From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 15
July 17 >

July 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 16, 2019.

Lancegate

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 13:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article, and seemingly not mentioned in any other articles about Lance Armstrong. Third party search engines seem to return primarily results for Bert Lance when searching for "Lancegate". Steel1943 ( talk) 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • I don't know, User:Steel1943--it was a happening term on the TV when I wrote it up. Funny you should bring this up: Armstrong now is getting back in the mainstream, and he was interviewed as an expert by the doofy dudes on NBCSN. Drmies ( talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Dab it's also got a gaming meaning, sa well as Bert and Armstrong's scandals. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 13:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC). reply
  • Delete We don't need a -gate for everything. Unless it becomes an incredibly common term and not a neologism. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Best left to the search engine for now. There's a mention at List of "-gate" scandals, but not a listed entry; from the context, it's probably referring to Bert. A good reminder that a term can be a neologism even if it didn't just pop up in the last year or two. -- BDD ( talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sī Dàlín

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 08:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Juana de Arco

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 08:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Juan Sebastián Bach

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Paul Ii

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. It'll take me a while to carry this out... -- BDD ( talk) 14:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

E.g. John Paul II and John paul ii are sufficient. We don't need inconsistencies in the capitalization of the numeral itself. ( John Paul Ii gets decent traffic because it is the first search suggestion that pops up when you type in "John Paul II", as I experienced myself.) All of these were created by the same editor, who is no longer active on Wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all to reduce search box clutter. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Nobody views these as words whose first letter (only) must be capitalised. If you know that the first letter of a Roman numeral (and the first letter of other words in these names) must be capitalised, you'll know that the rest need to be, as well. Nyttend ( talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per all. All uppercase is best; all lowercase is OK, mixed case is plain wrong. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. I understand the value in redirects which lowercase all the digits in the Roman numeral — but there's no need for versions which uppercase the first digit but lowercase the rest. Anybody who erroneously lowercases the Roman numerals is going to erroneously lowercase all of them, not type it as a word. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it seems to me quite likely that proper nouns get passed through a Title Case Filter. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 13:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC). reply
  • Keep all as easily-to-type Roman numeral capitalization errors. As it stands, as a group, all of these redirects are WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if kept, place {{ R from miscapitalisation}} on each to keep from appearing in the search box clutter. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per Rich Farmbrough and Steel1943. Plausible and harmless. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Meh but keep all per Steel1943 ( WP:CHEAP) and JHunterJ (use {{ R from miscapitalisation}}, which these should have had to begin with, to avoid search box clutter). -- Xover ( talk) 08:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Wikipedia already filters for this - it is pointless clutter that clogs the search box. The fact that they were all made by the same editor is incredibly telling as to their usefulness (nil). ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all but tag with {{ R from miscaps}}, per WP:CHEAP Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Yuki

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Yuki people. -- BDD ( talk) 15:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

No apparent connection. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mrs. Bartimus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Appears just to be the name of someone's teacher. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not mentioned in target. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This was created as an unsourced article about a faculty member of no obvious notability, and then redirected to the university's article even though it doesn't mention her at all. And even if she did qualify for an article, it would be at her full first and last names, not as "Mrs." anything. Bearcat ( talk) 16:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone creates Bartimus as a dab page. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 13:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Early years of john f. kennedy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- BDD ( talk) 20:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Ad-hoc section names do not redirects make. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Procedural keep The first situation is quite different from the second; please close this discussion and split it up so the different items can be addressed separately. Nyttend ( talk) 23:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The redirect Leonardo da Vinci (personal life), if it should exist at all, should redirect to Personal life of Leonardo da Vinci and not to Leonardo da Vinci. Ham II ( talk) 11:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and retarget as appropriate. Do not encourage creation of similar redirects. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 13:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC). reply
  • Keep and refine if necessary. The target articles contain exactly the information people using these search terms will be looking for. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

