duckmather (
talk) 04:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect, since "drove" is also the past tense of "drive". I suggest either disambiguating between
driving and
drovers' road or retargeting to wiktionary.
Duckmather (
talk) 03:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, the past tense of a verb isn't necessarily a good target when the word is also a noun. A hatnote to
driving should do the job, no need for a standalone disambiguation page to maintain.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 12:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment in my area of Scotland there are a few rights of way named Drove Road, rather than Drovers' road, so a redirect from Drove road might be appropriate, but as noted drove has multiple meanings and I'm not sure this is the most appropriate target.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 12:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - neat, I'd never heard that term before, but the target is unquestionably correct. A hatnote would solve the ambiguity.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify with the above entries plus the following: Drove chisel and Drove, a group of
hares. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
delete: the correct name of the company is Anonima Petroli Italiana (API), what can be found on the
Internet about Anonima Italiana Petroli (AIP?) concerns other companies (for example in one book he talks about Anonima Italiana Petroli of Piacenza, another says that it subsequently became Società Petrolifera Italiana...).
InterComMan (
talk) 11:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, from the first sentence in the article "Italiana Petroli S.p.A. (until 2019 Anonima Petroli Italiana S.p.A.), also known by the acronym API or Gruppo API" - it would appear their name has changed but their acronym has not, and has dropped the "Anonima" from its name. This seems like a plausible redirect to me.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The company was never called Anonima Italiana Petroli, but Anonima Petroli Italiana. In 2019 it changed its name to Italiana Petroli.
InterComMan (
talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My point was, which I may not have made as well as I could have, with the name having changed it is plausible for a reader to mistake either "Anonima Petroli Italiana" or "Italiana Petroli" for "Anonima Italiana Petroli" given the change in name. As such the redirect is worth keeping. Redirects are not exclusively used for former official names.
This Google search shows that there are several examples of this precise mistaken word order on the internet.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
On the Internet, as I showed you, they are mostly references to other companies. However, if it is a common mistake it does not mean that it should be "legitimised".
InterComMan (
talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you might have missed one of the points of redirects. They don't legitimise mistakes, they correct them. For example,
Scotchland and
Scot Land are both redirects to
Scotland. I don't think anyone is going to mistakenly type in Scotchland, be taken to a page titled Scotland, and think that Scotchland is the correct spelling. Similarly,
AmericA redirects to
United States,
Neatherlands redirects to
Netherlands,
Itali redirects to
Italy and
Russiya redirects to
Russia. (I realise these are all countries, not companies, but it's much easier to think of examples for countries). Redirects exist in part to correct mistakes, not to reinforce them. See
WP:POFR for more information on when to use redirects. From the search results linked above, any other companies with this name are likely to be non-notable entities and are unlikely to be searched for or have articles created at this page so I feel this is a valid redirect for a possible mistake.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 19:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This character functions as a pronoun and honorific in Literary Chinese, whence the Japanese sense. I do not just want to redirect it to a Chinese article, but I don't think a disambiguation page is warranted either.
Remsense诉 23:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is too soon. The target article does not have specific information about any of these editions. --
Tavix(
talk) 20:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the main tournament page has no information about any of these years.
Esolo5002 (
talk) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
yeah definitely delete, its WAYYY too soon.
KameronS333 (
talk) 02:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep the 2026 and 2027 tournaments. The 2024 tournament already ended and the 2025 tournament is the upcoming tournament.
Abhiramakella (
talk) 23:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Is otherwise confusing, and would never be searched with this term to reach the target page. Also not mentioned, so users would have no idea why this term goes here instead of being an r from typo. If letter transpositions are considered good to target to the base word, this redirect insists that is not the case, as it considers "Scrmable" to be a separate topic to "Scramble" (correctly, imo!). Scramble is not a hard word to spell, so it would not benefit from having a typo in this style aimed there, especially because "scrmable" does not sound like "scramble" at all. On the flipside, because "scrmable" isn't mentioned at the target article either, it's not useful in its current form as it stands. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete No reason to have this particular example of transposed letters be a redirect.
MartinPoulter (
talk) 14:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Looking at the previous article history, it appears to have been claimed as a specific term for the transposed letter effect, but the links are dead except for one twenty-year-old script (
[19]) and I can't find any other source using this specific term.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 13:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain. The CCWS was the successor via bankruptcy of CART. In fact, the "Champ Car World Series" name was used by CART as the name of the series it sanctioned for the
last season before the bankruptcy filing by CART, purchase of its assets by a group of team owners and reorganization under the CCWS name. The first question is was the split of the article (it used to be one article at
Champ Car before the separate CCWS article was split out and the other article moved to the CART name) really necessary? I'd lean yes because it's a logical point for a break under summary style, not necessarily because of the legal structures (there was much more continuity than break in operations).
So the question then becomes which article is the best target for the "Champ Car" redirect (the redirects here are just alternate spellings and should point to the same place). Well, "Champ Car" was the common short name of the CCWS organization and likely primary meaning of the term. The general category of American open-wheel racing is most commonly known as
IndyCar, but CART couldn't use that anymore after the
Indy Racing League split (CART did use the name before, calling their series the IndyCar World Series prior to 1996) so they went with the more obscure Champ Car term after the split, but it didn't become part of the organization's name until the reorganization. As long as Champ Car redirects to the CCWS article, we should be consistent with spelling variations.
oknazevad (
talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Does Wikipedia need the unused redirects? At what point do the spelling variations simply become misspellings?
Champ car,
Champ Car,
Champ cars, and
Champ Cars already exist as redirects, in addition to a plethora of others.
But my point is that there is no obvious destination for the redirects I originally listed. They are grammatically incorrect, and could be taken by an editor to mean either a type of car, OR the sanctioning body. Using a small 'c' for car, they should probably direct to the
AOWR page, but as one 'word' they are simply incorrect spellings, and I am questioning why they need to exist.
RegalZ8790 (
talk) 00:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. It seems that the subject of this redirect is supposed to be based on a story that Netflix had purchased the rights for; on a related note, I recently found the redirect The Shambling Guide and retargeted it towards
Mur Lafferty#The Shambling Guides since the book series subject is directly mentioned in that section, but that section makes no mention of a film or an upcoming film.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This subject is not mentioned in the target article, and there seems to be no definite resources through third party search engines or Wikipedia itself to validate what the subject is meant to be. The only hint I can find is that on IMDb, there is a film that is listed as in production that his name change agent, no further information can be found other than that. (For what it is worth, I could not find a good retargeting option on Wikipedia for any unrelated topic that could be called a "Change Agent"; a Wikipedia search returned a good amount of articles, but they just seemed like title rearrangements and partial title matches.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The subject of these redirects is not mentioned in either target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Most likely, the subject of these redirects represent a story that Netflix picked up the rights for, but then a film for the subject of this story never came into fruition; third-party search results return results about a story relating to a fictional character who wields nunchucks and states one-liners, but surprisingly, third-party search results return no information regarding the connection between the subject of these redirects and Netflix.
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Undead" (Yoasobi song)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted
It's impossible to associate this term with a single article, and I doubt a dab will be useful either. Propose retargeting to somewhere like
Airport#Access_and_onward_travel or deleting.
NotAGenious (
talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting since the second redirect wasn't tagged until now, and considering that a new target was brought up late in the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Airport#Access and onward travel: Although Tavix is correct that people might be searching for routes within airports, the redirect to the Airport article covers both since the section immediately below "Access and onward travel" is "Internal transport". I've also added a {{
see also}} in "Internal transport" to
List of airport people mover systems.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 07:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The Irish term translates to 'The Six Counties' which is an
alternative name for Northern Ireland. I believe that this is a plausible redirect and does not violate
WP:RFOREIGN hence I would opt for keep.
Golem08 (
talk) 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That would be valid if it were used as such, but Google returns next to nothing, and
The Six Counties is a redlink.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Separating this out from the below because there is an episode of the manga titled just "Nanashi" so this could justifiably be thought of as a redirect for that. But really people typing this are likely to be looking for the character, on whom there's not enough substance to warrant a redirect. Has prior history but
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MÄR characters establishes sufficient agreement from AfD that there's no need to restore.
* Pppery *it has begun... 23:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 06:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but retarget to the chapter list. I don't see a reason to delete it since it's mentioned and redirects are
WP:CHEAP.
Link20XX (
talk) 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Per the edit history trail left by the redirect, the subject of this redirect may have a connection to the subject at
Life (Sigma album).
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This redirect previously targeted the page now at Rudeboy (Sigma song), where the sole reference (outside of the infobox and citations) to the rapper was that the song was featuring vocals from British singer MC Doctor (
permalink). That page was
BLARed in Jan 2023 and now targets
Life (Sigma album), which - outside of the tracklist - references Doctor once, in the sentence "Rudeboy" featuring Doctor was released as the album's first single on 15 December 2013. (The reason
Doctor (rapper) currently targets
Rude boy is because the redirect Rudeboy (song) was
retargeted to that article not long after a move, causing a bot to
retarget this redirect there as well.) All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article. Apparently, the subject of these redirects is in regards to a true story (doctor who became a rapper after the doctor had a blackout) that Netflix bought the rights for in 2019. However, 2019 seems to be where all the news about this ends. There is no other information on Wikipedia about this subject.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Deletion. The 2025 WC is not mentioned in the target article yet. The previous PDC Darts WC articles were created months before they started, when there was some official info about them.
ArtiK-99 (
talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
History indicates that this used to be a problematic article that was then redirected to
Italic peoples, then to
Romance-speaking world which was relatively recently deleted (2023), and now re-created as a redirect to
Latins by a new user. This should be discussed before we let it stay.
Joy (
talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd argue that Latin people or Latin peoples can be rather vague. It's been seen used colloquially just to mean "Latin Americans" and also been used in European contexts whether for present day Romance-speaking groups or for historical populations like the Italic Latins of antiquity. Since the article
Latins covers broadly all "people-related" uses of this term since antiquity it seems like a good fit for a redirect.
Evaporation123 (
talk) 01:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And that would be fine if this was stable, but in the latest rewrite, we already had a revert
[20] by @
Liz and a major intervention
[21] by @
Diannaa. A clearer consensus would be preferable. --
Joy (
talk) 06:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Evaporation123, broad target fitting for a broad redirect.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Recently created at
WP:AFC/R. My concerns regarding these redirects are the same as I
left as a comment there: judging from
this 2022 Variety article, I'm not sure that this is the same company - the fact that Getting Out Our Dreams II, LLC is referenced in that article as a variation on the name of his earlier label, Getting Out Our Dreams makes me feel like this company might not be the same thing as
GOOD Music. If it isn't the same company, I worry that having this redirect might
cause confusion to our readers, by implying to those who are redirected from this term that this is a company name for the GOOD Music we have an article on (which, according to this RS, would seem to be incorrect). I'm not sure what the best thing to do here is, so bringing to RfD for more thoughts, but would lean in favour of deletion if a better solution can't be found. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
A smart kitten I definitely didn’t do well for not telling you why I went ahead to accept the request even though I saw your comment. I actually did a bit of research and found some song releases where Kanye West was the artist and the label was “Getting Out Our Dreams” then at the copyright text, it was “Getting Out Our Dreams II LLC”. I’m currently mobile, I’d drop what I saw later.
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 06:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Vanderwaalforces: Please feel free to link what you saw; however, I'm not sure if that would confirm them as being the same company - according to the Variety article, Kanye's contracts have been renegotiated more than once, meaning that it seems possible to me that the songs might have been released under
GOOD Music initially and the copyright later transferred to Getting Out Our Dreams II, LLC. For example,
The Life of Pablo mentions that it was released through GOOD Music, but the Variety article states that [t]he copyright on all of his albums from 2016’s “Life of Pablo” album onward is credited to his company [GOOD II LLC]. I'll admit that this is quite a murky situation, though - the Variety article was the only RS I was able to find that mentioned GOOD II, and the company names being similar doesn't help! All the best —a smart kitten[
meow 07:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
A smart kitten I got it now, hehe.
[22], go to the More information tab and you'll find "Getting Out Our Dreams II, LLC" as one of the copyright holders. You will also agree with me that
[23] the direct album on Spotify also credits "Getting Out Our Dreams II, LLC". This is sufficient for me to have accepted this redirect request.
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 15:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Vanderwaalforces: With respect, I'm still not persuaded/convinced that these are the same company. I'm worried that inferring that GOOD II LLC is the same company as
GOOD Music based on an online store including both names in a product description is
WP:SYNTH; especially in the face of an
RS that directly refers to GOOD II LLC as a variation on the name of his earlier label GOOD Music. As I mentioned above, the copyrights might have been transferred since the album's initial release, which could have resulted in both companies being linked to an album despite being not being connected to each other. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 17:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
A smart kitten I have no prejudice against deleting these redirects, I have no personal interest. Perhaps they should be deleted. You’re doing a great job, by the way.
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 18:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The only mention of "United" comes from the United States. The only mention of "Penn" is within Pennsylvania. Besides that, no mention of "United Penn", or "Penn Bank" at the target article. Apparently might be a predecessor in the building, and the article is tagged with possibilities, but if this isn't mentioned at the target it may be better off to convert this into a red link to encourage article creation, if the possibility is indeed there. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Mellon Financial, where it is mentioned. I'm not opposed to deleting if others feel it would be better as a red link as the nominator suggests. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems like a good target. —
Ost (
talk) 21:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
could also be referring to bowser jr., doopliss, or mario himself in earlier continuities. also arguably not fitting in the first place after... his debut, but that's besides the point cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I believe "Evil Mario" is pretty synonymous with Wario in the same way
Waluigi is with
Luigi. Note that
Evil Luigi also exists as a redirect.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
granted, there is that one literal evil luigi in super paper mario... cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 11:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Hey man im josh. This goes where I'd expect it to. --
BDD (
talk) 14:52, 3 May 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! 05:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, while not explicitly called "evil Mario", Wario is designed as his evil counterpart, and is the most plausible target for "evil Mario" compared to various Mario games antagonists. Same for
evil Luigi (Waluigi).
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Although I see PORTIA (in all caps) mentioned here, I think it makes sense to redirect to
Portia (disambig page) instead.
JuniperChill (
talk) 10:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This capitalised redirect is correctly targeted and there's a hatnote to other uses.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 17:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep as navigationally useful. The nickname is used by
WP:RS e.g.
[24] and it is plausible that someone not familiar with him or American sports in general might search the phrase based off something they see in sports media or just in a forum post where his actual name is not mentioned. Should be re-tagged with
Template:R from non-neutral name rather than
Template:R from alternative name.
Remember
WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly allows non-neutral but verifiable redirects, and states they should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. You declined to specify which part of
WP:RFD#DELETE applies which makes that hard to examine, but
WP:RFD#K3 certainly applies here. Redirects from pejorative nicknames are rather common actually. For example just from a quick scroll I see
His Fraudulency,
Big Yud,
Bastard brat,
Milk Snatcher,
Mark Uterus,
President Pooh,
Pootin,
Fredo Cuomo.
I don't know how likely it is for someone who doesn't follow the NBA to run across this, and someone who already follows the NBA will know who it refers to already, which is why my keep is weak here, but it seems plausible that will happen every so often.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:49B:2883:34FC:225B (
talk) 14:29, 28 April 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! 05:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: neither rape nor Nancheng are mentioned in the article, the term has virtually no views and I only found it when trying to find other articles known as 'Rape of X'. I did contact the creator of the redirect but he didn't respond
Traumnovelle (
talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Presidentman.
Golem08 (
talk) 15:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
honestly, i feel like it could refer to both
Johnnie Cochran or
Johnny Cochrane. Probably even more to the latter since the redirect uses the exact last name.
Okmrman (
talk) 00:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate with links to both.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 03:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for 2 errors (from whichever target is intended). There's no justification for any further disambiguation: both targets have a hatnote. 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep A disambiguation page consisting of nothing but errors is questionable IMO, especially with
only two entries. Since both articles appropriately have hatnotes to each other and the lawyer is ultimately more notable, I'm fine with the status quo. As a second choice, go ahead and redirect it to the football manager—the nominator has a point that at least there's an exact match for the surname. --
BDD (
talk) 19:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not eligible for speedy due to being redirected as a result of a
previous AFD, nonetheless this is an unecessary redirect with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation that has only minor page history and no incoming links from mainspace.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A490:821A:272C:B909 (
talk) 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, especially considering no edit history at title.
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong delete it was at this title for a few days in 2006 and also has a capitalization error. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Name of several unrelated fictional elements, none of which have their own articles. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There are a lot of these redirects. I recommend bundling them together, as I don't see any exceptional cases. These are unlikely as search terms. I don't see these mentioned at the article target either.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 00:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have no objection to deletion, but it seems disingenuous to use the rationale "not mentioned at the target" after removing the topic from the target.
This was the fullest version of the original target
Rigel in fiction, which was whittled down by
TompaDompa in 2021; I have not traced how much they actually merged to other pages, or whether content was simply deleted from the encyclopedia. –
FayenaticLondon 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target on this topic, no content at
Vega to retarget to. Seems an implausible search term. Doesn't seem appropriate to retarget to anything related to
veganism either.
TompaDompa (
talk) 23:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Hard to find possible targets in a search, due to conflict with
veganism, including fictional vegan characters. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Most of these redirects for planets are too unlikely as search terms. This one is particularly confusing and should be deleted.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 00:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target on this topic, no content at
Luyten's Star to retarget to.
TompaDompa (
talk) 23:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The article
Luyten b about one of its planets is similarly devoid of fictional content. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete there is an "In culture" section in the star's article, but it contains no fiction-related content. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target on this topic, and
CY Aquarii is at time of writing a
WP:REDLINK, so that's not a possible retarget.
TompaDompa (
talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This was incorrect to begin with;
94 Aquarii is a distinct object and does not have a variable star designation. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target on this topic, no content at
Bellatrix to retarget to.
Bellatrix (disambiguation) mentions a fictional character,
Bellatrix Lestrange, but that seems like an unlikely article to be looking for if anybody is searching for "Bellatrix in fiction".
TompaDompa (
talk) 22:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Characters in
Sirius Black's family are mostly named after stars, but are not otherwise associated with those stars. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The first of those is unrelated to the star; not sure about the second. It doesn't matter, though. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all A long list of similar RfD's; I'd be surprised if there is any reason to retarget any of these based on current content. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 00:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target.
Wolf 359 has no content to retarget to, but mentions a fictional Star Trek battle and an episode of The Outer Limits in a hatnote.
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target. If there is an appropriate place it can be retargeted to, I don't know of it.
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Nowhere on this site should we have such a list, and I do not believe we have such a list anywhere on the site. This redirect is useless.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 23:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
When the redirect was first created, it pointed at a list with several Star Trek stars.
jlwoodwa (
talk) 23:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
These two topics are now covered at two different articles:
Extrasolar planets in fiction and
Stars in fiction. Neither of those is the correct target and a disambiguation page seems silly, so I think letting readers rely on the search function is probably the best option here.