St.Pauls

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to St Paul's Cathedral. -- BDD ( talk) 20:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Spacing error. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Micheal Jordon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

All double typos. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all Is it not plausible to have two typos? Perhaps there should be a limit (though 2 seems too low). If so, it should be changed at WP:RPURPOSE.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    Multiple typos is a rule of thumb based on common outcomes, though not a hard and fast rule. See WP:RTYPO. -- BDD ( talk) 14:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. It is not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create a redirect from every potential typo we can possibly imagine somebody somewhere on earth making — the test for whether a redirect-from-typo is warranted or not hinges on whether that typo is a documentably common sight in the real world. There's no evidence that any of these meet that standard. For instance, "Michael" being misspelled as "Micheal" is a thing that observably happens a lot, so "Micheal"→"Michael" redirects are permissible — but "Jordan" being misspelled as "Jordon", and "Bieber" being misspelled as "Beebar", are only possible in theory, and not widely seen in reality. Bearcat ( talk) 16:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per unlkiely duoble misspelling. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as unlikely search targets. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lucanius

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#Lucanius

Mall Ze-dong

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Mall and More are not variant Chinese pronunciations of 毛 (Máo). — the Man in Question (in question) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete might as well create "Mallsy Tong" if these exist. OP also made Lay Phone → Lei Feng. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for pointing that out. I have added two more by the editor to the nom. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unlikely search terms. Hzh ( talk) 12:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep these are 6 years old. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 16:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. It is not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody somewhere on earth ever making — the test for whether a redirect-from-typo is warranted or not hinges on whether that typo is a documentably common sight in the real world. None of these are, and the amount of time that a redirect has existed is not in and of itself grounds for the retention of a redirect that has no substantive need. Bearcat ( talk) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary. We're not to do the search engine's job and suggest "you may be looking for" correction for typos, in any case this should not be done in terms of redirects, if the product team willing to optimize on that direction, I see no problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viztor ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Leonardo D.Caprio

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#Leonardo D.Caprio

Leonardo D`caprio

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Leonardo D'caprio already exists separately. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There's no reason someone would use a grave accent like this. Reach Out to the Truth 18:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It is not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody somewhere on earth ever making — the test for whether a redirect-from-typo is warranted or not hinges on whether that typo is a documentably common sight in the real world. Bearcat ( talk) 16:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Armstrong, Louis Satchmo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#Armstrong, Louis Satchmo

Keeuopatrai

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Not clear on the meaning of these redirects. Not Greek forms. If from some other language, then WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Futhaghuras

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#Futhaghuras

M. Angelo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Since Michelangelo's name was not "Michael Angelo", this does not seem like a worthy redirect. Who's going to search for M. Angelo over Michelangelo or Michael Angelo, which already exists for those confused about that. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Hello. I created this redirect 11 years ago. If you check ' what links here', you will see that the redirect was created while going through a list of red-links at Talk:Albert Memorial, specifically the composers, architects, poets, painters, and sculptors depicted on the Frieze of Parnassus that forms part of the Albert Memorial. It appears that the files at The National Archives (in the UK) include a 'historical summary' that used this form of the name to refer to Michelangelo, using a list taken from the official history (see below). The form 'Michael Angelo' is rare (it tends to be used in older sources), but is used in some places, such as the work The Life of Michael Angelo (1912). So the form M. Angelo will likely appear in some places (e.g. it is used in the official history of the memorial, The National Memorial to His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, that was published in 1873), so a redirect could be of some use. In a similar vein, the form of the name carved into the memorial is 'MICHAEL ANGELO', which you can verify for yourself in the photo here (he is the one in the middle of that side of the frieze). The same form of the name is used on the east side of the frieze (he appears twice in total). I am going to ask for some advice on how common the form 'Michael Angelo' is. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not an uncommon abbreviation in 19th-century books & earlier & worth keeping. Did you check google before nominating? Apparently not. Johnbod ( talk) 02:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep obviously. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 16:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. While it certainly seems implausible in the contemporary context that anybody would actually refer to Michelangelo this way, the above commenters have presented significant evidence that he historically was referred to as "Michael Angelo" or "M. Angelo" in some sources. Bearcat ( talk) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per everyone above. A little bit of WP:BEFORE will save everyone a lot of time. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Michelange

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Michel-Ange. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Presumably meant to be French Michel-Ange. WP:FORRED. Retarget to Michel-Ange per PC78. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Michelan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Michelan Sisti and hatnote to Michelin. I like the coincidence that it's being retargeted from Michelangelo to an actor that played Michelangelo. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Part of a name does not make a good redirect. (And could more easily redirect to Michelin.) — the Man in Question (in question) 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gate bill

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Fail at {{ R from sort name}}. Also, could have numerous other meanings. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, not a plausible search term for the target, and it sounds like an invoice you'd get from a carpenter. Nyttend ( talk) 23:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nobody would ever search for Bill Gates this way. Bearcat ( talk) 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

III Gates William Henry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 30#III Gates William Henry

Sinica

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Deryck C. 00:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Sinica redirects to a section of Names of China, but the article doesn't state that Sinica was/is a name of China. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Sinica is simply Latin referring to things associated with China - [1], e.g. Pax Sinica, and it would be under the section Sinae, Sin, which is what it redirects to. The article discusses various terms meaning China or associated with China, so it is perfectly valid redirect. Someone just needs to add the term (and Sinensis), that is all. Hzh ( talk) 19:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Chinese culture. Compare Judaica, Americana, etc. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Sinica is not used in the same way as Americana, which is a widely-used term to refer to American culture. Sinica simply pertains to China, i.e. another word for "Chinese". Sinica (or Chinese) is not the equivalent of Chinese culture. Hzh ( talk) 21:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; it's an adjective, similar to "Chinese" or "Cathayan", or "Monégasque" or "Liechtensteiner". Given the prevalence of Latin in the past and its continued common use in some areas (e.g. "Pax" as mentioned by Hzh), it's definitely a good idea to have this specific redirect. Nyttend ( talk) 23:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Hzh. — Kusma ( t· c) 11:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Nyttend. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sinensis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. It seems that the grammatical distance between Sinica and Sinensis is just far enough to push the two titles to the two different outcomes. Deryck C. 00:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Flora Sinensis is not known solely as "Sinensis". There are, however, dozens of articles about species with "sinensis" in the title, and this redirect therefore impedes search. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

(n.b. Flora Sinensis is a book. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)) reply
@ BDD:, I'm not sick of the pings, keep them coming. Category:Taxonomy disambiguation pages is where most the species epithet disambiguation pages can be found (although the contents of that category include some other things). Plantdrew ( talk) 19:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Names of China#Sinae, Sin Sinica, Sinensis, Sino are all terms in Latin referring to China [2], so a redirect to Names for China is one possibility. Another possibility is to use it as a disambiguation page because there are many things (e.g. animal and plant species) with the word Sinensis in them. Hzh ( talk) 19:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete is my first inclination, and let the search engine do it's job. There isn't anything that would be appropriate for a dab page; all instances are partial title matches (yes, we have dab pages for some other species epithets, but I don't think we should). Sinensis started as a redirect to China, and then spent awhile as a dab page. Most species epithet disambiguation pages have been turned into redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names (which already has an entry for "sinensis"). Redirecting to that list or names of China could be appropriate. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and let the search engine do it's job, per Plantdrew. Far more likely to hinder a search than help. Or red to the list. Johnbod ( talk) 02:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Glossary of scientific names or dab. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 16:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC). reply
  • Retarget per Hzh. — Kusma ( t· c) 11:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Names of China#Sinae, Sin is a poor target since it doesn't cover "sinensis". Disambiguation is inappropriate per WP:PTM. The search engine is a better solution than wedging in a modified {{ redirect}} template in Glossary of scientific names to link to the search results. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dennis Highby