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:XY. Also applies below, which is just the reversal of the order and could have just been combined with it. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 06:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Implausible / unhelpful search term. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per all. Search function is better than a redirect here.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 01:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I bypassed the double redirect caused when the nominator moved the original target page
Stars and planetary systems in fiction 2 days prior to making this nomination (but a bot did not fix the double redirect prior to this nomination initiating); the redirect now targets
Extrasolar planets in fiction, which I have updated in the nomination.
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
These two topics are now covered at two different articles:
Stars in fiction and
Extrasolar planets in fiction. Neither of those is the correct target and a disambiguation page seems silly, so I think letting readers rely on the search function is probably the best option here.
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Implausible / unhelpful search term. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 07:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Ambiguous redirect that is better left to the search engine.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 01:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Not mentioned in target (nor is "pokénav"). -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 04:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Perhaps a poor transliteration of the Japanese and/or Korean (PokéNavi, according to
Bulbapedia, without the hyphen) so would appear to be covered by
WP:FORRED even if the PokéNav was mentioned in the article.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 19:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Added Pokégear, same rationale as original nomination - only difference is Pokégear includes an accent.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 20:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target on this topic, no content at
Pollux (star) to retarget to. I don't think any other "Pollux" listed at the disambiguation page
Pollux would make for a good target either (nor, for that matter, the disambiguation page itself).
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target on this topic, no content at
Regulus to retarget to.
Regulus (disambiguation)#Fiction is a possible target, though I doubt the entries there are what people searching for "Regulus in fiction" are looking for.
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - wouldn't be opposed to the redirect, but seems on the extreme borderline of usefulness. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 04:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No such list at the target (or elsewhere, so nowhere to retarget) and not in use.
TompaDompa (
talk) 19:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There is relevant content at
Desert planet but not a formal list. I don't think retargeting is necessarily helpful, as this redirect is almost completely unused (1 pageview in the last year). -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 19:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect from an internal song lyric to a song title, which is (a) not even accurate, and (b) ambiguous even if it were. MJ's song features the line ''The girl is so dangerous", but never once says "That girl is so dangerous" according to lyrics databases, while that girl being dangerous is
Kardinal Offishall's thing in his otherwise unrelated "
Dangerous". Song-lyric to song-title redirects are not generally useful in most instances -- but even when they are warranted, they need to actually be accurate and exclusive to that song, where this is neither of those things.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - besides being inaccurate, song lyrics are also normally copyrighted, which means we should have a very good reason to have them as redirects. This one is not recognizable enough to outweigh the copyright concern and should be deleted.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Lady Godiva is never mentioned or referred to at the target article. Redirect a hyper-specific reference to an apparent synonym where it never is talked about is not very helpful. People looking for exhibitionism would have gotten to that point through just searching Exhibitionism. The current title might just be more helpful pointed at
Lady Godiva, if anything, as the presence of a name within the title makes it seem like the name is the most defining aspect. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 06:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The page history just says it's an eponymous synonym for Exhibitionism, which is presumably why it was replaced with a redirect instead. A google search pops up a PubMed article entitled "Lady Godiva syndrome" and while I can't see what the paper says, the "Similar articles" list contains multiple entries all about female exhibitionism, so I find it quite plausible that this synonym is in fact established as a thing in this reliable source. Some non-reliable sources also appear on google stating that it is a synonym, along with "apodysophilia". As an attested synonym, albeit a rare one, I think the redirect is acceptable for wikipedia. The lack of mention at the target shouldn't be a problem, as this is a case of being a direct synonym, and one that is rare enough that it isn't notable. It seems to be reliably sourced, just not interesting enough for article inclusion.
Fieari (
talk) 06:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or retarget? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but add a sentence explaining it.
here's a solid ref in German, citing the same Ohio article.
or this in English. Unfair to Lady G of course, who was no exhibitionist. Redirecting to her will just confuse readers.
Johnbod (
talk) 16:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Fieari, and I also agree that it would be worth mentioning in the target article if anyone feels up to adding it. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 04:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This transformation doesn't even exist. No one is going to use it to find "Dragon Ball".
Mazewaxie (
talk •
contribs) 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete seems to be different fanon creations unrelated to official materials according to my GSearch. My kid self would enjoy SS6 pictures though. --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
SNOW delete This is just fan made nonsense.
Waylon (
was) (
here) 16:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No mention in target article. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 04:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No mention of "Knightfall" in the target article.
Mika1h (
talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget "(comics)" to
Batman: Knightfall, a DC Comics comic book storyline; when Bruce Wayne Batman broke his back and was replaced by Azrael and then Nightwing as Batman --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For an opinion on Knightfall (character). Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect can be expanded into an article, Target page does not have the biography of Rizalito David. Also found that redirect creator is a sockpuppet of user 23prootie.
TheNuggeteer (
talk) 12:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - at the moment, the information we have on this person is at the current target. If someone wants to write a separate bio the redirect is not stopping them, or they could write it as a draft.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Neither "Hubert" nor, surprisingly, "Lemonade" comes up at the target article. Seems to be a brand of lemonade owned by Coca-Cola, but targeting this specific brand to the overarching company is not useful for people looking for Hubert's Lemonade. If people wanted to read about the Coca Cola company instead, they'd just search for the Coca Cola company directly. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or move without creating additional redirect per PPPery
Okmrman (
talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per BDD and create the additional redirect. There is nothing "incorrect" about curly quotes.
1234qwer1234qwer4 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Considering I did not read through the other comments before posting my "retarget" comment, I did not notice the odd apostrophe until now. Create
Hubert's Lemonade if necessary (but thinking about it, creating it may not be necessary.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A new target has been proposed. Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete and do not retarget per Pppery. I think people may still be missing that this has a special character in it: it's
Hubert’s Lemonade and not
Hubert's Lemonade. The latter might be worth retargeting, but this version is not. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 04:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: If
Hubert's Lemonade is created, keep the curly quote version. When typing on an
iOS keyboard, it defaults to using curly quotes ’ rather than ' when you mean to type an apostrophe.
Fork99 (
talk) 04:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I originally
WP:G4'd this as this has been previously discussed and deleted at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#Redirects to Main Page, however the creator contested this stating This redirect created for users who trying switch language from Ukrainian to English. Ther always just remove //uk. and input //en. This redirect allow to users going to Main Page dirrectly from Main page of Ukrainian Wiki and We, in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia, have a similar redirection, and if you erase en and write uk, the user will be redirected to the main page accordingly.Fork99 (
talk) 11:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment – Ukrainian isn't special in this respect. A similar argument could be made for the redirects from other languages which were deleted in the RfD cited above. (The Vietnamese one reappeared recently, and was
deleted again and salted.) Even the main page isn't qualitatively special; one could make a similar argument about a hypothetical redirect from
Гірнича промисловість Гаяни to
Mining in Guyana, though obviously it would affect a much smaller number of readers (probably zero).
Certes (
talk) 12:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment by nominator: I vaguely remember reading somewhere that what other Wikipedias decide to do has no bearing on what the English Wikipedia does, can anyone confirm this for the second argument made by the creator? If so, I would support a G4 speedy deletion per Certes.
Fork99 (
talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment – Friends I also want to appeal, apart from all the rules and instructions, to one of the rules of Wikipedia, which is based on the words of the founder.
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
Currently, the redirect that I created is intended only so that users from Ukraine who enter from the main page and do not go to the link, but change it in the address bar, can conveniently get to the main page of Wikipedia itself, and not to some 404 page.
VollyM (
talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well no, without this redirect you would not end up at a 404 page, you'd end up at a page that looks like
this. If you want to go to the Main Page from there, just click on the Wikipedia logo. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good point. To anyone who knows Wikipedia intimately enough to alter its URLs in a productive way, the globe logo is a universal and language-independent symbol for a link to the current wiki's main page.
Certes (
talk) 17:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I meant this (creating new page is like 404). Also yes, sure, but this is two action. First we have change url, and then click to globe. But all reason why we need this redirect is no additional action needed. We can always going to front-page and then scroll down for change language of front-page but this isn't comfortable. There also is some people who need just change language to going to home page.
Delete per the previous discussion. As I explained above, it is simple to get to the English Wikipedia Main Page from the Ukrainian Wikipedia without this redirect. In fact, this would work from anywhere in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, not just from their Main Page. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete its confusing to have such a redirect on enwiki as it may make people think its ruewiki. Also it can probably be deleted per G4. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
How users may think this is ruwiki if these words is Ukrainian?
VollyM (
talk) 20:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
users likely to mistake this for ruewiki and edit in the wrong language, probably cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 23:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's impossible because of Russian and Ukrainian languages is different.
It's like Polish and Czech. Symbols is look like same, but words is different. Or like English and German.
VollyM (
talk) 13:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
by that logic, wouldn't they know that they're not in the right wiki for a головна сторінка?
if
wp:rlang was somehow completely wrong about this exact type of situation and those redirects would somehow help people who come here without knowing a word of english, we'd also need a
página principal for the folks who make the mistake of bumping into enwiki while brazilian (my condolences to them), or a
メインページ for the japanese, and the flood gates would be open to wrong language edits
To be fair, would someone look for
United Kingdom in Ukrainian, do it on English WP, and then change the URL to
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom instead of trying to find it in almost 300 languages? Imagine if it leads to a dead end since you don't know what United Kingdom is in Ukrainian?
JuniperChill (
talk) 18:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's different, because "United Kingdom" is a topic specifically associated with the English language. For similar reasons, English Wikipedia has, and should keep, a redirect Україна →
Ukraine. However, we don't have a redirect
Франція →
France, because that topic isn't associated with Ukrainian.
Certes (
talk) 19:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Russian is a bit of a
red herring. Even a reader who can easily distinguish Ukrainian on sight, and not mistake it for another Cyrillic script such as Russian, might think they are on Ukrainian Wikipedia.
Certes (
talk) 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - The reasoning from the previous discussion seems sound and consensus on it was clear. No reason to make an exception here. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 03:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Apparently "Thonk" was the title of one album this guy made in 1994, but as many of y'all might know, it's also the name of a commonly used emoji (particularly on Discord). I think
Thinking,
wikt:thonk, or (if mentioned there)
List of Generation Z slang would all be better targets than this, but I'm not quite sure - I'd be happy with
Michael Manring being mentioned in a hatnote though.
Duckmather (
talk) 04:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to wikit
Okmrman (
talk) 21:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Several targets were proposed by the nom, and it's not entirely clear which one is best. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 06:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate. Between the album (which appears to be titled Thoṅk (with a
dotted n)), the
We (illbient group) song, and (possibly)
Galileo Records, it looks like there's just enough to satisfy
WP:DABMENTION. The wiktionary link can also be part of that page. -
Eureka Lott 17:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per Eureka Lott or Keep current target. The
wikt:thonk concept does not need to be mentioned until when/if it gets an article. Suggested alternative redirect targets make no mention of it. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 03:43, 5 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
Grossly miscapitalized redirects like this one invite visual edits like
this one. Due to a longstanding UI misfeature in the visual editor, links to such bad redirects are made every day. They show up in the report of links to miscapitalized redirects, and I fix them. If we would just delete such redirects, including things like
united states, there would be a lot fewer errors to fix.
Dicklyon (
talk) 02:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or perhaps Keep both since you seem to be suggesting the deletion of
united states as well. They are valid
Template:R from miscapitalizations. Honestly I fail to see the problem to be solved here. The link in the diff was piped so it doesn't show up for readers so use there was not a problem that needed to be fixed. If there is some problem to be fixed that has not been well explained here then it should probably be done through some kind of centralized RFC to delete all
Template:R from miscapitalizations rather than nominating one or two arbitrary examples for deletion.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D60:98F8:7049:A67E (
talk) 04:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - these aren't errors, they're {{
R from lowercase}} redirects and perfectly valid. If the visual editor is causing problems then the solution is to fix the visual editor, not to also break the redirects.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem with such grossly miscapitalized redirects is that they don't serve any purpose, since nobody would type that way, and if they did they'd be better served by seeing a redlink. The problem is compounded by the visual editor UI that offers up such links; I agree it would be better to see that fixed, but so far my attempts to get some attention on it have failed. The result of these things is that every day we multiple new entries in the report
Wikipedia:Database_reports/Linked_miscapitalizations, and this report will only ever be useful if we can keep up with fixing things on it (at present I can't do the ones with many links, as I don't have JWB access, but I've been keeping up with the ones with fewer than a dozen links, which is a lot of work every day, partly due to the visual editor offering up such grossly miscapitalized redirects all the time). This one, unlike
united states seemed to be so clearly useless that I thought I'd try this step as part of the fix for it.
Dicklyon (
talk) 17:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Dicklyon is there a reason why piped links are listed there? Because since they have no effect on the visible output of the page there is no reason they should be. If even excluding those the report is still useless then I think a village pump discussion would be a better way to find a solution, because regardless of outcome, nomination of a handful of arbitrary redirects is not going to resolve the issue.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:32:BC47:A9D:406B (
talk) 16:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Excellent question. If we could exclude piped links from the report, life would be better all around, and I'd stop working on and being distracted by those. I've forgotten who does that report, but will try to look into it.
Dicklyon (
talk) 17:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per others: Who is "nobody" you're talking about? AFAIK, people are lazy and don't usually bother with correct capitalisation of search queries on search engines like Google, so it's plausible that readers might do the same on Wikipedia.
Fork99 (
talk) 23:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep straightforward and valid use of
Template:R from miscapitalisation. Nominator may or may not have a valid point about whether we need these in general, but this isn't the right venue to decide that. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I listed this rdr for a G14 because the target, as I stated in my nomination, is now an article with a list of names bearing this title/name. This IPv6 address (
2601:5cc:8300:a7f0:9d60:98f8:7049:a67e) reverted my edit as "explicitly" not so, but I want it deleted since it longer serves the purpose for which it was created in the first place.
Intrisit (
talk) 02:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
With that explained, it is true
WP:INTDABLINK is no longer a concern, and permanent hatnoting for other people with the name could be done through say
Bonde (surname), though there is the additional complication of its use as one of the estates of the Swedish Riksdag which may justify maintenance retention.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D60:98F8:7049:A67E (
talk) 04:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep -
anthroponymy pages disambiguate people with the same name. If someone were to look for the disambiguation page for articles titled "Bonde", the current target is it. If we moved
Bonde to a different title with similar content, it would still serve this function and the redirect would still be valid.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I also support Joy's solution for those individuals who are surnamed "Bonde" but aren't members of the noble house. The current list is confusing.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To that end I've created
Bonde (surname). Retarget to the newly-created dab page, which links to the House article.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ivanvector it'd be a two-entry disambiguation page, so I'd just squash the surname list into the base title, and keep the link to the medieval nobility on top. We do that elsewhere, and I don't recall seeing anyone having an issue with that. --
Joy (
talk) 14:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks like three topics actually since the current page also disambiguates one of the four estates of the Swedish Riksdag, which could still be kept on the same DAB.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:32:BC47:A9D:406B (
talk) 17:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The linked article
Riksdag of the Estates doesn't actually
mention the term as such, only as part of words Bondeståndet and bönder. Are there actual ambiguous references to this term as such, or is it just part of the etymology? --
Joy (
talk) 18:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The situation is somewhat analogous to say
Mississippi River since once context is supplied Bonde may be used to refer to the Bondeståndet in the same way that Mississippi will be used to refer to the river. But you make a point and the standard way to resolve that is to place it within a "see also" section.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95B3:1631:747A:2941 (
talk) 21:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What you describe are actual ambiguous references to this term as such, we just don't have it on record in the linked article. If there's a reasonable chance that an average English reader reads e.g. an article about Swedish parliament history, sees the use of the term "Bonde" there, and looks it up as such, I would put it in the main disambiguation list, not a see also section.
So let's try that then. --
Joy (
talk) 09:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Make it into a disambiguation. Apart from already discussed items, there is also
Bondé, a village in Burkina Faso.
Andejons (
talk) 12:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just created it but I'm not sure if it's the best idea. I based it on
Pan-American Spanish, but English language has no specific article for all the Americas. Or does it have under another name? --
MikutoHtalk! 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This suffix isn't exclusive of IUPAC. The target was changed without consensus, it was a soft redirect to
wikt:-ic, which to me is the best target. Though it should be commented that the current target links to Wiktionary already. So dabifying is also possible I guess --
MikutoHtalk! 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Ic. It seems there are three items to disambiguate here: the English language suffix, the (misspelled/transliterated) Slavic family name suffix and the suffix's use in chemistry nomenclature. The
Ic DAB page has appropriate links for those uses. Though I think the hyphen pretty unambiguously signifies a suffix, so it's a bit inelegant to serve a reader a page full of links to search through. Maybe a tiny DAB page can be made. I'm not opposed to restoring the soft redirect to Wiktionary either. ―
Synpath 22:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This was a 2-entry disambiguation page for the film Johnny Be Good and the similarly-titled (but much more popular) song "
Johnny B. Goode", but @
Mach61: redirected it to the former. I must admit I didn't realise until now the song title was spelled like that, but I'm only one person. Is the film the primary topic at this capitalization (inferring keep); or are readers much more likely to want the song (based on pageviews
[26], inferring retarget); or is there no primary topic (inferring restore)?
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a simple {{
r from miscapitalization}}. The song title's spelling is too different to justify targeting it there, and an appropriate hatnote is in place at
Johnny Be Good. -
Eureka Lott 14:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Telephonics Corporation is no longer owned by Griffon Corporation. If Telephonics is not sufficiently notable for its own article, the redirect should be deleted.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Telephonics Corporation has a section at the target article (
Griffon Corporation#Telephonics Corporation), which includes a mention of its sale. I'm unsure why this redirect needs to be deleted - even though the company seems to have been sold, this section of the Griffon Corporation article still seems to contain the most information on the company that Wikipedia currently has, and so - in the absence of an article on Telephonics Corporation - seems to be the best target to send readers looking for information on it to. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Recently created at
WP:AFC/R. The target section contains very little information about the Romani people in Paris - only the line There is a Romani community in Paris. I'm inclined to think that this might be better off being a
red link/being deleted per
WP:R#D10, as the target article contains virtually no information on the subject of the Romani community in Paris. While
Romani people in France does exist as an article, it doesn't mention Paris (other than briefly/in passing in the History section), and so also doesn't contain much information on the subject of the Romani people in Paris. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 14:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Romani people in France. The factoid "there are Romani in Paris" doesn't seem like a particularly useful target for a redirect, and while this proposed target also doesn't have info specific to Paris, I don't think a reader would find it disappointing.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Recently accepted at
WP:AFC/R. As far as I can see, the target article contains little to no information about the Romani people - therefore, I'm inclined to think that this would be better off as a
red link/being deleted per
WP:R#D10. While
Romani people in Kosovo does exist as an article, that article doesn't seem to contain information about Pristina specifically, and so wouldn't be much help to readers searching for information about the Romani community in that area. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It's definitely there, although it uses the misnomer "Romans".
Queen of ♡ |
Speak 14:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Queen of Hearts (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
RfD. reply
Keep - if readers want to find information on the Romani of Pristina, this target is what we have.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Ivanvector (
talk •
contribs) has never before seen the page that is the subject of this
RfD, and doesn't see why the page creator commenting here needs to be flagged in this way. reply
Keep, multiple statistics mentioning Romani people on that page.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 18:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Chaotic Enby (
talk·contribs) has no idea why everyone is using notes and just copy-pasted the code to fit in. reply
Redirect with confusing history left over from promotional copy-and-paste moving. A draft of this television show exists at
Draft:Jhanak (and has also been created at other titles). Target is one of the networks it has aired on, but has no information on the show at all.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Mestecănești
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
This is a meme slang term not mentioned at the target article, as garnered from the edit summary and rcats. Not useful in its current form as we have no further information about the term of "shoob" at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I have the redirect target on my watchlist and the term "Shoob" has been added there many times without sources.
Graham87 (
talk) 14:19, 25 April 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! 10:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Can't think of a notable primary topic for this.
Okmrman (
talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Lenticel.
Marvin Herman Shoob is currently the only article with Shoob in its title. -
Eureka Lott 14:17, 3 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! 09:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The essay reads to me like a combination of
MOS:PUFFERY and
WP:RELEVANCE,
WP:BLOATED,
WP:FART or other explanations related to
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looking through the internal links (there aren't many), I can see people using it to refer to these ideas and not just language-use as seen at
MOS:PUFFERY. As a note: there was an 11 y/o redlink that got filled out by this redirect (~8 years ahead of the
WP:FLUFF's creation) and the target makes sense in the context of that discussion. Seems intuitive based on that and useful enough. ―
Synpath 01:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The target doesn't tell me what "Desi" means in the context of
Tibet. Is there a better target, or should we delete it if there's no substantive information?
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The most substantive information I can find is at
Dalai Lama, where the term is used several times and briefly defined once as "regent" or "viceroy." I am not sure that would be a suitable target, however, since the discussion is so brief. It might be better to leave as a redlink or perhaps find a more suitable article where a substantive mention could be added (maybe
Ganden Phodrang?). -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Several of the rulers or regents listed at
List of rulers of Tibet used the title desi, most notably
Changchub Gyaltsen,
Sangye Gyatso, and
Shatra Wangchuk Gyalpo, but I'm not aware of an exhaustive list. Wikipedia does have an article on the slightly more specific title
Druk Desi ("dragon viceroy") formerly used in Bhutan. Maybe we should make one of the redirects into a disambiguation page linking to those notable individuals and
Druk Desi?—
Greg Pandatshang (
talk) 00:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Lower case version of what's apparently a brand of glue...? Adhesive? In any case, liquid nails are not mentioned at the target, and anyone typing this in instead of adhesive seems to be looking for something else. Has some history, but has also been to RfD before (13 years ago). Utopes(talk / cont) 05:08, 18 April 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) 14:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
PPG Industries (the owner of the brand), where the product is mentioned. -
Eureka Lott 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete without a strong objection to retargeting to
PPG Industries instead. The product is mentioned there, but no details are given, not even "it's an adhesive". Stating what the thing actually is should be minimum viable information. Here, it's just stated to be a part of an acquired product line related to the "architectural coatings" industry, which doesn't say much about what it is. Lacking the information, I think redlinking may be more useful... but I don't feel strongly about that, and so don't object to the retarget either.
Fieari (
talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I had to do some serious mental gymnastics to wrap my head around why this redirect exists. Sure, some people may perform mental gymnastics when "they're uncomfortable from their beliefs being inconsistent and contradictory". A similar idea I feel could be people perform the act of running to get from Point A to Point B, although that doesn't make the "running" a good redirect to "pathfinding". It's a singular mean to the end, and not everyone that has cognitive dissonance is "performing mental gymnastics", and not everyone that does mental gymnastics has cognitive dissonance. Example: I'm fairly sure I'm performing mental gymnastics right now in an attempt to jump through the logical hoops that went into this redirect, and I don't think I'm too uncomfortable from cognitive dissonance. I believe I've come to understand why, although I don't think it's a great end-all-be-all redirect that takes people to the right location at 100% intentions every time. To me, I feel like
Convergent thinking or
Divergent thinking are what I would have associated mental gymnastics with, i.e. following along with someone's thought process jumping through hoops with twists and turns to an eventual endpoint. Also, "mental gymnastics" is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to wiktionary
Okmrman (
talk) 16:35, 18 April 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) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Rather odd situation with these three redirects. For one, the film which these redirects are possibly meant to refer to does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Regarding the other two redirects, it seems that one targets in anchor that does not exist, and the other redirect targets a different page than the redirect with the nonexistent anchor. At the minimum, I'm thinking the redirect with the "film" disambiguator needs to be deleted, and the other two redirects should at least target the same location. Otherwise, it might be best just to delete the whole lot of these.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
keep as it's mentioned, delete and create a redirect along the lines of "
colombian nose candy hippos (documentary)" as that's what's mentioned there delete as there's just one mention at the end, and delete as there seems to be no netflix slop with that name (yet), respectively cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget both "cocaine hippos" redirects to
Hippopotamuses in Colombia, the article about the hippopotamuses left over from the cocaine kingpin's estate. Links are provided there to Escobar and his estate. Retarget the film title to
Pepe (2024 film), a recent film which has one of these hippos as its protagonist. I don't see the mention that Cogsan is referring to.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I still don't see where you're getting any reference to a documentary on "colombian nose candy hippos", and the page
Cocaine Hippos (documentary) does not exist.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
i did link it to the correct name, so eh
but in retrospect, a single mention of the documentary near the end of an article might not be worth a redirect, so i'll quietly have it changed... cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 23:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, and apparently not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Apparently, the subject of this redirect is supposed to represent a film version of a novel by the same name written by
Mary Kubica (no article) with the novel being published in 2020. As it stands, there seems to be no information about the novel or film anywhere on Wikipedia. (Also, I could not find any unrelated article to retarget this redirect since the phrasing of the title seems like it would represent some other notable subject, but ... my searches came up with nothing concrete.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Looking at third-party websites, it seems that the subject of this redirect (a film by this name intended to be released on
Netflix) was in some sort of pre-production phase after Netflix possibly, in 2019, purchased the rights to create a film version of a novel of the same name; the novel was apparently written by
Phillip Kennedy Johnson (but there is no mention of any subjects by the name "Last Sons of America" in that article.) Regarding the film, apparently,
Peter Dinklage was in talks to play one of the characters in the proposed film. However, that's kind of where the trail ends ... 5 years later, and no further news about the film. (For what it's worth, the subject of this redirect does not represent the subject at
American Son (2019 film), a similarly named film also on Netflix.) In addition, it does not seem the novel which the film was to be based has an article on Wikipedia. In other words, deletion seems to be the best option here to either encourage the creation of an article about the novel (
WP:REDYES) or ensure readers attempting to look for information about the nonexistent film subject are not led to a bunch of nothing.
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per
WP:REDLINK. The novel may be notable enough for an article to be written; the evidently unproduced film is not and we have no information on it anywhere.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This isn't commonly referred to as "Boston incident"; searching the term finds little about the massacre compared to other incidents (such as the
2007 Boston Mooninite panic). In the cases where the massacre is referred to with this term, it's only in a descriptive fashion and not as an actual name. Redirect was created by a quickly-reverted
WP:POINTy page move in 2006.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete one would think the Boston Tea Party or Battle of Bunker Hill would be better --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - although it seems ambiguous (my first thought was the
Boston Marathon bombing) the article on the Boston Massacre notes in the lede that the event is also known as the "Incident on King Street"; "Boston incident" is a plausible misremembering. It's a more neutral title anyway, the article also notes in the lede that calling it a "massacre" was American patriot propaganda. As far as I can tell, the other events listed here aren't widely known as named "incidents". If deleted then don't disambiguate, search results would handle this better.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, because there are no sources indicating that Farida Akhtar Babita's nickname is Bobita. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 22:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, the credit part of the films she acted always shows the name "Babita", not her full name. The name Babita is actually her common name used in the film industry.
Mehedi Abedin 11:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply - Exactly, bAbita with an "A", not an "O". --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 14:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I also forgot to say that in
Bengali language, we use "O" instead of "A" like
Persian language. "Babita" is the hindustani pronunciation. And "Bobita" is bengali pronunciations. And Babita is Bengali actress.
Mehedi Abedin 23:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Person-to-employer redirect, for a person not named in the employer's article to provide any context for why the person redirects there. To be fair, they were named in the article at the time this was created, as the party's social media coordinator -- but that isn't a notable role that would be expected to get people into an encyclopedia in and of itself, so the role has been entirely removed from the section where it appeared. I have no way of knowing if they're still in that role today or not, but if they are there'd be no great value in readding their name, and if they're not there'd be even less value in adding their name as part of a complete list of all the party's past and present social media staff either -- but there's no value in retaining the redirect at all if the name isn't present in the target article.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary redirect: No links, nearly no pageviews.
Mondtaler (
talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - unnecessary per nom. Also, deleted articles aren't destroyed.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete possibly useful but also confusing. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Nothing really links to it, suggesting that wikipedians aren't using it in conversations on talk pages, which would be my main concern. That said, it gets... 2 or 3 uses a year? Meaning it's useful to someone (and
WP:CHEAP would apply)? So..... meh. I don't have a strong opinion either way.
Fieari (
talk) 07:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unnecessary humor redirect, deleted articles aren't actually destroyed. The most recent pageviews were probably me adding the Rcat. I thought about taking it to RFD but I decided not to. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 20:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Because of the presence of "(disambiguation)", is an unlikely misspelling. No inbound links on Wikipedia.
Bsherr (
talk) 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
List of Wikipedias. The current target does not include any titles with the accented é, but when this was created it targeted
Wikipédia, which at the time was a disambiguation page listing the four (again, at the time) language editions natively titled with the accented é. Later that page was briefly retargeted to
French Wikipedia, then targeted back after
this RFD. The list of Wikipedias "serves a disambiguation-like function" so this is valid redirect, and even if it doesn't get much use it's harmless.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipédia is a redirect to
List of Wikipedias. Given that, is there a need for "Wikipédia (disambiguation)", which itself has no history of being a disambiguation page? --
Bsherr (
talk) 19:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It was originally created as a redirect to a disambiguation page which did not have the (disambiguation) disambiguator. At one time that was considered reason enough to create a redirect that we had a bot do it, I don't know if it still does though. Redirects generally
shouldn't be deleted without there being a
reason to delete them, and being redundant generally isn't a good reason on its own.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer.
Mazewaxie (
talk •
contribs) 14:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:RFD#K3 as it is mentioned in the article. "No page links here" is not a valid reason for deletion IMO. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 15:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "Culture Jam" is mentioned at the target, but it's not clear that it's
WP:DUE given that this was a future release teased in 2021, but which does not appear to have been published, and is cited to a press release reprint. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer.
Mazewaxie (
talk •
contribs) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a plausible typo, especially given the similarly pronounced Japanese term "
Kawaii." The fact that no page links to this title is irrelevant, as it is reasonable for a person to search for this term. FrankAnchor 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a plausible typo pbp 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as implausible typo, adding two unique letters and taking away one. Leonard nor his name do not have any affinity towards romanji. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Plausible typo, especially for those familiar with the spelling of
Hawaii.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, random conglomerations of terms are a better fit for a Google search, and will not help readers. "MVP" is only mentioned once in the sixth paragraph in the section, not a useful redirect or precedent. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Utopes. Not a useful redirect.
CycloneYoristalk! 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Utopes. --
Bsherr (
talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - totally pointless for inclusion and drafts are rarely or not at all linked on any articles on Wikipedia.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep (and delete the extra text): Actually, Swan, drafts do redirect to the articles once they get approved, that's a regular part of the process. In this case, it was out of process, because the draft was created in 2019 for an article that exists since 2006. However, having a "draft:article" redirecting to "article" is commonplace by now across the encyclopedia, so there's hardly a point in deleting this.
Cambalachero (
talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:SRE, this is the standard way of dealing with these. There is no benefit to deleting, but there is benefit in avoiding RFD discussions for them. Extra text should be deleted and then the page should be tagged with
Template:R from Draft.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (
talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Cambalachero's explanation. This was never a viable draft, so it should have been deleted instead of redirected. --
Tavix(
talk) 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hang on, Cambalachero's explanation indicates this should be kept from that user's view, so it looks like both arguments are presented above. The removal of the extra text should not be a problem either way.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm aware. Cambalachero's explanation is a good summary of why it should be deleted. Cambalachero then pivots a bit and says there's hardy a point in deleting it, which is agreeable, but I think while we're here we might as well delete it—there's also hardly a point in keeping it. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is not an
WP:RDRAFT. The draft was created 13 years after the fact (in 2019) and never should have existed. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep ... ish. Someone created a draft under this redirect prior to it being nominated. If need be, disable the redirect and then send this to
WP:MFD.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What would be the desire to send this to
WP:MFD? There is clearly not any salvageable material in the draft so there's nothing to discuss on that front. If the redirect is disabled, it would become eligible for
WP:G13 deletion six months later. (Although, I don't see the point in waiting that long given that it's already been nominated for deletion). --
Tavix(
talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The 2023 IP edit should just have been reverted. But now that we're at RfD, Delete per Tavix. What I understand from SRE is it is applicable at MfD. Any draft may be boldly redirected to a corresponding article, and this avoids an MfD, such as this draft under discussion, hence was not a case of SRE. Jay 💬 17:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for the reason given by Tavix. --
Bsherr (
talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is all pretty pointless.
The reasoning for keeping RDRAFTS isn't magically entirely invalidated by the fact that the redirect was created later and had no links. And yes, this comment is also pointless.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
RDRAFTs are defined as redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace. This redirect was not the result of a page move, so this is not an RDRAFT. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not saying that this is an RDRAFT. I'm saying that the reasoning behind keeping them applies to this redirect as well.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for clarifying. For what it's worth, RDRAFT redirects should be retained because they show where drafts have been published. That does not apply here because the underlying draft was never moved to mainspace and was never viable, magically or otherwise. That said, I do appreciate that other rationales that can apply here came up during that discussion. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There were several other reasons, including:
Prevent accidental re-drafting of published articles
including by showing the draft redirect title in search results for skins that aren't Vector 2022
including by blocking the article creation wizard due to having an existing page
Redirects being cheap and such redirects being not harmful
I don't see any benefit at all for this redirect being deleted.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I've seen a fair number of drafts create for long existing articles and redirects like this are harmless. If having a redirect from the draft name to the article reduces that at all and gets the editors to improve the article, it'd be a net positive.
Skynxnex (
talk) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:CHEAP. Nickname as reference to disambiguate from Cristiano Ronaldo.
Homei (
talk) 20:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes it could be used to disambiguate him from Cristiano Ronaldo, but it should be a widely known nickname I think, like "R9" for example.
Mazewaxie (
talk •
contribs) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete this unmentioned, unsupported portmanteau of a nickname. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: is used in many places e.g. reliable sources
[27] and
[28], and the less reliable
Irish Sun. As such, plausible nickname and search term.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer.
Mazewaxie (
talk •
contribs) 13:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately.
Crowsus (
talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: per
WP:CHEAP and doing a Google search it seems like this misspelling exists on the Internet (unlikely to be caused by this redirect, but who knows) so it could be useful. I've tagged it with {{
R from misspelling}}.
Skynxnex (
talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The lead states that He was nicknamed O Rei (The King). There are multiple people with this nickname in various fields (see, e.g.,
Elvis Presley or
Richard Petty), so "The King of Football" is a plausible disambiguator. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. A word in a different language that translates to "King", does not equate being designated as the ruler of the entire sport, i.e. the translation + "of football". No evidence in the article that this player is considered the king of football, and all around an ambiguous search term as this varies depending on who you ask. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:06, 1 May 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
No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer.
Mazewaxie (
talk •
contribs) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately.
Crowsus (
talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Plausible misspelling pbp 15:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: phonetic spelling, so plausible search term.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, two errors is enough to delete. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: phonetic spelling, so plausible search term.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Phonetic spellings are plausible.
WP:CHEAP applies.
Fieari (
talk) 07:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea?
Neocorelight (
Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I actually tried digging around, including the history of the (now community banned) person that created the redirect. Maybe a troll creation? No valid reason can be found, so Delete.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, not a troll creation. I found this redirect by a link from another article.
Neocorelight (
Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Japanator should be bundled as well, I think? Not a super simple history. It was a sibling-ish site of Destructoid for quite awhile,
[33][34] then was merged into Siliconera
[35]. And so was part of
Enthusiast Gaming (a possible retarget since it's mentioned there) but then
Gamurs acquired some sites from Enthusiast (including Siliconera). So I think retarget to
Enthusiast Gaming since it's mentioned there, including the transfer to Gamurs, and most of its system was part of that. Gamurs would be a fine (future) retarget if it's expanded. And open to other ideas if people know more (sadly lots of noise from the, hm, particular era that impacted gaming sites). (Pinging
Neocorelight and
Dennis Brown.)
Skynxnex (
talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Gamurs would be an ideal target, but if no one's gonna write a mention of Japanator then I'm fine with retargeting to
Enthusiast Gaming.
Neocorelight (
Talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think redirecting it to an article with an unsourced single line mention is a good idea. For the redirect to stay, somewhere there needs to be a cite at least demonstrating it existed.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is currently a sourced mention of "Japanator" at
Enthusiast Gaming Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
We currently have many "Climate change in country x" titles that redirect to either "Geography of country x" or "Climate of country x". The
style guide of WikiProject Climate change describe many aspects that should be in "Climate change in country x" articles that do not belong in articles about the climate or geography of country x. E.g. an article about climate change in a given country is supposed to discuss the greenhouse gas emissions that the country produces and the policies around emissions reductions in the country. The presence of these redirects discourages the creation of more complete articles so I propose that they be deleted. There are many other redirects following the pattern but I am starting with four of them to get community feedback before mass-nominating dozens.
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentWP:RFDHOWTO says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly.
Nickps (
talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Clayoquot: Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country?
Jarble (
talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that "Climate in country x" articles should describe the effects of climate change in that country. These redirects are not necessary to make those expansions happen. What these redirects do is leave no place to talk about the role of the country in causing climate change.
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs) 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mild support. If the deletion of the redirects is likely to lead to creations of new CCC articles then I am all for it (CCC = climate change in country X). I've been disappointed myself on a few occasions when I followed a link of "climate change in Country X", only to find that I was being redirected to "Country X#Climate" which then had only minimal info on climate change in that country.