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Dennis Highby

Lance Armstrong/proposal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Subject is not a proposal. Redirect has no edit history that needs to be retained. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I initially thought this was one of those mainspace subpages from the UseModWiki days, but it only dates to 2005 and its creation constituted a content duplication in any case. No longer has any purpose. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sheridan, WY, mSA

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Bold retargeting of any of these redirects to other articles about the relevant geographical areas in Wyoming are also encouraged. Deryck C. 00:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete these six odd, unnecessary, malformed, unlikely typos. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 17:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I'm unclear what is wrong with Sheridan, WY USA. Is the "U" not a "U"? Steel1943 ( talk) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    That one might be better pointed at Sheridan, Wyoming, unless there's something irregular with that U. -- BDD ( talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since per the article, "Sheridan County comprises the Sheridan, WY Micropolitan Statistical Area". It's been a few years since we've had one of these come up here, so here are the precedents: 27 July 2009 (withdrawn), 18 September 2010 (delete), 27 September 2010 (keep all), 13 July 2015 (keep), 8 August 2015 (keep), 12 November 2015 (keep), 20 April 2016 (keep). -- Tavix ( talk) 17:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep most. For one thing, this needs to go to the county, not to the city — the micropolitan area embraces the whole county, even the out-of-the-way rural areas. Secondly, four of these are not typos; the use of a Greek letter "mu" is normal for "micro" (e.g. " micrometre" is commonly abbreviated "µm"), and I believe we have "µSA" redirects for every micropolitan area in the USA. If we have a large group of articles, and all of them have redirects with a similar format, deleting exactly one of them as implausible or typo doesn't make sense; if you think the idea's problematic, please start a broader discussion about trashing all of them. That being said...Delete USA and mSA. USA is a typo, and mSA is not usual I believe. If I'm wrong, and many articles of this sort have such redirects, I'll be interested in following my own advice and starting a broader discussion on their suitability. Nyttend ( talk) 23:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    They're all going to the county right now. I only suggested retargeting the one to the city if we interpret it as "Sheridan, Wyoming, United States". -- BDD ( talk) 13:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    Ah, I hadn't thought of it that way at all: I saw it only as a mangled form of µSA, not as the country name. I don't think it's a very good redirect, since Americans won't append the country name and people from other countries probably won't know the postal abbreviation. Nyttend ( talk) 21:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • PS, another reason for keeping — see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27 where µSA redirects were discussed. DBaK produced several examples of this format being used by US state governments to indicate micropolitan areas. If a government agency is using a specific abbreviation for a specific term, our use of the same abbreviation for the same term is neither mistaken nor implausible. Nyttend ( talk) 23:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Side comment: The difference between the identical-looking links using the Greek letter mu is currently being discussed on the Reference desk here. If any action is to be taken, it might be best to wait for at least a few days. -- 69.159.11.113 ( talk) 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Skin turgor

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus default to keep, as the discussion has demonstrated some connection between the title and the target, and no overwhelming evidence of harm. Deryck C. 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. In addition, from what I am seeing via third party engines, the subject of this redirect is probably notable enough to have its own article, aka get deleted per WP:REDLINK unless an appropriate target is found for this. For what it's worth, I found the article Turgor pressure (The target of redirect Turgor), and I could not find an appropriate location to target the nominated redirect, most likely because again, it seems like a notable subject by itself and no section of that article explains the subject of this redirect sufficiently enough. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as redirect. In medical practice "skin turgor" is only of any relevance in the assessment for dehydration, of which it is a late sign. It should be mentioned in the target article and it is surprising that it isn't. COI I created the redirect almost to the day 10 years ago. JFW |  T@lk 06:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • ...That's the issue: The redirect has no mention at the target. At the present time, readers attempting to look up this redirect who are expecting to find information about the subject of the redirect will not find what they are looking for. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jfdwolff. A commonly used medical term used to describe a finding in a dehydrated state. Would warrant a mention but should not be deleted just because presently there is no mention. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I thought one of the main goals of WP:MED is to be really accurate and precise, given that people will use Wikipedia as a medical reference. If we don't discuss this, we shouldn't play games and imply otherwise. -- BDD ( talk) 20:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 17:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep pending addition of symptom to target. At the very least it provides a hint that could help someone searching for the meaning and relevance of the term. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 22:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:BRRR