EMsmile (
talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Better a redirect to a good (or at least acceptable) article than a bad stub. In my (admittedly relatively short) experience on here, a hope that the community will passively take a hint and be nudged into doing something after a different action from you is not a plan. Good country-level climate change articles should be our goal - unfortunately, there is probably no substitute to either doing the work yourself and/or working with that country's WikiProject/most active editors if the WP is inactive.
InformationToKnowledge (
talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Iceland, delete othersClimate of Iceland#Climate change is a whole section dedicated to climate change in the country, and so it's sensible to redirect there. For the other countries, the target sections are generally about climate in general in those countries, with little to no content about climate change specifically, and so it's a misleading redirect, and deleting to encourage article creation is better.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 20:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is part of {{
Deputy Chief Ministers of Indian states}}. So we either remove the entry from there, and have readers wonder why is Puducherry missing, or have it as unlinked. The non-link entry will provide the only information that a deputy CM is "Not established", whereas the proposed target adds some more. Jay 💬 07:42, 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 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone that performs a
Flex, or perhaps are
flexing (and/or doing the
flexing (dance) all the while), can be said to be someone who "flexes". Flexion does not seem to be the only use for this term. Wiktionary or disambiguation might also be suitable here? Utopes(talk / cont) 23:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Changing to soft redirect to wikit per cyclone
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 15:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to
Wikt:flexes per nom, which seems to be a better option than retargeting to the dab (where no items are pluralized).
CycloneYoristalk! 07:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Flex (disambiguation) per propositions to that effect above. There are several clearly pluralizable topics on the page.
BD2412T 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are multiple topics at
J (disambiguation) spelled with a period, and other topics not noted there that would normally be spelled that way, such as the common abbreviation for "Journal" in legal citations, or of Judge/Justice in case citations. Retarget this letter-and-period to
J (disambiguation).
BD2412T 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No discussion of a character called "Kyra Tierney" at the target article. Only mention on Wikipedia is at the disambig page for
Tierney linking here, but the presence of a blue link implies we have content about this character, which we do not. Utopes(talk / cont) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean Keep. It seems "Kyra Tierney" is
an actual character in the show, so it’s reasonable to expect someone searching the character's name on Wikipedia would be interested in that particular article.
Slamforeman (
talk) 13:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 06:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
While seemingly in reference to the pronunciation of "ANI" as being for "(Little orphan) Annie", I fully thought a shortcut with this name would have been in reference to
littleorphaned pages on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar enough with the WP culture of "ANI sounds like Annie therefore Little Orphan is a functional redirect", and can solve those literary gymnastics on the dime, would also be familiar enough to use one of the several other more-convenient avenues of reaching this noticeboard. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No. In any case, that particular title has been at RfD four times since 2009, while this was made in 2021, with only one user, and hasn't been discussed here ever. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll agree that this is a title that is implausible, I just found odd that you nominated so many ANI redirects. LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I suppose I appreciate the come-around despite the opening rudeness. I promise I'm not out to kill fun! 😁 There's plenty of other titles with more longevity. ^^ Utopes(talk / cont) 08:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, THIS one we can softify and tag as Humorous. The argument against
Wikipedia:Room101 -- that it's actively harmful to compare ANI to a torture chamber-- doesn't apply here. This is just a cute pun.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 08:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Why would this page go here instead of
WP:ORPHAN, with "little" being a likely term for orphan stubs? Specifically
Wikipedia:Orphan#Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan, which details the "little orphans" that are hard to repair. At least Room 101 doesn't share a name with any existing Wikipedia topics that it could be confused by. Utopes(talk / cont) 08:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hm. I uh, somehow missed that bit. You're right in that some section of
WP:ORPHAN might be a better target.Maybe we could disambig between ANI and ORPHAN somehow? ...I do feel like ORPHAN has greater pull probably...
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While I'd be fine with retargeting it to WP:ORPHAN, it's not really a plausible search term for that, so I'm leaning delete.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It isn't hurting anything, I doubt anybody has actually experienced confusion when trying to find info on orphan stubs and going there instead. There's no real reason to delete a mild pun that isn't causing any harm. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Retarget to
WP:ORPHAN as I think would be a better target. I get the joke but I don't think it's useful for us here. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per #5 the redirect makes no sense. I don't see an argument for a retarget because the suggestion also makes no sense as the redirect is not mentioned at the suggested new target. TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:XY as it's a plausible shortcut for both
Wikipedia:Orphan and
Wikipedia:Stub (as in, a "little orphan") but isn't a useful redirect to ANI. Don't disambiguate: the "humorous" elements of Wikipedia are a walled garden for good reason.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There is no real good target here. ANI is too confusing, since orphan is a common term among editors, but WP:ORPHAN isn't a great target either per Ivanvector. We don't need to keep this.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per reasons given above. Not really a good fit for ANI or Orphaned articles. (Also you all are saying Annie? I always said the letters separately, which makes this confusing.) StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 20:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect survived CSD through a charitable BLAR. Not mentioned at the target, not likely to be mentioned at the target. Not a useful redirect in the page's current form. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Carloman, a disambiguation page listing the many kings of the Franks known by the same name. The Franks spoke a Germanic language in which the kings were called Karlmann, and it's also written in Latin as Karlomanus; Karlomann is a plausible misspelling of both.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 15 April 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! 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Karlomann also redirects to this target, which has "Karlomann" bolded in the very first sentence. It's not an error, apparently not a misspelling (either likely or unlikely), and not unique to Wikipedia. No objection to retargeting to
Carloman if others think that's better than the current target. It has three Kings Karlomann and four non-Kings Karlomann, if that matters at all.
Nyttend (
talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sourced mention added by
Rich Farmbrough. Per Nyttend, no objection to retargeting to
Carloman if others think that's better than the current target. Jay 💬 17:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Carloman. Reasonings per above. This is not a misspelling, it's just German. I don't see any reason to retarget to a specific king, since the German spelling is equally likely for any of them as far as I know. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:43, 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 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirected to the history of podcasting after an AfD, because there was no sourced content worth merging. However, it doesn't appear at the target any longer, if it appeared to begin with if the merge idea fell through. Does not seem to be a useful redirect in the target's current form. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep/add mention to target. The site isn't mentioned at the target article because an editor disregarded the outcome of the
deletion discussion and
WP:BLARed the article instead of merging it properly. -
Eureka Lott 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep/add mention to target per EurekaLott - The
AFD was closed as Merge so why Aircorn decided to go against consensus and do whatever they please I will never know, Obvious keep. –
Davey2010Talk 15:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Not going to dig into a decision I made 6 years ago too deep. Judging from the timeframe, editnotice comment and content of the article at the time I would hazard a pretty good guess that I was working through the merge backlog and came across an article that closed as merge nearly 2 years previously, but had no mergeable content in it. A case of a bunch of editors saying merge, not providing info on what to merge and then being closed as merge without any guidance on what to merge (see
Wikipedia:Merge what?). Its perfectly fine to redirect that in this case and is not ignoring consensus. Hopefully someone commenting here that it should be kept will follow through and add sourced content to the article if that is the consensus reached.
Aircorn(talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target at this time Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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
Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general
WP:SYNTH explanation for horse.
Unicorn,
Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated
horse with a horn (which points to
unicorn). We also have
horned horse and
magic horse for consideration.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with
Unicorn and
Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the
Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on
Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is
original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.
Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead
If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at
Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at
Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly[by whom?] "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to
unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While
unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn.
Skynxnex (
talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: as incorrect and unused. A hornless unicorn is not a horse. Maybe it's a unicorn whose horn has been cut off, or one which was [fictitiously] born without a horn (an anomaly). But it has nothing to do with a horse.
Horse article doesn't mention unicorns. If you must keep the redirect, send it to
Unicorn. Leaving it as a redirect to
Horse is an uncited definition (
WP:OR), which is also an incorrect meaning. If it was in Wiktionary, I'd say redirect it there, but it's not. There is no article in Wikipedia which uses this redirect. There is
a single article which refers to a "hornless unicorn" (linked to
Unicorn), and it is a creature on a tomb monument, which can be
seen here. Delete. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this isn't ambiguous whatsoever. "Unicorns aren't real" is not a reason to delete this redirect; what matters is that people know what a unicorn is, and more importantly, know what a unicorn looks like and how that appearance relates to horses. My mind goes to the word games that non-fluent people sometimes resort to when they don't know the word for something-- the anecdote of someone in a grocery store, wanting chicken, not knowing the word for "chicken", picking some eggs up, heading to an employee, and asking, "Where's the mother?"
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a description in
Unicorn article: "depicted as a white horse-like or goat-like animal with a long straight horn with spiralling grooves, cloven hooves, and sometimes a goat's beard" and often "an ox tail". Far from a horse; closer to cattle. If someone wants to know what a "hornless unicorn" is, they can go to
Unicorn and figure it out. Going to
Horse won't help them at all, since horses don't have cloven hooves, horns, beards, or tails like that. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
...Huh. That's... not usually what I think of when I think of unicorns. In the modern day, unicorns really are depicted as "just slap a horn on a horse"-- after all, if you need a live-action shot of a unicorn, getting cloven hooves and an ox tail is a tall order, and the thing people notice first has always been the horn anyways. There's also the
My Little Pony franchise, where unicorns are simply ponies with horns, but given a
pony is just a horse with dwarfism...My point is that that article needs some work, clearly-- it completely fails to talk about contemporary understanding/depiction of unicorns.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Lunamann: Reminder...
WP:NOTFORUM. This RFD is about whether or not to delete or change the redirect
Hornless unicorn. You're welcome to edit
Unicorn to add whatever you can appropriately source, but based on your edit history you don't actually do any content editing, but just post comments on RFDs. I can't even imagine being holed up here. You really should branch out and get more experience around Wikipedia. It's much more fun. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think this falls under NOTFORUM, as people's impressions of unicorns are indeed relevant to the deciding factor of this discussion. Though I agree that one might have a source.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 21:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't really think My Little Pony ponies are horses either: they have no separate hooves at all, and you can't really distinguish if that's an ox tail or a horse tail, so you can't see if they're unicorns that fit the article's description. I agree that you should probably get a really reliable source that says that hornless unicorns are just horses.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Since any other action appears to be ambiguous guesswork.
* Pppery *it has begun... 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep A unicorn is a horse with special features, so when you eliminate those features it reverts back to its original state. The whole unicorn belief is based on the supposed magical powers of the horn. In fact, the horn is what makes the unicorn, not the horse. I rest my case.
WolverineXI(
talk to me) 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a misunderstanding about this subject which is not supported by reliable sources. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not really, you just have to apply
common sense here. Not everything has to be used/supported by reliable sources. Urban terms are a thing.
WolverineXI(
talk to me) 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't take your word that unicorns are perceived as just horses with horns, and most people above seem to disagree. Evidence much?
Aaron Liu (
talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: To suggest that people will search for a member of an empty set such as a hornless unicorn is laughable not an argument which has a solid basis. Incorrect search term that is not remotely likely to searched for. TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TarnishedPath: Laughable is an obviously extreme interpretation. I might avoid disparaging others with comments such as these.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries, I understand if it wasn't meant that way.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it "is not remotely likely to searched for" when it does have pageviews (and substationally more than the similar pages
horned horse and
magic horse linked above if you think this RfD is the cause of those pageviews).
Doublah (
talk) 02:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning delete but consensus could be clearer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep pretty much for Hey man im josh's reasoning. Redirects don't need to be reliably sourced; they need to be useful for navigation. This is a term others have used, clearly to refer to horses; there's no reason to not direct our readers there.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: An important purpose of redirects is to be useful for navigation and search engines, considering the substantial results on search engines for hornless unicorn in reference to horses does prove the usefulness of a redirect with no real downsides to such existing (And no, "Unicorns are not real" is not an downside).
I will remind that the purpose for a redirect as a search tool or a navigation tool is to arrive at an article which says more about the topic. The article
Horse doesn't even mention unicorns, let alone hornless ones. So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. (As a member of the WikiProject Equine, I can assure you that any content about "hornless unicorn" would be unlikely to survive in the article
Horse, should anyone try to add it there.) To make matters worse, since there is no source which says a hornless unicorn is a horse, to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as
verifiability,
no original research and
WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I have no idea how this
WP:XNR survived RfD. "Cat:" is not a pseudo-namespace. Looking at
WP:Shortcut#List of prefixes, "Cat:" appears nowhere. It is not widely accepted, it is nowhere accepted.
CAT:NN has existed since 2006. This lowercase version was created in 2020. The RfD said "keep because it is used widely in links" which is simply entirely incorrect. The search result provided then, showed usage of EXCLUSIVELY the uppercase variant. From a quantitative perspective,
CAT:NN has 500+ links.
Cat:NN has zero, besides the deletion notifications. If someone wants to campaign for the existence of a new lowercase "Cat" namespace, that should be done before the existence of these redirects. (Which as per Pandora's WikiBox, the existence of one has since introduced two more also bundled). Utopes(talk / cont) 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Misleading, found no kitties inside the namespace. More seriously, having lowerspace variants of pseudo-namespaces would be unmaintainable.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I only made this two because of the existence of Cat:NN and because using caps lock sucks on phones, you're more than welcome to speedy them under author requests deletion so we don't have to drag this out for a week. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment! I was kind of confused why those two came about. A discussion seems inevitable though at minimum for Cat:NN as that was kept a few months ago. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Cat:prod averages about 2 pageviews each day, since it's convenient to just keyboard type lowercase stuff. However the search thing "redirects" capitalization already anyways
Aaron Liu (
talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Cat:prod was created a month ago. I'm not surprised that it gets views because CAT:PROD also gets a substantial amount of views, and people type in lowercase expecting to autocorrect by the software (which it does). If redirects are meant to optimize view-numbers, we'd get rid of capitals entirely. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The lowercase spelling is not commonly accepted and would lead to a
WP:PANDORA issue. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The last 2 have been deleted as G7. Keep, don't see any harm.
Queen of ♡ |
speak 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Cat:NN per PANDORA per StreetcarEnjoyer who had created the other two based on the presence of Cat:NN. Jay 💬 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate No evidence that either the software, the gun, or the motorcycle is the primary topic. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 04:28, 21 April 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. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - disambiguation pages are not for manually compiled keyword search results. We have a search engine for that.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Apparently a god in Egyptian mythology, however this god is not ever described at the Osiris article, and bears no mention. People who search this term are left confused as to the correlation between this god and Osiris. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect seems to be an error on the part of the creator (
User:TUF-KAT, who last edited 15 years ago). A Google search for Neb-er-tcher turns up
this page, an excerpt from Legends of the Gods (1912) by
E. A. Wallis Budge, describing the creation myth found in Papyrus Bremner-Rhind. "Neb-er-tcher" is Budge's archaic transcription of a divine name meaning "Lord of the limit" or "Lord to the limit", which was generally an epithet of
Atum, not Osiris. Budge doesn't identify this deity as Atum, but later sources universally do so (e.g.:
Raymond O. Faulkner (1937), "The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: III: D. The Book of Overthrowing ꜤApep" in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology;
James P. Allen (1988), Genesis in Egypt;
Geraldine Pinch (2002), Egyptian Mythology).
The redirect obviously should not lead to
Osiris, who isn't directly related to this deity. Nor should it be retargeted to
Atum, because nobody refers to him by this obsolete transcription of his epithet. (Note the
pageviews.)
A. Parrot (
talk) 05:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Atum per A. Parrot's finding. A published work in Modern English refers to this god with this spelling of this name; that's all we need. Someone could read that page and decide to search Wikipedia for it. Obviously it's not going to be any problem for other aspects of redirects (causes confusion, ambiguous, etc.), and implausibility is not a factor if we can prove that it's been used like this.
Nyttend (
talk) 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Since
this is one of the google results for this name, we probably should redirect it to Atum. Otherwise we are perpetuating the Osiris error, looks like. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further opinion on the retarget suggestion. Also notified of this discussion at the suggested target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
According to the halo wiki, there are "many different pistols used in the Halo universe". I don't think this is a useful search term, zero evidence that "Halo 1 pistol" is an alternate name for this pistol even if used by Master Chief. Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out "what's the name of the pistol that Master Chief uses in Halo 1". Not a great precedent for titles, i.e. based on
MOS:POPCULT, and franchises that reference a real model of pistol. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Halo 1 also has the Plasma Pistol, making this an inaccurate term. It's generally referred to as the "magnum" to differentiate it.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 05:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
To be clear, this is specifically an alternative name redirect, intended for people who know about the pistol and it's significance, and call it this name.
A google search gives a couple social media posts of people who call it that. I don't understand your last sentence.
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos) 10:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as useful and
redirects are cheap. I don't understand the nom's "Wikipedia is not a search engine" argument, and I'd love to see what policy/guideline that's based in. It certainly doesn't appear anywhere on
WP:R. In fact, I might even argue that
WP:R#KEEP #3 applies in this situation (and would be another reason to keep this page).
Ed[talk][OMT] 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Wikipedia is a search engine; readers come here to search for information, and Wikipedia has long been one of the options you can choose as your default search engine in many web browsers. But this one in particular is ambiguous (per Zxcvbnm) and search results would be better (
example).
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 1 May 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
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 [36]. 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
Keep per
WP:RFD#K4. Result of a page move that happened a few hours ago. "Anti-Chavismo" is also given as an alternative name in the lead. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 12:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Anti-Chavismo" is not "Opposition to Chavismo". Per your argument
WP:RFD#K4 to quote the policy "Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links ... Links that have existed for a significant length of time ... should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them". This is clearly not a redirect that has existed for a significant period of time. TarnishedPathtalk 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Interesting that you skipped over "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason" when quoting from the RfD guidelines!
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep; you'll find plenty of references if you focus on "opposition to chavism", and those can be worked into the article.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
i did some looking, and it's a word in some languages, and could refer to the fire, water, electric, and dark types, given some mental gymnastics, but it's mostly an informal-ish first person pronoun. no idea what basis i think this should be deleted on, but i want this gone cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as vague at best. So basically in Japan Dark type pokemons are known as Aku or Evil type. However, I think this particular redirect is both vague and confusing. --
Lenticel(
talk) 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Barely used and not very helpful.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The Sinnoh Pokédex doesn't only include Gen 4 pokémon, but it isn't unlikely that someone would be looking for these specifically when typing it.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like
corviknight and
the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to
missingno without a second or first thought cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
MissingNo. due to the unique bird type trait. Bird type doesn't equal flying type so it's not vague per se. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Among Pokémon fans, this term is typically used to refer to the likes of
Pidgey and
Spearow, being weak Normal-Flying birds found early in the game. A redirect to MissingNo. would be too confusing, and this term doesn't have a good single Pokémon to send it to.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 21:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not unlikely for people who heard of the missing type to search it. Hence, retargetting to relevant information at
MissingNo.#Characteristics would be helpful.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
my opinion, after several minutes of questioning unrelated things like how hattrem can knock boxers out with punches when it has as much attack as
an acorn and less than
a mug, is that "bird pokémon" either doesn't narrow things down in the slightest or narrows it down to exactly one pokémon which has an unused type game freak forgot to completely remove. so i'm even more confused, and recommend deleting so i never have to think about it again :D cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm also fine with deletion if we find the redirects too vague. --
Lenticel(
talk) 23:36, 3 May 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
Retarget to
Ash Ketchum. Pokemon Masters is entirely separate from the concept of one, and that game doesn't use the terminology beyond the title to my knowledge. The concept itself is almost entirely associated with Ash, so I'd suggest a retarget there.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Ash Ketchum: per Pokelego999. This exact phrase Ash is the best target and isn't a bad place to jump into other aspects of Pokemondom if this isn't what the user expected.
Skynxnex (
talk) 19:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
PROD'ed but redirects are ineligible for that process. The original PROD statement was: Redirects to an article that doesn't mention Miles. Appears reasonable to me, this person doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned in the target article as far as I can tell and I don't immediately see a good alternative target. Pinging original nominator: @
Frankoceanreal.
Tollens (
talk) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I think there may be potential for a Yuno Miles article, as I've seen him building traction recently and can find at least some coverage so far, but it's not quite enough that I'd want to jump on making one right away. In the meantime, we do not have a good redirect target for him, so this should go.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 20:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, turns out there is
a draft which was started two days ago, so maybe we'll see this turn into an article soon enough. Regardless, I still say delete.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 20:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not attested anywhere, and its
addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history".
1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just added a {{
cn}} at the target. The article was titled Hazeltown and mention has been there right from the first edit in 2008 - Keep as long as the mention is there. Jay 💬 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: any thoughts on keeping the redrect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 18:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete due to lack of attestation; just because something has been there since 2008 doesn't mean it's right. (Of course, just because something cannot be cited doesn't mean it isn't true - but it does mean we should exclude it and the redirect from Wikipedia until we're 100% sure). --
GnocchiFan (
talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also
Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on,
The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted.
SuperΨDro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/
eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:
The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an
Ottoman province from
1478 to
1812. Its size varied, however by
1600, it included the towns of
Cetatea Alba,
Izmail,
Tighina, and
Kilia. The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the
Russian Empire in
1812, along with all
Moldovan territory east of the
Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of
Bessarabia. The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day
Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.
This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in
Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as
this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and
this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and
"province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Bessarabia given the ambiguity of several historical provinces being named "Bessarabia".
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist — keep or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I must admit the Bohemian Earspoon is not the most obvious redirect. Winged spears are probably ancestral to the spetum and corseque too. If I were to plump for one, it would probably be spetum. But there is an argument that a separate article or article section on the weapon would ultimately be preferable. Be hard to make it above a start though.
Monstrelet (
talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, makes me wonder if the section I linked which existed over a decade ago should be restored, or even used to overwrite the nominated redirect with an article.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Deletion, link baiting differs from clickbait to the degree that the redirect is misleading. Link baiting does not have the deceptive nature of clickbait. [1]Acalc79 (
talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
apparently, the difference is the target demographic
clickbait is for general #ContentConsumers™ who love consuming content. for examples, uh, open up youtube and go to incognito mode
link bait is for creators, to try to get them to advertise, sponsor, or otherwise promote your slop. for an example, get offered a
raidy shady sponsorship i think
so my pedantic ass would say delete unless a section or article on link bait can be made cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The term is ambiguous.
Link bait can mean both "clickbait" as well as "content designed to attract incoming links". We have no content to link to for the latter meaning, so there is nothing to do for now. Paradoctor (
talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or delete to encourage article creation? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 03:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Paradoctor, but without prejudice to
dabification/hatnoting if the term is added to another article in the context of digital marketing/SEO. The
Wiktionary page includes examples of the term link bait being used in both contexts, but we don't currently seem to have an article which mentions the term in an SEO context. While
WP:PRIMARYRED states that [t]he existing article is not automatically the primary topic in cases where other uses of the term are red-linked, it also states that
MOS:DABMENTION still applies - and, as Wikipedia doesn't currently seem to have a mention of the term in the SEO context, DABMENTION isn't met - meaning that a disambiguation page for the term (by my understanding) couldn't currently exist. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate. Radio-Canada can mean a few things, none of them being its English equivalent (though I guess it can be with enough of a stretch). LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions) 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate. From the history, I see that I created this redirect more than 20 years ago (!), and at the time Wikipedia was only a few years old and its content was less extensive than today. I think there weren't any articles about Radio-Canada at the time, so this was probably just a placeholder redirect which I forgot about long ago. Thanks for taking the initiative to fix this. --
P.T. Aufrette (
talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:PTOPIC - Radio-Canada is the well-known-in-English French name for the subject covered at
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (branded "CBC/Radio-Canada" per the first sentence). Hatnotes are provided to link to articles covering specific divisions of Radio-Canada.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Hitting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aka Société Radio-Canada aka CBC/Radio-Canada when searching Radio-Canada is unsurprising. Reiterating Ivanvector above: the hatnotes are good navigational aides and if those fail the same articles are linked in the lede. ―
Synpath 23:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Radio-Canada is unambiguously a reference to the French version of the CBC. Ici Radio-Canada Première is like CBC Radio One. The existence of those does not invalidate the primary topics. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a local(?) satirical(?) magazine published by a boarding school. Zero standalone notability, existed as two sentences that were BLAR'd immediately into the school it was published from. No mention of "goulash" anywhere at the target page. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete No mention No redirect. To be honest, I doubt if this magazine is even real. Couldn't find anything in Jstor and Gscholar
Catalk to me! 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe it's probably real, honestly, but just so local that it has no electronic archives, as many a student magazine do 😅 Utopes(talk / cont) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:06, 18 April 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) 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
ELLIS, DICK
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: no consensus
Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes(talk / cont) 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Could go to
list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 06:41, 22 April 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) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and merge to the list page per the AfD close of
Daniel, who in 2008, anticipated that the contents could be merged to a list page. Jay 💬 09:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Without a mention of "easing", making this already not a great target, there's also no mention of a "function" at the target either. While the page admittedly talks about an "ease-in" and an "ease-out", this is not necessarily an "easing function" and several other topics deal with "easing" as well. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Easing function is a common term in computer graphics, see
[39][40]. Maybe there's a better redirect target, or a new article is warranted, but this was the best I could find.
11wx (
talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:45, 22 April 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) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and 11wx. Jay 💬 09:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - appears to be the spelling of his name in Danish and Norwegian, neither of which are particularly relevant.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - the target does mention the transliteration in the Notes. There is also
Leo Trotskij from 2005. Jay 💬 07:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I hadn't noticed that before, but it appears to just be this uncited bit here: "also transliterated Lyev, Trotski, Trotskij, Trockij and Trotzky." I've seen no evidence that Trotskij is a valid English transliteration, rather than the transliteration into the languages that have been identified here.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added a {{
cn}} but you are free to remove the mention. Jay 💬 04:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete based on the removal. Jay 💬 09:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:45, 22 April 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) 18:13, 30 April 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
With respect, I don't see how this would solve the issue regarding ambiguity. When these rcat-redirects are used, they are used by typing the template code into a wikitext editor; and it seems unlikely that most editors using them will go to the redirect's own page (which, in addition to navigating to the redirect's title, generally requires clicking the Redirected from [X] link after arriving at the redirect's target).Keeping these redirects would also seem to be making a determination that the (de-facto) primary topic for an {{R foo}} rcat-redirect is {{R from foo}}, even where {{R to foo}} also exists - to me, this just seems to be an
WP:XY-type situation, where keeping these redirects could
cause confusion. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete unless someone has a better technical solution to address potential misuse. The redirects don't seem useful enough to risk the ambiguity. Though to be honest, I'm not sure what {{
R to subtopic}} is for – I understand the intent but I can't think of an example where it would be needed. (I originally created it as a redirect to {{
R to related topic}}.) Looking at
Category:Redirects to subtopics, it appears to be frequently being used incorrectly. If that template returned to being a redirect, I would support {{
R subtopic}} remaining as a redirect to {{
R from subtopic}} as I created it.
MClay1 (
talk) 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Empty and delete - an AWB (I don't know JWB but assume it's similar) run would not be appropriate, these will need to be manually reviewed to determine whether they are "R to x" or "R from x" redirects. But once that's done they should be deleted so that nobody adds more pages to them. Disambiguation doesn't solve the problem of the redirects being miscategorized - these are supposed to be part of a semi-automatic process.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: These are ambiguous and could result in improper use. Disambiguation is not appropriate, as a smart kitten explained.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. When we have to and from variations, one without the type just isn't helpful. If this passes, please list it at
WP:TFD/H.
Gonnym (
talk) 17:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Enbian
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
I don't object. It seems like I incorrectly assumed your article was spam. My apologies.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 23:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I went ahead and restored the soft redirect, though I think this discussion should remain open since dabifying is also being considered as an option.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The team is inactive and may never come back. I redirected it to a new team that took the players, but
Sbaio (
talk·contribs) instead made a
cross-namespace redirect, which is generally discouraged. Until/unless there is an actual team roster, there is no need to have this and should the team be reactivated, it could be undeleted. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I value the ability to view previous versions of roster templates and see how the rosters change, and I suspect I'm not the only one. It would be a shame to lose all that history. Is there another potential target for this? -
Eureka Lott 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If there’s no better target, and keeping the history is desired, the template contents could be replaced with {{
deprecated template}} — that way, it’d be clear that the template isn’t meant to be used, and the history would also be preserved. Should the team be reactivated, the template could always be un-deprecated. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Aside from deprecation it could potentially be moved without a redirect to a WikiProject subpage or userspace if the history is seen as valuable.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BCC1:74D:C5C8:CF76 (
talk) 15:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Once again – this is not a relocation. Arizona and Utah are completely different and unrelated organizations so redirecting from Arizona to Utah is factually incorrect. Also notified
WP:NHL about this discussion. –
sbaio 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No one wrote that it was a relocation. Please do not introduce off-topic noise. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 20:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Echoing what Sbaio said regarding redirecting to Utah. I wouldn’t be opposed to the deprecated template route.
TheKip 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Template:Utah NHL team roster. While these are technically different franchises, Utah inherited the roster of the Coyotes. The final Coyotes roster (minus expiring contracts) became the initial Utah roster, so there is continuity when following the edit history. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect should be deleted, as it is incorrect -
inosine and
inositol are two different compounds, the enzymes in question are different and catalyze different reactions (
inosine triphosphatase and
inositol-polyphosphate 5-phosphatase). Enzymes are also [
in this list], under numbers 3.6.1.73 and 3.1.3.56, clearly showing they're different. Reason apparently does not meet criteria for speedy deletion, so I am requesting here.
KormiSK (
talk) 20:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep this one is very confusing, but apparently 'inosine triphosphatase' is an accepted synonym for 'inositol-polyphosphate 5-phosphatase' at the link you provide and also at the BRENDA/KEGG/IUBMB (etc.) databases. The enzyme described by EC 3.6.1.73 is called inosine/xanthosine triphosphatase, and shortening the name to 'inosine triphosphatase' is not recorded as an accepted synonym. I think it's fine to leave it at that for now, but I may find myself interested in seeing if this is some odd historical nomenclature artefact or maybe even an error in the databases later. ―
Synpath 06:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Forgot to say - if consensus is to delete, I'm happy to do a JWB run to replace this template's transclusions. —a smart kitten[
meow 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is consensus to delete. Can you do the needful? Jay 💬 17:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Bypass and delete - Too confusing, and you can't usefully dabify a template. I would also suggest that, while we're doing an automated task anyway, it would be helpful to look out for redirects that transclude {{
r sub}} but do not actually target subpages. Such pages may need the template replaced with a different one. I spot-checked a few transclusions at random, but didn't find any that needed to be fixed. --NYKevin 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify I see no reason why ambiguity alone is a good enough reason to delete. As I said above, there are ways to dabify templates.
Nickps (
talk) 00:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a very low traffic redirect and I think the hatnote to the outdenting section is fine. I don't see a DAB page stopping people from improperly using od2 in mainspace.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 15:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Dabify or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 19:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep because I just don't think many people are likely to search for this from the outdent template (the arrow's meaning is reasonably intuitive from context, whereas AES's usage is completely arbitrary). Edit the template to categorize non-talk and non-projectspace pages into
Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace or a suitable subcategory thereof (which may need to be created?). (The template is not protected; anyone could do this right now if they were so inclined, but it may be wise to see what others think of this solution before implementing it.) --NYKevin 05:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I support the change, regardless of this RfD's outcome. The same edit should be done to {{
od}} since that one is also misused sometimes (4 transclusions in mainspace as of me writing this).
Nickps (
talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
First Gulf War
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
as opposed to "
evil mario" which was nominated a few days ago, which could have referred to a good handful of characters (ironically not including wario), there is a very concrete "evil luigi", that being mr. l from
super paper mario, though he's only mentioned by name in
luigi's article. i'd say retarget to super paper mario and mention his name there cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete since it can plausibly refer to multiple subjects. On top of Mr. L and Waluigi, I'm sure there's other "evil" variants of Luigi that exist that could be conflated with them.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
to my knowledge, those are actually the only ones. shadoo (also from super paper mario) could maybe probably count since he takes the shapes of the main cast (funnily enough, he copies mr. l's design instead of luigi's), though i haven't been able to find any other clones or doppelgängers wanting to be the better mario brother cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
should probably clarify that i mean evil luigis, i will accept no
gooigi slander in this house cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I believe the expected result for "Evil Luigi" is Waluigi, same as somebody searching "Evil Mario" would expect to be redirected to Wario.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion with no opinion on keep vs. dabify. There is, I think we all agree, at least one plausible meaning of "Evil Luigi," so something should exist at that title. "Delete since it can plausibly refer to multiple subjects" does not match any of the rationales listed at
WP:R#RCD. If there is only one meaning, then it can target that meaning. If there is more than one meaning, then it can be dabified (or we can pick a primary topic). There's no situation where you delete something that has at least one valid meaning. --NYKevin 07:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Evil Luigi is
Mr. L at most. Waluigi is not Luigi, and therefore cannot be "Evil Luigi" (as he would need to be Luigi to be evil, which he is not, and is a separate character). We do have a character on Wikipedia that is Luigi, and is "evil", i.e. Mr. L, so this if anything is the only possibility that exists. However, I would not expect this description of Mr. L to be a redirect, as "Mr. L" is a suitable and workable search term. No reason to have
Bad Luigi or
Devious Luigi. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of "NGC" at the target page; this title has always been a redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Utopes:Retarget: NGC means "Ninth Grade Center". The article and previous revisions don't mention it, though
Pearland Independent School District does. Perhaps the redirect should be retargeted to "Pearland Independent School District"?
WhisperToMe (
talk) 18:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Possibly, although the mention at the page suggested is trivial/uncited and should probably be deleted, as there really isn't anything that we have to say about the ninth grade center. If mentioned at the high school page that's where I'd expect this title to redirect to, but it's not hence we're here. The School District might count for a mention but it's like, ehhhh. A red link might encourage someone to talk about the ninth grade center somewhere. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Public school district articles are typically expected to list all current and former schools, of which NGC would be one of them. Directives at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools say to redirect such non-notable U.S. public schools to school district articles.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 23:24, 25 April 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! 09:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ninth Grade Center was already mentioned, I just added NGC in brackets. Jay 💬 17:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah but anyways, it's a Deletion for me. Too trivial and
WP:FANCRUFT. An even better example than the one I said before: in Harry Potter, they call a
gun a Muggle's wand. Would that be a valid redirect?
Okmrman (
talk) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
With regards to the previous discussion, I just wanted to note that two of the delete !voters stated that the curly quotes present in the previously-nominated redirects (but not in these) was a reason for deletion, and that one delete !voter stated that the correct-apostrophe version can be kept. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
delete as
fancruft for something completely unrelated to the target, and also do they ever call it "red fire"? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Either keep these redirects or retarget them to
I Wan'na Be Like You (The Monkey Song) - These terms refer to fire in the movie The Jungle Book. Rather than deleting the redirects, why not consider retargeting them to the song where those terms are referred to?
Interstellarity (
talk) 13:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, thanks for catching these as well. I concur with the description from the prior discussion that these are nonsense in their current form. Nobody would use this term to find information on "fire", as they'd just type "fire" instead. This specific phrase is associated exclusively with one song, and not mentioned in either article (at either fire's or the song's). There is no need to have a mention as well, as its a trivial line from the song and not an established alternate name, nor is it a noteworthy phrase. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
oh yeah i also found out related redirect
7.92 mm. Might as well put this out there as well for you to decide on it.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Dabify or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably gonna go with Dabify per Luna and redirect
7.92 mm to that disambig
Okmrman (
talk) 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Changing to Retarget per Travix
Okmrman (
talk) 21:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Changing vote back to DabifyOkmrman (
talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
7 mm caliber, which is for the 7.00 to 7.99 millimetres (0.2756 to 0.3146 in) caliber range. Anything at 7.92 mm should be listed there. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Shhhnotsoloud: What is your opinion about the 7mm target? Jay 💬 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist — should 7.92 be rounded up or down (or neither)? Bundling in
7.92mm and
7.92 mm. Notifying proposed target
7 mm caliber. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 03:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify per above. Partial title match or no, there are still numerous valid targets shown here. The original target can be listed among them and the task will be accomplished just fine.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Hillcrest, San Diego. The San Diego neighborhood is in a large city and has three times the population of the unincorporated suburb in Kern County, so it seems more likely people would be looking for that. This has only been a redirect to its current target since January.
RL0919 (
talk) 02:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Revert to disambiguation page, which was the status quo from 2009 until early this year. No clear primary topic. -
Eureka Lott 06:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are only two pages for locations in California that use the name "Hillcrest", so a dab page was never appropriate. There are more in the US overall, so potentially the redirect could be targeted to
Hillcrest#United States. --
RL0919 (
talk) 06:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A two-item disambiguation page can be acceptable when there's no primary topic. See
WP:NOPRIMARY. That said, redirecting the page to
Hillcrest#United States would also be fine with me. -
Eureka Lott 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Revert per Eureka Lott. The proposed retarget contains at least three "Hillcrest, Californias" and doesn't even include the current target. I think a disambiguation page would be fine in this case, since it seems there are at least four possible topics. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Added current target to the proposed target, so now there are four. Jay 💬 17:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Forced out of US Air Force for asking about sane president
The addition of "Freeze" means that it can't be confused with
Live at Tokyo Dome, but despite that, without a mention of this lyric, we don't have anything for readers that search the specific lyric of "everybody clap your hands" instead of the song itself. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as an {{
R without mention}}. This line is basically the only one in the entire song, and I don't see any other likely target. FWIW, I didn't know the title of the song for several years but knew this line. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
basically the only one in the entire song Wa-huh?? The
Cha Cha Slide is basically nothing BUT lyrics, associated dance moves, a backing beat, and after the line Cha-Cha now, y'all, a short funky sting. Have you been listening to the same song I have??The main issue is that the song isn't referred to as the "Cha-Cha Slide" in the lyrics-- it's referred to as the
Casper Slide Part 2. ...Wait, why isn'twasn't THAT a redirect...?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. In addition, tagging a redirect with {{
R without mention}} places the redirect in a maintenance category,
Category:Redirects to an article without mention, that is cleared by adding a mention to the target article, deleting the redirects via
WP:CSD, or nominating the redirects for
WP:RFD ... meaning tagging the redirect as so then "keeping" the redirect is akin to
kicking the can down the road, which is unhelpful since we are literally having the discussion about the redirect right now.