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- BDD ( talk) 15:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Many of the links are intended to go to WP:BRR; instead they go to a "humour" page that assumes bad faith. Peter James ( talk) 17:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Not inaccurate, and has targeted the current target for over a decade. If need be, add a hatnote at the top of the target page. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Steel1943. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to WP:SNOW. Nyttend ( talk) 21:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • ...Heck, this vote is so creative that if the nominated redirect hadn't been targeting its current target for so long, I'd consider it. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if kept, a hatnote pointing to BRR should be added so as not to confuse anyone looking for it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. PrussianOwl ( talk) 01:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and hatnote per the above. Retargetting or deleting shortcuts that have been used extensively (time or volume) must be done extremely cautiously and I'm just not seeing any good reason to do so here. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

USS Sheridan (1865)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#USS Sheridan (1865)

National Religious Affairs Administration

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#National Religious Affairs Administration

AL. Vijay-Jayam Ravi Project

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 15:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Implausible redirect -- CptViraj ( 📧) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ACNH

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#ACNH

Eastern Continent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 15:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

This term seems more used in fiction than in this context, and was created to refer to what looks like Essos. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as very vague terminology. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shenxu

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Disambiguate. Ruslik_ Zero 13:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in the target, no indication that this is an alternative spelling. signed, Rosguill talk 14:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The target page is linked to the Chinese page zh:肾虚, which is Shenxu. It is the fault of the target page not mentioning the alternative saying.-- 刻意(Kèyì) 02:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Disambiguate (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice). Shenxu 腎虛 and Shenkui 腎虧 are synonyms, according to zh:肾虚. Shenxu (申胥), one of the titles of historical figure Wu Zixu, could swing this towards disambiguate as well. But the medical term is largely synonymous with "impotence" so redirecting to a famous historical man when the title refers to the medical condition (or vice versa) could be astonishing... Deryck C. 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate I think Deryck makes a good case for disambiguation. I've drafted something, and I'd appreciate a spot-check of it, especially by you, Deryck, if you're available. I'm sure there's some precedent for this sort of disambiguation; it's not exactly a Chinese-character disambiguation, but I think giving the characters gives important context. -- BDD ( talk) 18:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I've edited the disambiguation draft to put the forms with diacritics first, as these two titles can actually be distinguished by tone. Deryck C. 21:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    Thanks! That looks good. -- BDD ( talk) 13:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dirsana Qeddus Urael

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 15:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

One of many redirects created pointing to this target by the same editor, I don't see any justification for including the term "Qeddus" signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

God Church

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#God Church

Wikipedia:BRR

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- BDD ( talk) 15:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Alternatives. As explained on the talk page, "Bold, revert, revert" is listed as one of the legitimate alternatives to BRD. (Really all this would require is moving the shortcut template on the target page rather than any edits to the redirect itself, but I thought it best to discuss it here anyway.) See also the previous RfD. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as is. The linked section need a TLA shortcut; WP:BRB is being used for the proposed target. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, I don't see what's special about three-letter abbreviations such that every section needs one. The letters BRR themselves correspond to the second entry under "Alternatives". Wouldn't that be the most logical place to put the shortcut? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
      • And where, do you imagine, did I say that "every section needs one"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply
        • When you said The linked section need a TLA shortcut. If you aren't saying every section needs one, could you explain why this one does and why BRR is the preferred one? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is. The "Bold, revert, revert" concept appears twice on the page. The target is currently the ==Edit warring== section, which is the first of those two appearances. Whereas "Bold, revert, revert" is more often the beginning of an edit war, rather than correcting a genuine mistake, it IMO makes sense for the redirect to point to the riskier behavior. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. There is an extremely high bar for modifying shortcut redirects that have seen use and this doesn't come close to reaching it. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Polyvinyl cyanide