Steel1943 (
talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Y'know, maybe we should edit R Without Mention to more clearly state "hey, this is a maintenance category akin to {{
template:Citation needed}}, it's not meant to be kept on a redirect that intentionally doesn't have a mention on the target, don't tag it as this and then keep". Seems like I see quite a bit of people
erroneously using R Without Mention's existence as an rcat as proof that Rs without mention are Okay in certain circumstances, akin to {{
template:R from non-neutral name}}.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Or maybe the maintenance category should be seperated from the tag, because there are plenty of situations where we don't need or want a mention at the target, but the redirect is still helpful to have. Incidentally, I agree with Presidentman above that this should be one such. Imagine if
I get knocked down didn't redirect to
Tubthumping... how would people find it? (yes I know Tubthumping does reference the line, but even if it didn't I'd hope this redirect would exist!) Keep.
Fieari (
talk) 07:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue with that is that there would be nothing left to populate said maintenance category. ...Maybe there should be two separate rcats? {{
R without mention}} and {{
R intentionally without mention}}, perhaps. (also rq: editing my first comment here to link to a relevant essay)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"R from lyric" is a template for "lyric redirects that point to a source that describes the lyric". Redirects should not exist for every lyric that people can think of. The long-established metric applicable for all of the actually-valid "R from lyrics" is based on whether or not there is a mention in the article (and thusly a reliable source that can be attributed to and corroborate the lyric mention, in practice) Utopes(talk / cont) 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mentions of "clean" at the target page. At the target page, the act of singing is never implied to be "clean", or even consist of "clean vocals". The primary justification for this redirect existing is that
unclean vocals is a redirect to
death growl. Yet, its antonym has no mention at the general page for "singing". If clean and unclean vocals are antonyms, and both are redirects, this seems to imply that the concepts of "singing" and "death growl" are also "antonyms" in regard to vocal quality? Likely true, but never addressed (nor does it need to be imo). For someone specifically looking for information on the topic of "clean vocals", it seems to be preferable for these readers to end up at a topic that is directly pertinent to vocal quality. If people wanted to end up at
Singing instead, they'd type
singing, a concept everyone would have already been familiar with. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Of note, an RfD for
Clean vocals closed as retarget in 2015, but was pointed back to
Singing after its conclusion three different times by two users, citing different material at the page for
Screaming (music) (the resulting retarget). Utopes(talk / cont) 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with the nominator that someone searching for "Clean vocals" or "Clean vocalist" is looking for more than the page on singing, and wants to know about the quality of the voice instead. I've been searching around, and the best page for information on vocal quality appears to be at
Vocal pedagogy, but that page is super technical and seems a bit more deeply theoretical and broad topic than someone looking for information on voice quality. I'm not sure we actually have the perfect article to target for these... in which case maybe
WP:REDLINKing it (that is, deletion) would be appropriate to encourage article creation. But I'm on the fence, so no formal !vote from me as of now.
Fieari (
talk) 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Clean vocals is a highly likely search term
Geschichte (
talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This thing is really begging for a
WP:RA, isn't it?
Bwrs (
talk) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget ... somewhere. The term "clean vocals" is only relevant in the context of certain genres of music which use vocal techniques commonly called "unclean".
Singing doesn't describe any of those techniques and is the wrong target; the word "clean" doesn't appear in the article at all. The problem is that this makes sense as an {{
R from antonym}} to bothscreaming (music) and
death growl, which are both different techniques, and both of those articles describe "clean vocals" in context. There's a former article in the redirect's history (
[42]) which was prodded many years ago for having no sources at all. We shouldn't restore that, but maybe a short
set index/disambiguation, to give the term context? Or else expanding the very bare section on those two vocal styles at
Extended vocal technique#Distortion and then targeting there? As an antonym to unclean vocals and harsh vocals, which probably should get the same treatment as this redirect. I can find a few sources to draft something but I'm about to be in meetings for the foreseeable future (ugh).
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll note that R From Antonym is not a "categorize this kept redirect" rcat, but instead, a "populate this maintenance category" redirect. I don't know WHY, but it IS.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ivanvector, any chance you've got the time to throw a quick stub/section together now? --
asilvering (
talk) 01:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Han (state)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Not mentioned at the target. External searches don't pull up anything related to this scale, although it appears to be an alternative name for
Heqet, says Google. However, it does not appear at Heqet (our page on Wikipedia uses "Heket", but Google's definitely uses "Hekt"). In any case, "Hekt" is short enough to have a surplus of other mentions on Wikipedia as a word, appearing across the board in terms of viability as a redirect. Also sometimes short for "Hektor" and several others. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per
this source,
Heinz Bohlen, one of the namesakes of the
Bohlen–Pierce scale, described the hekt in
this paper (cited in the original German as source 2 in the article) as an alternative measurement to a cent, such that 100 hekts divide each step in the Bohlen–Pierce scale. I found a couple of other sources using the hekt measurement searching Google scholar:
[43] and
[44].
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 02:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also be open to disambiguation to
Hektor and
Bohlen–Pierce scale, as well as
Heqet if sources can be found establishing that Hekt is an alternative transliteration. It also appears that there is a HEKT cell line that might be related to
HEK 293 cells. If it just ends up being Hektor and BP scale, then I would support keeping with a hatnote to Hektor.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as ambiguous. Mention may be added to the target using voorts' sources however. Jay 💬 11:47, 19 April 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) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 07:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 07:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 07:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Given that nobody has imported any information in the spirit of
WP:PRESERVE, perhaps that can be done by somebody if they can provide an attribute to it while also suggesting it to the other MÄR articles as I had suggested in the AFD that was mentioned. Any objections?
Rtkat3 (
talk) 02:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 06:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Could change vote if it's updated.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as is Creating loads of links to disambiguation pages is not a good idea.The Bannertalk 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmm...the provincial district is hyphenated, whereas the federal district is two separate words. The incoming links seem to mainly refer to the federal district. Weak keep, I think. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That same guideline says When federal and provincial riding names differ only in punctuation, one or both should include disambiguation in their titles as if their names were identical (e.g. Edmonton—Strathcona and Edmonton-Strathcona (provincial electoral district)).. Yes, it does use an outdated vision of this specific redirect as an example.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is the sentence I was referring to. I am saying that the move should not have occurred based on it.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess we disagree about whether "Edmonton Strathcona" and "Edmonton-Strathcona" differ only in punctuation. I would say they do.
* Pppery *it has begun... 17:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Swap the article with the redirect, this is unnecessary disambiguation. The federal district is "Edmonton Strathcona" and the provincial one is "Edmonton-Strathcona", and per
WP:SMALLDETAILS the difference in hyphenation is sufficient to disambiguate. The federal was formerly "Edmonton—Strathcona", with an emdash, which follows the naming pattern for federal electoral districts in Canada; provincial districts usually hyphenate instead but it varies by province. When a reader looks for "Edmonton Strathcona" they should end up on one of the two topics that have this name, not a list of
partial title matches.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and no opposition to moving the page back to its previous title. Edmonton Strathcona is the exact, current name of the federal riding and should take a searcher there. Hatnotes are included to alleviate some of the confusion around similarly named districts. I'm not convinced that sending a searcher to a PTM DAB page is a good solution when there could only be confusion with
one other page, regardless of which page is the primary topic. ―
Synpath 23:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Swap, exactly per Ivanvector above.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The set index is not a disambiguation. I can only find
Dougie as a dance, and
Dougie (given name), but I can't find the 3rd. If you can't find the 3rd one, will this page be deleted or kept?
176.42.17.150 (
talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. If there's enough content to create a disambiguation page, that's certainly fine. If not, the redirect should be kept because the target provides a disambiguation-like function. -
Eureka Lott 17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We do point them at pages that "serve a disambiguation-like function" though, which anthroponymy pages do. Oops, I thought I removed this comment before saving — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ivanvector (
talk •
contribs) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Restore the separate disambiguation page at
Dougie (disambiguation). It's the best solution out of no particularly good solutions.
BD2412T 17:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Eureka Lott. If
Dougie is the only title needing disambiguation that is not a person or character's name, which seems to be the case, it's silly to have nearly-identical disambiguation and anthroponymy pages that only differ by that one link. Just add a hatnote or see-also to the existing list.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Should be treated as an average redirect from incorrect disambiguation. The correct disambiguator in the title "Dougie (given name)" is "given name", and the disambiguator "disambiguation" is incorrect. No need to add an irrelevant see also link or hatnote to the anthro list. Someone who is at "Foo (given name)" doesn't need to be directed to "Foo" that is not name-related (not a "
related or comparable" topic).—
Alalch E. 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We actually need this to exist because there's a broken piece of software, which is used by a lot of people who disambiguate, that thinks links to "Dougie (given name)" need to be disambiguated, so they can at least pipe link this to avoid the software bug. --
Joy (
talk) 07:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore disambiguation page per
BD2412 and because ... since
Dougie exists, claiming that a page about a given name is the de facto disambiguation page is erroneous.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or restore dab? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't delete. In addition to what's already been said, redirects that end in (disambiguation) which target a page performing a disambiguation-like function (rather than a disambiguation page) are also helpful for linking to Wikidata items. To use this redirect as an example, the French and Italian Wikipedias have a disambiguation page for the term Dougie, which are both linked to
Dougie (Q13364643): Wikimedia disambiguation page. However, as
Dougie (given name) is an article about the name & isn't a dab page, it's linked to the Wikidata item about the name itself (
Dougie (Q3037978): male given name). Redirects such as
Dougie (disambiguation) are able to be connected to the Wikidata item about the disambiguation page as a
sitelink to redirect (as I've
just done); and therefore allow readers of the French and Italian Wikipedias to access the enwiki article (that serves a disambiguation-like function) via an interlanguage link. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of this novel feature(?), aspect? mentioned at the target article. Has three other mentions on Wikipedia in different contexts, also
Mimoides exists with a number of subarticles on species. Not currently a useful redirect without context at the target. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I was linking it to the wrong page it was supposed to link to
Aniara, not
Solaris (novel).
That might be typical, but it is the lack of mention of the word Mimoid in the article that made me make the redirect. If someone searchs for the term, they will be lead to the article. The solution is to mention them in the Article as they were a critical part of the book.
I understand that the book was written in Swedish, so other translators might have used a different word. If someone finds a different word used, but it is still unique to Aniara, then they could make a redirect to the article, where a standard term can be referred on.
If someone encounters the concept, it is highly likely that it is from Aniara and yet without the redirect, neither human nor bot would know that the word is associated with the book, and since as far as I know it is not associated with another novel. I had not fully completed reading the story yet when I made the link.
My intention is to add further discussion to the article, using the word, but I hoped the redirect would help others find the article. I also think it is worthy of an article in its own right, so if someone is really ambitious they can turn it into an article.
It doesn't refer to the moth. The reasons you are giving are why I made the redirect.
I don't think I need to make a list of all of the alien races and species that have a page on wikipedia. In the case where it doesn't refer to a dictionary word or a concept used in other novels, then it should be uncontroversial.
The moth name is pronounced meemo-eedays not mimoids, if someone types Mimoid I assume they are searching for the concept from Aniara, and it right now similarity search leads to you to the moth, when the page you are looking for is Aniara.
I think I might have directed it to the wrong page, it was supposed to link to
Aniara not
Solaris (novel).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, several operators sharing the same mathematical notation. Ideally, redirect it to a section of the recently made
Dbar disambiguation above.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A "shared universe" is never discussed at the target article, and is only mentioned within one of the external links. In my opinion this is not currently a likely or helpful redirect in the article's current form, as there is no substantial coverage of a shared universe. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It's a plausible search term. And honestly the only reason shared universe isn't mentioned is because so much material that used to be in the article has been deleted a few years ago in a controversial rewrite.
★Trekker (
talk) 19:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The controversial edit by Trekker is referring to my own re-write. On trying to organize the films as a whole proved to be fruitless. Namely they don't cross-over until late into the end of the series and there is no rush to lump them all together as a series until they were marketed on home video. They don't narratively connect (and even when they attempt to, it is very loose). As there won't be any mention of how these films connect in that article currently, I'd suggest we remove the re-direct.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 17:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target page.
Tea2min (
talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wiktionary redirect to
wikt:insurance goal. There it's given in the context of soccer but it's the same meaning. Preferable to adding it back to the list of hockey terms since it also applies to other sports.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Add back to the list, or delete per
WP:REDYES for both the soccer/football and hockey terms. This
search for "insurance goal on Wikipedia returns a surprising amount of articles that mention the phrase for its soccer/football and hockey uses, but surprisingly none of the results are articles that define the term. For this reason, the phrase seems notable enough in some regard to be included and defined either in an existent article or a standalone article.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The term has not yet been added back to the list. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wiktionary redirect per Ivan
Okmrman (
talk) 21:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Apparently HDIV is now a part of Datadog. However, this framework is never mentioned anywhere at the target article. This undone PROD seems to be either suited for a standalone article (hard as there were no references previously), or no article at all. The status quo of retargeting this to the parent of Datadog does not seem helpful for people searching for this term to find out what HDIV means perhaps, and not having any content at the target to answer these questions. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore / Merge / AfD. Jay 💬 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 18:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per
0xDeadbeef's PROD rationale. I have no idea what
Jay and
Okmrman mean by Restore / Merge / AfD. Were you able to find sources suitable for merging? If you want to merge, why would you also want to send this to AfD? Do you think such an article stands a chance to be kept should it be at AfD? --
Tavix(
talk) 17:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
By "/" I meant OR, AND where applicable. Restore or/and AfD or Restore and merge if possible, etc. Anything is fine, but just to note that keep, retarget, delete were not my choices. I usually don't vote at AfD unless it's for an article I have been involved in or have knowledge about. Jay 💬 07:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Per
WP:SRE, this is the best way to deal with these, quick, efficient, and far less
WP:BITEy than the alternatives, the remaining redirects are both harmless and slightly useful in keeping other novices from making the same mistake.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:49B:2883:34FC:225B (
talk) 14:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Article existed from 2013. A NOTHERE editor tried creating a draft 10 years later, and was redirected within 13 minutes. Serves no purpose per RDRAFT. Jay 💬 13:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete.
WP:RDRAFT is for redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace. This was not a redirect as the result of a page move, so
WP:RDRAFT does not apply. If not for
JalenFolf's redirection, it would have been
WP:G13 deleted by now. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
User:TavixWP:RDRAFT specifies when redirects should be retained but not when they should be deleted.
WP:SRE is the relevant guideline here, if it had been listed at MFD this would have been the discussion result. I can certainly understand the desire to wipe away everything created by people who misbehave and need to be blocked. However most new users mean well and the existence of this redirect prevents them from making the same mistake as they are taken to where they should be contributing. If deleted and a new user does repeat the mistake then an MFD will just result in us having this redirect anyway. Just don't see any advantage to these nominations.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:32:BC47:A9D:406B (
talk) 16:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No,
WP:SRE is not relevant here, it's an MFD-specific guideline developed by MFD regulars. For what it's worth, I don't think that duplicate drafts should be redirected at all. Primarily because it removes the
G13 clock, and secondly because it can be a space to develop and rework sections of an article that can later be incorporated, which redirecting can short-circuit. If it's a poor draft, just leave it alone and the trash will be taken care of in six months time. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Tavix Well a guidelines is a guideline, and disagreeing with them does not make them go away. It is true that guidelines are applied much less rigidly than policies and that a strong local consensus can override them.
I have on a handful of times helped out with rewrites done on draft pages for existing articles, which I agree is usually the best way as it is more collaborative and less time sensitive then relying on
Template:In use or
Template:Under construction. But the type of people who are likely to start those overhauls are also the type who will know how to navigate back to the page redirected from, or at least that is most likely. Perhaps there should be guidance somewhere that makes it explicitly OK to periodically overwrite draft to main redirects for collaboration then restore once done, but I have a hard time believing someone will object to that anyway once the purpose is explained, even in the absence of guidance expressly oking it.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:32:BC47:A9D:406B (
talk) 17:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That was ancillary to the point of my last past mentioned in passing mainly because of the necessary consequence leading us right back to where we started which is a factor to consider. But I sense you lack interest in exploring this further and this may well not be best place or time for that either.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:32:BC47:A9D:406B (
talk) 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am interested in a discussion to deprecate
WP:SRE in favor of leaving such drafts alone without redirecting them, but I'm not going to start one until I have precedent(s). I have no idea what you mean by necessary consequence leading us right back to where we started. Unless you're arguing to restore the draft, there is no situation where
WP:SRE comes into play or takes us back to where we started. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There in fact is.
Counterpoint in advance, recurring RFDs happen all the time for example "(upcoming film)" redirects and are not that big a nuisance.
The pattern is this, draft is created, draft is redirected, draft is listed at RFD, redirect is deleted, draft is created, draft is sent to MFD, draft is SRE'd, not eligible for G4 due to surviving XFD, draft is listed at RFD, rinse wash repeat. Really my entire !vote is premised on there being multiple downsides to deletion, avoiding circularity deriving from
WP:SRE, avoiding
WP:BITEs as deletion is more bitey than redirection, and avoiding unneccesary work. While there are no corresponding downsides to retention. Above you indicated there were potential downsides like inhibiting draft rewrites. I have not seen that happen, but if that has caused problems that retention will perpetuate then it might be worth exploring, especially if this page is a good candidate for an overhaul.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:32:BC47:A9D:406B (
talk) 18:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The pattern you are describing is not happening... As for
WP:BITE, we need not worry about it here—
Lasha563 is blocked. Yes, I have indicated there are downsides to redirecting—especially 13 minutes after it was created. That would be
WP:BITEy for someone wanting to improve the article in a less stressful environment. Since my preferred action is to let
WP:G13 take care of these drafts, and it has been more than six months since the draft was edited, I have no qualms with deletion per the spirit of
WP:G13. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair, and thinking about it this is probably too tangential, our differences are probably just a matter of focus anyway.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:32:BC47:A9D:406B (
talk) 18:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Tavix. I truly do understand the thought behind avoiding deletion of new users' creations, but ultimately, it doesn't do anyone any favors. The correct response in such cases is to tell the user "Thanks, but we already have an article on this topic." It's only BITE-y if someone gets nasty about it. --
BDD (
talk) 19:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant draft that does not meet
WP:RDRAFT. The
main reason why RDRAFT is a thing is to allow article creators to see that their drafts got accepted. This is moot here, as the draft was not accepted (as being redundant), so deletion is a clearer indication of what happened.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's... really weird. I mean, maybe it would have changed my mind were it up any time in the past decade-and-a-half but now it's the kind of obscure trivia that's just irrelevant.
Allan Nonymous (
talk) 00:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I created the redirect in 2009, when the 4Kids dub was only a few years old.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 00:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added the webarchive link to the External links section. Jay 💬 13:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A fictional element and/or creative work that is not mentioned at the target. "Gorbino" does not appear at the target, nor does "Gorbino" appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Much less their quest appearing anywhere on Wikipedia; no quest is ever alluded to at the target page either. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
gorbino's quest is a fictional game and recurring... "thing" there, and probably maybe the setting of one of the levels
this is just like gorbino's quest. this is the gorbino's quest of redirects i'd keep if a mention can reasonably be made (probably in the plot section), or weak delete otherwise cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
gorbino's quest is found in cruelty squad and i wholeheartedly promise you anybody who form some bizarre reason searches for "gorbino's quest" on wikipedia is looking for the game's article
Formaldehydemaster (
talk) 00:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
WP:CRUFT + unmentioned. We're not the Cruelty Squad wiki, and pageviews reflect that-- this redirect gets practically no views whatsoever.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - mentioned enough in the game that it is worth looking up to determine if it is an actual game (possibly by the developer of Cruelty Squad). It turns out it is an entirely fictional element but the redirect is useful for a reader looking for that information. It'd be better if there were a mention in the target article, though. (I found and used that redirect back in 2021 in that context, and then added rcats to it afterwards.) (A redirect for just "Gorbino" would not be useful, though, and one does not currently exist either.) --
Pokechu22 (
talk) 00:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, although could later be recreated if material about Gorbino's Quest is added to the article. Right now, it misleads the readers into thinking there is information there which there just isn't—someone looking up that specific quest probably already knows what game they're playing and isn't looking for generic information.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Gribbly
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: no consensus
The correct pseudo-namespace is MOS. Throughout the years, there have been a number of "lazy prefix" versions of MOS redirects floating around mainspace, which don't capitalize the full prefix of "Manual of Style". The argument is that "Mos" is easier to type than "MOS", and people that don't capitalize the searches would otherwise be piping their pageviews through the lowercase variants. However, this nomination consists of all the pages that are otherwise doing "two things ineffectively". It's implausible to expect someone to type "Mos" in lowercase, before changing their mind and capitalizing the rest of the title, or parts of. There are only 11 of such cases across article-space. For the rest of the "Mos" titles, the vast majority of these pseudo-pseudonamespace redirects are constructed like
Mos:bold, in all lowercase for "maximum laziness", which at least serves a unique purpose that the full-capital prefix does not. The swapping back and forth between capitalization is unnatural and already covered by the search box. In all of these situations, the correct version of "MOS:X" already exists, so typing this in yields no difference in results besides unnecessary name duplication among titles. Utopes(talk / cont) 21:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: not sure exactly how implausible it is... I know that the WP prefix is case insensitive but don't always know if all the case variations after it have been made, so I'm pretty sure I have typed "wp:DAB" before, which works since WP is an alias for the Wikipedia namespace. I could see that logic carrying over to the MOS/mos pseudo namespace; deletion could still make sense since they're meant to be internal and are part of the article space and the bar for keeping is higher.
Skynxnex (
talk) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I'm not often on this page, but isn't this a case where
Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap applies? What do they hurt? One person's laziness is another person's efficiency.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, plausible redirects are useful and it is nice to have a few lying around, but these titles are all the opposite of efficient. Efficient would be
MOS:DP or
Mos:dp, not swapping capitalization up and down multiple times. Pseudo-namespaces prefixes are not lowercase. The list of shortcuts is CAT, T, H, MOS, P, per
WP:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces. Because PNRs exist in mainspace, yet point to technical/codified back-end MOS pages, a consistent structure is imperative for shortcuts. Because these titles are in violation of common-held shortcut practices, these types of titles are not cheap, as there is no need for every capitalization alternation over the moon. Pages that start with "Mos" are already out of convention, but they see pageviews due to lowercase-only typing. If these aren't meant for lowercase-only typing (due to the capitals in the title part), they should be removed to minimize the instances of unnecessary PNRs in mainspace. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom as an improper capitalization on a nonexistent namespace. (However, if any of these redirect have incoming links, replace them with their all-caps variants prior to deletion.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 02:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. All-caps are fine and the usual convention for such redirects, at least regarding the prefix.
Gawaon (
talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Redirects are cheap, and these are plausible as typos from people hitting or not hitting caps lock while typing shortcuts. They harm nothing and can just be ignored by those bothered by their inconsistency. That's a you problem, not a problem with the redirects.
oknazevad (
talk) 13:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While these redirects are harmless, deleting them only disturbs linking – typing in the search box will give the same result whether they exist or not. So strong neutral I guess. —
Kusma (
talk) 15:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per SchreiberBike. Why wilfully make things difficult?
Gog the Mild (
talk) 11:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep True namespaces are case-insensitive before the colon. Pseudo-namespaces might as well be the same.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound... this nomination consists of every remaining redirect with unclosed parenthesis, of which there are now only twelve. All of these typos are not plausible to intentionally make on their own. Because there's been cumulatively 1000+ or so of these redirect types deleted over the last few months, this nomination seeks to determine whether there's a threshold that makes these redirects acceptable, or if one even exists. Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable. While it's good to have redirects from common misspellings lying around for ease of navigation on Wikipedia, the presence of implausible redirect errors sets unreasonable expectations and portrays the faulty notion to readers that "infinite typo variations are encouraged, regardless of likelihood", when this is not currently the case. For the most part, spelling variations are accepted in redirects; especially with words that are tricky to spell, having a set of titles with minor differences can be useful to capture likely, intentional errors. When it pertains to disambiguation, though, there will never be a time where errors in the act of disambiguation are expected, for any title. While someone might spell a title like
Hampster with an intentional (but incorrect) "P", one can generally have 100% confidence that a title with a left parenthesis will contain a right parenthesis, and, as an extension, typing in a title that doesn't contain a right parenthesis will have a 0% likelihood of being redirected to the correct title, as it will never be correctly expected. The disambiguator is Wikipedia's "official insertion" onto the title based on other article names that co-exist here. The tagline's format can be safely assumed as error-free, or if there is an error in the disambiguation, that it will be corrected ASAP without hesitation. Being locked into keeping tabs on any and all errors within this "topic title guarantee" inherited from Wikipedia disambiguation precedent, just because of one (or twelve remaining) bad links on the internet, is just not worth for titles that are one punctuation mark away from the correctness that was already assumed beforehand. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all. When typing in to the search bar, the search result will be autocompleted with the missing parentheses. As for websites that cannot handle parentheses, that is, as has been established quite clearly over the last few months, their problem, and not Wikipedia's-- they need to fix their formatting handling.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 04:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all - Note that I !voted delete on the last batch you nominated. This batch I'm !voting keep for the simple reason that they are demonstrably useful to someone... in that these redirects are all getting use (noting again that this is unlike the last batch). They're
WP:CHEAP, they're useful, they're harmless. Note that I expressly do NOT support the creation of more of these things, for all the reasons cited by nom, but I don't think we should deliberately go out of our way to break someone's workflow just because it makes our database tidier. If, at some point in the future, these stop getting regular use for an extended period of time, I'd be happy to see them gone. But for now, they get use, they're unambiguous, they should stay. (No offense to nom, by the way, I appreciate getting community input on where the limits are / should be)
Fieari (
talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all per Fieari. Deletion would inconvenience readers without brining any benefits to anybody.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all as unnecessary. One parenthesis missing does not justify these redirects when the search function automatically fills in the desired results for anyone searching for them. These are just pointless redirects.
Trailblazer101 (
talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all per Fieari and Thryduulf, and the previous discussions.
Genie (feral child has gone down in use since the prior discussions except that it got over 6,500 hits on March 29, more than some articles get in a year. It's clearly still useful; Wikipedia's mission is to provide information to its readers, not to break things and hope that an external website notices (they won't).
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
WP:UNNATURAL typos. The search box fills in the parentheses for you, I doubt anyone is going to type an opening parenthesis, forget to close it, and then hit enter without selecting the correct option from search. As for other websites, that's their problem. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
These redirects are not typos for the benefit of people already on Wikipedia, but people navigating to Wikipedia from external sites. Many sites most prominently Reddit, have an issue where the trailing parenthesis is cut off in URLs without some HTML wizardry. The site "forces" users to make these "typos" when you just copy the link sometimes. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all I think my past self would have (and did) support deleting these. But we come down to yet another delete these convention failing to uphold a challenge on its merits, and so it goes.
* Pppery *it has begun... 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all — the assertion in the description "Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable." is vague and misleading: it hides the useful truth which is that "At least some of these links are NOT updateable.", for example in IRC chat logs (e.g. for "Address (geography"). Agreed with prior Keep all arguments that a small handful of such redirects are
WP:CHEAP. The net-net here is that a small handful are providing more utility (fixing unchangeable slightly erroneous links to Wikipedia, for a smoother Wikipedia experience) than cost. That's also a reasonable standard to apply for future such exceptions (source of link is apparently unchangeable). The arguments for Delete all appear to mostly be forms of the "
Perfect is the enemy of good" problem.
Tantek (
talk) 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
All links are updateable, through either direct editing, or replacement if locked. The notice that appears on every page saying "did you mean to close your parentheses" would not discourage readers from reaching their destination being just a click away, and encourages the phasing-out of any erroneous links. "Perfect is the enemy of good" does not seem to be accurate when we aren't dealing with an out-of-reach concept of totality; there's no 80-20 about it. This the entire set of titles that are out of alignment with redirect fundamentals, and the problem can be solved with just this RfD. The lack of these redirects will not prevent anyone beyond finding it gone a single time, and immediately finding a new solution in seconds, whether it comes from adding a parentheses to their search term or url, or adding it to the link itself if handy, or generating one's own link. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all if you are going to rescue typos by redirection then why stop with close parenthese. Why not redirect E Mathematical Contant and Genie (ferral child)OrewaTel (
talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom and RDAB, and also per precedence of previous discussions.
CycloneYoristalk! 02:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all - per all above, also a) Aren't these only "getting used" because as people type in names, the auto-fill starts listing results and as they get to the end of the name, but before they type in the closing parathesis, the redirect without one populates to the bottom of the auto-fill box making it most obvious and easy to click on,(but at that point, the correct, full name is right there at the top of the results as well).
b) It doesn't seem anyone wants to see more of these types of redirects created, so wouldn't deleting help with that? (There are people who literally spend all their time looking for pages to create, and having redirects like this to obstensibly compensate for typos in page names will just encourage the creation of more.)
Their usage is a false positive, they don't really assist with anything, removing them will not hamper anyone's ability to search, and if we don't want these types of redirects, then we shouldn't be making a special exception to this group just because they exist. (jmho) -
wolf 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all based on the fact there are legitimate reasons why people might be visiting these redirects other than simply typos. For example, in
Markdown, unescaped right parentheses are interpreted as the end of a URL, so often times when people link these Wikipedia pages in Reddit comments, people will be directed to these sorts of titles. In addition, of course redirects are cheap. --
Habst (
talk) 16:46, 20 April 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) 15:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all These redirects are explicitly discouraged and would fall under
WP:R3 if created today. There is precedent for deleting them, and keeping them would have
WP:PANDORA issues.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
delete all per all the other times those redirects with missing parentheses got deleted cogsan(nag me(stalk me 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all. Redirects are
WP:CHEAP, and these are all likely from external links on sites such as Reddit and are absolutely pointed at the correct targets. These also all appear to be popular enough to get regular use about 5 users a day or so. Genie especially is frequently posted and can get very high daily page views (e.g. 6k a few weeks ago). It does Wikipedia no good to delete it or to force them to make an additional click. Arguments to delete because no one is going to forget typing the closing parentheses or because of auto-fill should be ignored, as the use case for this is almost exclusively linking from external sites. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is an example of the formatting issues with Reddit's Markdown language for its posts that is the primary reason for these redirects existing in the first place:
[45]. Very few people are using these links deliberately. They are being forced to, and we should've deliberately inconvenience readers because of minor stylistic issues. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We shouldn't be responsible for creating redirects accounting for bugs in other platform's errors. A bug that has been fixed years ago, from the looks of it, being fixed well before the reddit post was made, as implied. People using old reddit are doing so knowing full well its limitations. So now there's zero surprise that a parenthesis could go missing at the end of a URL, as it's been long-since documented and understood, apparently. The solution is not "allow infinite redirects with botched-up disambiguation because old-reddit users might run into a broken link here and there, despite it being fixed for many years but refuse to upgrade to avoid it"; or, we can stop supporting "
Foo (bar" titles due to the pollution it causes on our end, allowing implausible misnomers among redirects, splitting histories and causing messes and clutter that can be simply avoided. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(Also in response to the reddit poster's query linked, I tried the second hyperlink on both old and new reddit and it seems to be working fine for me; I'm getting to
Paris (surname) both ways.) Utopes(talk / cont) 20:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
i hear the error (whatever it actually is) was fixed ages ago cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 22:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, it does not work for me in Old Reddit either on PC or mobile, with or without RES. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reddit is an absolutely massive website with hundreds of millions of users, so even a small percentage of Old Reddit users represents a significant population. Old Reddit users aren't people who just forgot to upgrade or something, there are real downsides to New Reddit (mainly ads-related) that lead them to opt out. A bug being documented is not equal to the bug being understood and 100% of end users having the technical know-how to avoid it. While not a scientific survey of any sort, anecdotal open-source evidence
[46] seems to show that approximately 5% of Reddit users seem to use the older version.
No one is saying that we should enthusiastically encourage or go out of our way to create a duplicate redirect for each page with a parenthetical disambiguator. But for ones that did get created, someone found them
WP:USEFUL and where we have proof that they do get use as is the case here, which are two reasons explicitly listed as the #4 and 5reasons not to delete redirects at
WP:R#KEEP, where's the harm in keep them? Far more editor time has been wasted trying to delete these than has ever been spent on creating them in the first place. These titles are not misnomers, with only a clear typographical difference and the page histories are usually extremely short. Many of these have also stood a decade or more without any serious issues. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all These are pointless, as people are unlikely to be typing in the full disambiguation anyway.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all – Many chat programs and similar, when making links clickable, automatically omit a trailing parenthesis, considering it part of the surrounding punctuation, so redirects repairing this are always useful.
Gawaon (
talk) 09:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Vote changed to delete all, since, as
Shhhnotsoloud pointed out (below), our software already handles this automatically, so there is no need for creating or maintaining such links manually.
Gawaon (
talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all per
WP:CHEAP. Would I have created these redirects myself? Possibly not. Do they do any harm to the encylopedia and/or readers by existing? Also no - as far as I can see, they are practically harmless. I'm not seeing how these types of redirect are problematic enough to warrant deletion, and deletion may well do harm by breaking external links (
WP:R#K4). To answer Utopes' point above, we're not responsible for creating these sorts of redirects for every title that exists, but I don't see how deleting the ones that do get created benefits the project. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 13:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Out of curiosity are any of the other examples at RDAB the result of programming error? --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Patar knight: I don't know, but arguably Wikipedia isn't here to provide redirects to get around everyone else's bugs. (And anyway ... in old Reddit a redirect that misses the trailing parenthesis gets you to, for example,
Harris (surname. The first thing at that page and many others is "Did you mean:
Harris (surname)?". We simply don't need these redirects, and already have a useful essay which lists the kind of redirects we don't need.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget
Snow White (disambiguation), basically everything on that list after the first is a remake by definition. Alternatively, delete due to being vague and unhelpful (deletion is probably my first choice now that I think about it more), Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out what article people are imagining in their heads by typing "remake" nowadays. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On second thought, I'm striking my retarget !vote. Wikipedia is not a search engine, "remake" is not useful in the form of a redirect. Currently it refers to anything on that list, but it's too vague and subjective in doing so (as remake isn't mentioned). Would be ridiculous to have
Foo remake target any disambiguation page with multiple pieces of fiction with the same title, so let Google or Wikipedia's search function figure it out. Delete. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Retarget to
Snow White (disambiguation) as plausible search by a reader. I'm also fine with delete due to the malformed "remake" modifier --
Lenticel(
talk) 05:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator preference: Delete per above. The existence of the word "remake" and since it makes it so the redirect is not a word-for-word title variation of "Snow White" leave me to believe that the nominated redirect is better deleted than targeting a disambiguation page.
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Snow White (franchise) that has got hatnotes to anything else the reader may be interested in. I find this a better alternative to Snow White (disambiguation). I find suffixing of "remake" to a film as a valid search term. I would do the same if I was looking for a film remake, or the latest remake if there are multiple. Jay 💬 06:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep As far as I'm aware, the upcoming Disney remake is the most notable (if not the only) remake of a previous film titled Snow White.
Mirror Mirror (film) is not a remake of a prioer film; neither is
Snow White and the Huntsman.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 00:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per InfiniteNexus's argument.
Fieari (
talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Infinite. Disney's remake is the only one I've seen referred to as this and is the most notable as Infinite said. The others do not qualify as a remake. Retargeting to a DAB page and deleting are not viable options as we are supposed to help guide readers, and with the amount of traction the upcoming film has gotten already, I'm sure this will remain a useful search term as those looking for the "Snow White remake" are most likely looking for the 2025 film.
Trailblazer101 (
talk) 00:01, 25 April 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) 15:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete every new unrelated iteration is a new remake --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Retarget to the disambiguation as a vague term better left to search rather than presumptuosly assuming one specific target is meant.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no information about a panorama maker at the target stub, much less a brand called PanoramaMaker. Not currently a helpful redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:25, 18 April 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) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of TotalMedia or TotalMedia Theatre at the target article. This is not a helpful redirect as there is no content about this subtopic, and the stub for ArcSoft does not help enlighten readers here. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of
Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As part of
#MediaImpression,
Ubcule had enhanced the target and added the products, including the one under discussion. Jay 💬 14:28, 3 May 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
Delete: I think this is the same film as
Baakghost. It looks like there is no point for this. Cleo Cooper (
talk) 06:30, 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. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I just added mention. Brother of the subject - refine to the #Early life section. If kept,
Comedy Shorts Gamer which is protected, may also be recreated as a redirect. Jay 💬 12:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The "added mention"
Jay is referring to spells the subject as "ComedyShortsGamer" (no spaces). Stating this for editors to be able to find the mention, otherwise I have no opinion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Same terminology, different meanings. Does its meaning depend on the absence/presence of the hyphen, or can it have both meanings either way? –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 21:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
My thought exactly.