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Solid justifications for the redirect provided, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in the target, searching online I couldn't confirm or refute that this is an alternative name for the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 14:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep They appear to be the same thing - [3] [4] [5]. Hzh ( talk) 19:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Polyacrylonitrile is a polymer made from acrylonitrile. Vinyl cyanide is a chemical synonym for acrylonitrile, so "polyvinyl cyanide" is a plausible search term for someone looking for polyacrylonitrile. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eurasia, The Lost Continent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply

This was created as an article explaining how Eurasia is not a real place and no one lives there, but for some reason was redirected instead of deleted. Eurasia is not popularly known as "The Lost Continent" and Lost continent is silent on Eurasia. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as ridiculous and unencyclopedic. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as patent nonsense. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Should probably have been G6'd instead of redirected. PC78 ( talk) 19:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Why G6? I could argue for a couple CSD criteria for the former content, but I struggle to see how G6 would apply. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aristide Duval

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Fictional character that isn't mentioned in the target article or anywhere else. — Xezbeth ( talk) 12:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Second American Civil War (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Second American Civil War (disambiguation)

Antwerp (Quest for Glory)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 23:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

A minor fictional element that isn't mentioned in any article. Its entry at Antwerp (disambiguation) should also be removed. — Xezbeth ( talk) 12:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Homme fatale

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 15:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The term is not mentioned at the target article, in fact I don't see anything there regarding a male equivalent. PC78 ( talk) 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An extra title was added towards the end of the discussion, and there is a proposal of splitting the results, so I think we can relist for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Enwiki does not have content about this topic. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone is going to add content about it somewhere. Kaldari ( talk) 13:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it's covered as a topic somewhere. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Androgynous characters in Final Fantasy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Unencyclopedic topic for a list, and implausible since it is not mentioned in the article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 08:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Blitzball Techniques

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 09:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 08:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hilde Garde

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget the first to Hildegard, delete the rest. -- BDD ( talk) 14:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in this article nor the article for the game in which it appears. WP:GAMECRUFT. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 08:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not mentioned, and Hilde Garde is potentially ambiguous with Hildegard and Hildegarde. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget Hilde Garde to Hildegard and delete the rest per nom. There don't appear to have been any Hildegard(s) that reigned over jurisdictions and would have been given numbers, or I'd suggest retargeting those ones too. Nyttend ( talk) 21:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Final Fantasy bestiary

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Final Fantasy bestiary

Shiva in Final Fantasy Series

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Implausible due to incorrect grammar and typos. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 05:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Beastmaster (character class)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Beastmaster (character class)

Final Fantasy armor and accessories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Final Fantasy armor and accessories

Overdrive (Final Fantasy X

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Overdrive (Final Fantasy X

GameplayofFinalFantasy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#GameplayofFinalFantasy

Mountain meadow

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Mountain meadow

Wikipedia:CPP

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. -- BDD ( talk) 20:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like to propose reassigning the redirect WP:CPP from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona to Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. This shortcut is hardly used for the project, but would be a natural shortcut for the highly linked essay about civility. Some points to consider:

I had good luck on one prior occasion (I forget which) in requesting a group relinquish a shortcut that was not used much, in favor of another target where it made good logical sense. I simply approached the group on their talk page and asked; as I recall there was a brief discussion, and that was that. I had planned to do the same in this case, but I doubt that raising a discussion on a page that hasn't been touched in four years would make much sense, so I'm bringing the discussion here instead. I'll notify the project, but don't imagine that will draw a lot of people here.