Either it is a term legitimately attested to in the literature,
or else it is POV and should be deleted. Which of these it is, I will leave to smarter contributors than myself – the top Google “hit” points to one of the target Wikipedia articles and the second one points to this RfD itself! (and subsequent “hits” point to academic articles that are way “above my head.”)
Bwrs (
talk) 05:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
did some looking around and "technofascism" apparently means "fascism that uses technology", not "fascism in technology", so both of those are wrong
either retarget them to
fascism or a more fitting target, or cause them to mysteriously disappeardeletecogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I imagined "technofascism" being a portmanteau of technocracy and fascism (with the former referring to governance by experts, not technology itself) and that it would refer to a blend of both. –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
probably true
Bwrs (
talk) 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We should target both to
Techno-populism#Technocratic populism. There's a brief bit about it there. I don't know that it has a particular stable meaning, but at least we clearly attribute one of them at that page. --
asilvering (
talk) 01:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:48, 24 April 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, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is NOTCENSORED an argument for the nomination or even for Delete? Jay 💬 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No title matches exist.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Fuck (2005 film) per footnote [b]: ...alternatively referred to as Fuck: A Documentary and The F-Bomb: A Documentary. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:02, 26 April 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, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"The F-Bomb (documentary)" redirect was deleted today, but I don't know why. I didn't know it was listed at RfD. When I had made the above comment, it was not. Jay 💬 17:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is NOTCENSORED an argument for the nomination or even for Delete? Jay 💬 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No title matches exist.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Fuck (2005 film) per footnote [b]: ...alternatively referred to as Fuck: A Documentary and The F-Bomb: A Documentary. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep to be consistent with the
The F-Bomb (movie) redirect suggestion as per its RfD discussion. Jay 💬 05:03, 14 April 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, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is NOTCENSORED an argument for the nomination or even for Delete? Jay 💬 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 2x (
edit conflict) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No title matches exist.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Fuck (2005 film), a movie titled (at least in part) "F-Bomb", per Tavix' arguments in the related discussions above.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Jax 0677: Why?
WP:CHEAP doesn't explain why this redirect should be kept, it explains the general state of redirects. That's why you'll rarely see others cite it at RfD, it doesn't say anything in particular. Instead, it'd be more helpful to explain why you created it and why it may be a useful redirect, despite being inaccurate. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply - Some people do not know that the abortion was performed in Indiana. Additionally, the redirect is not blocking any other article from being created. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 20:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Searching this term is entirely plausible, as the title lends itself to potential confusion by mentioning both Ohio and Indiana.
TNstingray (
talk) 23:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is fine. Someone searching for this term will find out the facts of the case.
BD2412T 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, Wikipedia is not a search engine, redirects should not be accommodating inaccurate keywords cobbled together into a never-before-seen title. As the abortion was not performed in Ohio, this cannot be an alternative name for the subject. Typing this into the search bar is far more insightful than maintaining this as a redirect, as readers will see the correct title and realize "Ah, it was the Indiana abortion case; the abortion was not performed in Ohio". This redirect currently causes confusion and presents a faulty equalization that a Ohio-abortion case = Indiana-abortion case, as there's no mention of a "Ohio-abortion misconception" or anything that would imply such a misconception. The redirect in question does not appear written at the target page (as it's untrue), nor does it appear anywhere on Wikipedia (as it's untrue). Utopes(talk / cont) 07:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirects don't have to be mentioned in the article; there is no requirement for that.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I never said that being mentioned is a requirement. Thousands don't, probably. But not being mentioned, heck, not even ever alluded to, absolutely demolishes any of the little motivation for keeping misleading information in the form of a redirect void-of-context. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a plausible – though apparently not popular – search term, because not everyone is going to remember where the abortion physically happened. It sounds like the concern is that some editors parse the title as meaning that Ohio was the location of the abortion, rather than the (usual) location of the child – i.e., that "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio" is equal to "2022 abortion performed in Ohio on a 10-year-old" and is factually inaccurate, but "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old from Ohio" would be accurate. I see their point, but I think that asking for grammatical perfection in a redirect is not necessary. The point of a redirect is to get people to the article that contains the accurate facts, and this will achieve that goal. Just as I think the incorrect hyphenation is not a good reason to delete a redirect, I think the suboptimal preposition isn't a good reason to delete it. Also, it looks like
an RM during the first weeks of the article's existence introduced the "in Ohio" idea.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 00:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Plausible, but not very popular" is a wild misrepresentation of the fundamental facts. This makes the assumption that A: writing a backwards, incorrect, non-existent / Google search prompt is "plausible", and B: a grand total of zero views with the last 12 months is "apparently not popular"... "Apparently"?? Even with the clunky overly-specific and still somehow incorrect title out of the way, was there a world that this title was even going to get a view? No, it's completely unnatural and would be expected to exist by zero people on Wikipedia. If you ask 100 people to describe the case in 30 different ways, I'm nearly positive that this title wouldn't appear ever, much less make the shortlist for likely and useful redirects. This is a search term, not worthy of a redirect. Search terms as redirects are a horrible precedent as is, as there's literally infinite search terms in existence and not worthwhile to entertain as long as Wikipedia has a build-in search box that captures every single variety, and everything I've tried has led to 100% accurate results as long as the text exists.
And yet, with all of those tests, there are thousands of theoretical implausible search-term-redirects that could (and don't) exist. And all of the thousands would be far better options that
2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio in its current state, as it's literally a lie. On the chance that this is naturally typed into Wikipedia, with someone asking themselves "was this abortion in Indiana or Ohio?", they get a wrong answer. Why click further? The title implies the events already, and the implication is simply untrue. There's like 30+ other redirects currently here that capture every reasonable (and unreasonable) outcome, this untruth variant is simply not necessary. It's harmful and confusing and deletable per
WP:RDEL #2. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Wikipedia is not Google, and even if it was, the redirect is still inaccurate.
DrowssapSMM 13:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete inaccurate and implausible search term. TarnishedPathtalk 09:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - search term with enough relevant facts to identify the target, and catches searches where the reader doesn't know (or care) which particular state the specific events occurred in.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So does this mean that as long as a redirect is 80% correct, it doesn't matter if the remaining 20% is wrong/misleading because 80 is still a passing grade? There's an infinite number of 100% correct titles out there, I feel we should be focusing on redirecting those rather than phrases that are 90% or 80% or 70% correct; "close enough" isn't enough to redirect (the search bar solves all of those problems). Utopes(talk / cont) 17:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's exactly what it means. A redirect is meant to get readers to the information they're looking for, not penalize them for not already knowing certain specific (and to non-Americans, largely irrelevant) details of an event. Unless we have many articles on American children being sexually assaulted and then forced to travel to a different state for critical medical care that's denied to them in their home states for stupid religious reasons, "close enough" is just that: close enough. Taking them to the information they're obviously looking for is clearly better than taking them to an error message.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay... so throwing a hodgepodge of accurate enough words in a title gives one freedom to fill the remaining 20% with lies, I guess? Maybe nobody outside of America cares about the details and whether the abortion was in Indiana or Tennessee or Alaska or on the moon. Having unexplained lies in a title is inherently confusing, given that the 30 other ~implausible redirects that were created to this article are going to autofill here first. "Details being irrelevant" and "true accuracy doesn't matter" isn't just a pandora's box, it's a crushing typhoon of redirection malpractice. What error message would people see? The search results?? That's where readers go for 99.9% of the infinite search terms out there anyway. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a plausible search term. FrankAnchor 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete because often times you don't see the redirection header when viewing the article; hence, such incorrect redirects may cause confusion.
Bwrs (
talk) 05:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep to be consistent with the
The F-Bomb (documentary) redirect, which the nom (correctly) fixed last week. Jay 💬 04:50, 14 April 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, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"The F-Bomb (documentary)" redirect was deleted today, but I don't know why. I didn't know it was listed at RfD. When I had made the above comment, it was not. Jay 💬 07:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is NOTCENSORED an argument for the nomination or even for Delete? Jay 💬 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No title matches exist.
Steel1943 (
talk) 02:58, 26 April 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, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is NOTCENSORED an argument for the nomination or even for Delete? Jay 💬 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No title matches exist.
Steel1943 (
talk) 02:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Originally this was a stub article that was PRODded by me; another user removed the PROD and converted the article to a redirect. The problem is, the target does not mention Dulah at all, and (per the original stub) Dulah was nothing more than a rail siding located near Solimar. I find it incredibly unlikely that anyone would search for a rail siding, and even if they did, they won't find any information about it here. The article should have been simply deleted and so should this redirect.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 02:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The page was partially merged. I've made an attribution notice in an edit summary at the target to avoid attribution issues in case the page does get deleted. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 10:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I redirected the page because I merged content to
Solimar Beach and redirects are cheap. The only other reason to keep the redirect is that if you search for the Solimar Beach community in GNIS, the only entry that comes up is Dulah; that's the only reason I started an article under Dulah in the first place, since Solimar Beach is used on local signage and I started the article way back when I assumed GNIS was reliable.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation 04:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak restore article (per
WP:PROD, can be taken to AfD if desired), but could this name not be added to the current target? As things stand this is confusing for someone searching this.
A7V2 (
talk) 00:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a {{
r from merge}} to maintain proper attribution. We can revisit the redirect if that situation changes. -
Eureka Lott 02:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Move without redirect to
Solimar Beach Colony, the only portion of the source page that was merged to target. Note that we would need to deal with
Dulah, CA as well. Jay 💬 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In 2018, Colonia Ulpia Traiana was redirected to
Xanten. The page has had some debates in the history, and another user is now indicating that this should not redirect to Xanten, though they haven't created a page, only a 'See also' section to
Vetera. Given that they have reverted the redirect, I figured it should come to RfD.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Pinging
JoNeuen: Instead of reverting the redirect, please discuss here why you think the current redirect target is incorrect and where you think the page should redirect to.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 02:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I have proposed this on the Xanten page. The reason for reverting is that Colonia Ulpia Traiana is an archaeological/historical site, which is only briefly discussed in the Xanten article.
JoNeuen (
talk) 02:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The piped link mentioning Colonia Ulpia Traiana at the current target goes to
Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, so retarget there. There's also
Ulpia Traiana, which redirects to Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. I think both redirects should point to the same place. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 03:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there! So, the link to
Vetera was made because I created this article myself. As with
Colonia Ulpia Traiana, the
Vetera article was redirecting to
Xanten before, but I cancelled it because I was working on a translation from the
German article. I considered this justified, because I didn't get a response on the
Xanten talk page in over a week. Since translating and complementing articles using translation is what I mostly do here, my intention is to do the same with
Colonia Ulpia Traiana. The
Xanten page is already considered incomplete and these German pages are full of valuable historic and archaeological information that might benefit English speaking Wikipedia.
JoNeuen (
talk) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How about restoring
this version? The editor in question was a suspected sock, but the article was neither deleted nor the edits hidden for socking. Jay 💬 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose doing that. It wasn't deleted because there was a pre-sock version to revert to. It wasn't revdelled because that's generally not done. We don't reward socking like that.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Jay's proposal to restore the earlier version, and use it as the basis of further development (which would heavily involve translation from de.wiki). Refusing to use the article on the grounds that it would "reward socking" is cutting off WP's nose to spite its face.
Furius (
talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Draft:2021 Wikimedia Foundation's actions in Chinese Wikipedia
This film released just about 4 months ago and is no longer upcoming. Plenty of time has past to the point that there is no more confusion for a 2023 movie, as it's well into 2024 now. Nobody ending up here who sees "upcoming film" in the title would be surprised by it's removal for a movie releasing last year. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Very strong keep this redirect got 169 hits in the 30 days prior to this nomination, it is extremely clearly still serving a useful purpose. It's been used every single day this year, almost always more than once.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf. We shouldn't delete a redirect that is being used by readers with relative frequency. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 21:52, 9 April 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, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 10:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:UFILM, the film was released more than 30 days ago. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: still in use, and not ambiguous with another future film that I'm aware of.
WP:UFILM states that 'upcoming film' redirects should be nominated for deletion...at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, in order to allow pageviews to taper off (my emphasis) -- 30 days is a minimum, not a requirement to delete after; and the current pageviews indicate that retaining this redirect would be helpful. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 16:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems overly technical. Nobody would really refer to smartphones as a phone computer outside of drawing some comparisons between smartphones and computers.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is what a smartphone is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the terms were used before "smartphone" became the established term (I can't check as Google is refusing to show me results that are both verbatim and before a given time, and either one alone is overwhelmed by irrelevant results where the two words happen to be adjacent, especially in lists in adverts).
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment shouldn't this actually link to telco equipment? Such as a PBX or other phone computers --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 07:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The phrasing of these redirects makes me believe they could also refer to
Modem, thus making these redirects ambiguous.
Steel1943 (
talk) 04:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I reaffirm my "delete" per Ivanvector's comment: A disambiguation page would not be the solution since none of the subjects mentioned so far are title matches. Let Wikipedia search do its job instead.
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think it is easy for English first speakers (or young people) to say they aren't needed, but they probably serve some utility and they perfectly describe what they are.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify. As Steel mentioned, a viable interpretation of this would be
Modem, being "a phone used by a computer". However, I'd also think that
VoIP phone-- a phone that uses the Internet instead of normal phone lines-- or
softphone-- a software program that could call other people, which could be downloaded and installed on a PC-- would be valid interpretations of "Phone computer" or "Computer phone". Given I'm sure none of the above- including
Smartphone (a phone which is a computer)-- would be a primary target, dabification is warranted. edited at 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - disambiguation pages are for topics that have the same title, not for manually compiled search indexes of possibly related keywords. We have a search engine for that, let it do its job.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Delete This discussion is a subset of the
#Format string one above, which was closed as delete, and while some of the delete !voters there didn't comment here no reason to perform some other action here has been provided.
Another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Not everything that is deplorable is part of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables". We don't have
deplore, so maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary will have to do.
Duckmather (
talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Crosswiki to wiktionary. I don't foresee an article being created with more than the definition.
Fieari (
talk) 07:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm partial to the stance in the previous discussion that search results are adequate here and there does not need to be a DAB page for partial title matches. However, there are partial title matches so I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best option. Though, I'm not really familiar with when it is best to use them. ―
Synpath 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Combine a {{Wiktionary}} link with a “see also” section as well.
Bwrs (
talk) 05:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I just created it but I'm not sure anymore. I noticed
willingness could mean the same. Or should it be targeted to Wiktionary? --
MikutoHtalk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The personality trait of
agreeableness has very little to do with the transient state of being favorable about something.
Jcbutler (
talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm now wondering if
Attitude (psychology) would be appropriate, because attitude can be defined as some level of favorability or unfavorability.
Jcbutler (
talk) 23:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's get some !votes in here. If you're proposing to disambiguate, please mention which pages might be listed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think the most common reason someone would search for this is to find what a "Favorability rating" is, in the context of
Opinion polls... but that article doesn't describe or define that term specifically, so it may not be the best target. Crosswiki'ing to wiktionary won't provide the information to the searcher either, as it just defines the word and doesn't discuss or illuminate how it is used, particularly in politics, where someone might be confused about it. I feel like this may actually be a potential article in the making, but I'll be honest and say I don't want to do it. I'm also not sure where this redirect should go. Maybe leaving it as a
WP:REDLINK would be best? I'm not sure!
Fieari (
talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
wikt:favorability. Redirects are cheap and making it a soft redirect makes it much more helpful than having the reader stare at a bunch of search results. Also, both
Google and
DuckDuckGo mostly bring up dicdefs, so I don't think it'd hurt if we had another.
Duckmather (
talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as a generic term incapable of disambiguation. The sole incoming link meaning of sex-favorable may be created as a different titled redirect, if needed. Jay 💬 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I kind of feel like we should have an article on the concept of favorability of opinion at this title. Polling for favorability is not always reserved for politicians.
BD2412T 00:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I support the suggestion of Duckmather. Until someone comes with reasonable number of disambiguatable pages. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Tagged the redirect as a "R from merge" and notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Okmrman (
talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator's follow-up comment.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator's follow-up comment.
Okmrman (
talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note that content
was merged to the target in 2006. Jay 💬 07:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of the word "burnie" at the target article. To that effect, there is only one mention of "burnie board" on Wikipedia, which is in the
List of buildings designed by architect John Dalton, as the Burnie Board Residence and Administration Building. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the history of the camelcase redirect contains an external link
[47] which explains the connection "A 1960s advert for Burnie Board – it appeared in an Australian magazine in 1963. [...] 'Burnie Board' is a type of hardboard or Masonite. The Burnie Paper Mill (1937–2010), Burnie, Tasmania, produced paper, high-grade sawn timber and sheet material like 'Burnie Board'" and multiple other web hits also back up that it was also a type of or similar to masonite, but everything seems to indicate it was a product only or primarily of the 1950s-60s so I would expect most reliable sources to be offline.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf. Is "burnished" close enough to "Burnie" that we don't have to add an explicit mention of "Burnie" to the target article?
feminist🩸 (
talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete both per nom, unless a mention is added to the target. I would support keeping the camelcase redirect if it were an {{
R with old history}}, but considering that it was created just
a few months ago, then there isn't any valuable history to preserve.
CycloneYoristalk! 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The advert shown in the external link clearly stylises the product name in camelcase, making it a plausible and useful search term. Therefore either both should be kept or both should be deleted.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now and tag with {{
R with no mention}}. If Burnie board is a board similar to Masonite, then it is not really a subtopic, but if it is a type of Masonite, then it is. Jay 💬 06:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't follow. Jay 💬 05:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably that "R without mention" is not a permanent solution. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree, hence the for now. Jay 💬 07:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How long do you think is an appropriate amount of time for an {{
R with no mention}} to exist? --
Tavix(
talk) 17:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I can only give an arbitrary number as I haven't gone into any past discussions, if any, on this. Let's say 1 year.
Category:Redirects to an article without mention says Editors who monitor this category will ensure that redirects that are sorted here will either be added to their target articles, retargeted and retagged, or deleted. It is best to move the discussion to that category talk page / wikiproject so as to reach the appropriate audience. Jay 💬 15:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete If a mention is not added after over a month of being at RfD then it never will be.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Just want to reiterate that this should absolutely not be kept at the current target. "Burnie" appears at zero locations throughout the article, "burnie board" is never implied, and a mention does exist at
List of buildings designed by architect John Dalton for a different topic. R without mention will never counter a mention, so it should go there in the meantime if anything, although I prefer deletion here honestly. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Pppery; R without mention just kicks the can down the road.
Queen of ♡ |
speak 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. An advert is not a reliable source, and because it seems to be a specific brand, it would make incorporating it into the target tricky. Would we single out this brand or have a section detailing other makers of Masonite-like hardboards? Unless someone is able to put something together, this redirect remains misleading for someone looking for specific information about this brand. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:45, 4 May 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.