Question: should WP:CPP be retargeted to Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing? Mathglot ( talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Discussion

In general, I'm opposed to "stealing" redirects and retargeting them to somewhere else, even when they haven't been used as long as this one has. On the other hand, this one really doesn't seem to have been used any time recently, so it's not clear to me that anyone would be inconvenienced. In fact the most recent case I'm aware of, is this edit, which is the one that got me here in the first place. As it turns out, that use of the shortcut WP:CPP was in error, the author having intended the essay as the actual destination of that shortcut.

As the essay is quite popular and, I believe there would be a significant overall benefit to the project by retargeting the shortcut; and as there has been very little or no valid recent use of the shortcut, I see very little downside to retargeting it. Mathglot ( talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Notified: Dabackgammonator, Hijiri88, WP:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona. Mathglot ( talk) 01:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget per Mathglot. A project for a branch campus of a state university generally won't get much interest, and pretty much anything should take precedence over it. Plus, since this redirect has guaranteed accidental use for the proposed target increases the "retarget" argument — stealing shortcuts risks changing the meaning of a message, but if people are accidentally using this for civil POV pushing already, retargeting converts their links from something irrelevant to a good link. Nyttend ( talk) 02:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • So I've gone through WhatLinksHere and found mixed results. Two appearances ( example) accidentally used WP:CPP as an abbreviation for Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. One is related to the university. One is related to civil POV pushing. One appears on a massive list of three-letter abbreviations (many of which are redlinked), and another appears on a massive directory that matches abbreviations to their targets, so we can ignore both of them. Nyttend ( talk) 04:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • PS, DGG, would you chime in? You're the only one, as far as I can tell, who's accidentally used WP:CPP to refer to close paraphrasing. Nyttend ( talk) 04:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    Comment: I had also gone through more checking, and found that same usage. If the two seem to have equal claim to CPP, perhaps neither one should have it, and it should be salted, or retargeted to some new page like, WP:List of shortcuts likely to lead to misunderstandings, essentially a sort of "soft disambig page". Mathglot ( talk) 04:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • No, I don't think that's wise. The appearances of CPP = POV pushing are separated by several years: Hijri used it recently, while its other appearance at User:Raul654/archive16 dates from 2008. These are completely independent uses, while the university usage comes from a blocked sockpuppeteer (not likely to use it again) and DGG's the only one using CPP = close paraphrase. Nyttend ( talk) 05:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Mathglot's opening comment basically sums it up (although I was a bit more succinct in describing my own feelings on the matter here). The one thing I would add is that the Aconymfinder results are not really relevant for our purposes, since the real-world acronym doesn't have "WP:" attached to it: we have a disambig page at CPP to list off-wiki topics that are known by this acronym. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    Ha-ha, no one ever accused me of being succinct. Guess I need to work on that... Good job linking the CPP disambig page; didn't even think to look there, and I should've. Btw (and this is slightly o/t here) but I think I've seen helpful hat-notes in namespace before, where an article might be named similarly to a policy or other project page someone might be looking for instead, and I wonder if it would be appropriate to add a few CPP-policy links to that page, such as the two mentioned above. Mathglot ( talk) 20:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Ah, here's an example: see hat-note at Civility. Mathglot ( talk) 20:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I used this for close paraphrase because it is what I use in my set of macros for expanding abbreviations when typing and it must accidentally for one of several reasons not have gotten expanded. I do however think its logical, but not worth confusing with other existing redirects, even though those redirects should beoe deleted as not useful. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    I don’t believe I understood what you just said. If it’s important, could you restate it in other words? Mathglot ( talk) 05:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    See Macro (computer science). DGG has set up his computer so that when he types WP:CPP, his computer automatically replaces those characters with Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (it expands the link from six characters to twenty-seven) before the edit is saved. However, for some reason his computer failed to replace the shorthand with the full text, so he ended up providing a link to Cal Poly by accident. Nyttend ( talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    Helpful, thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 09:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_16&oldid=1138582662"