From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23
August 25 >

August 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2022.

Badami (disambiguiation)

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. ✗ plicit 00:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Created in error (G6) and deletion requested by sole author (G7), but speedy deletion for such typos is usually contested. Certes ( talk) 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete per G6 and G7. I'm not sure why anyone would contest a typo like this? Thryduulf ( talk) 22:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Past comments have been similar to those for "Title (Disambiguation)" below: broadly in favour of deletion (as am I), but with significant numbers arguing that the misspelling is harmless and useful. Certes ( talk) 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I supported "keep" below but ain't doing that here because miscapitalisation tendency is much higher than adding an additional letter from 26 available options into a 15-letter word. Someone may still make this mistake, but the misspelling is still pretty implausible nonetheless. Pretty sure UIK isn't a redirect to UK. But, if you look at the creations of extremely new editors, you'd find that they often create miscapitalised title for even general topics, against MOS guidelines, because they do make this mistake in the search bar. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 14:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: WP:RDAB (Errors in the act of disambiguation), and G6 (error), G7 (author request). — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 07:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk) 09:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: WP:G7 and WP:G6 Tartar Torte 23:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete but you should have tried G7'ing it first. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I shall in future, once we have a conclusive precedent to quote in any resulting discussion. Certes ( talk) 09:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    The DAB page was created by a different user and moved by the nom so doesn't qualify as G7. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that's my interpretation of G7 too. G6 is also debatable: the title was clearly created in error, but its content (which I moved) wasn't. Previous cases suggested that the redirect would attract a Delete consensus at RfD but wasn't clear-cut enough to delete speedily, hence this discussion. Certes ( talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (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.

Sans domicile fixe

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Appears to be a case of WP:RLOTE, no particular affinity between French and the target topic. Unless evidence can be provided the French phrase is a formal term in English, deletion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:36, 24 August 2022 (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.

Needles

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 Needle. ✗ plicit 00:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The redirect was retargeted a couple of months ago from Needle to its current target. This redirect had been targeting Needle since 2007 without being changed. Shouldn't this redirect go back to retargeting Needle as a {{ R from plural}}? Steel1943 ( talk) 17:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment at the same time Clarityfiend changed the target, they also moved the plural entries from Needle to The Needles. So someone searching for a plural topic will find it at the current target but someone searching for an article we title in the singular will not. I guess the change was done for length reasons? (By my count 9 entries for "The Needles", 14 for "Needles", 24 for "Needle" and 1 for "The Needle", and a 23/25 split feels better than a 9/39 split) but it appears to have been done boldly. I think it might be worth first discussing how we want the dab pages organised (a single dab page is worth considering, keeping all the places together would imo be beneficial for example; maybe an alternative split) and then think about redirects once that is decided. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Needle as an {{ R from plural}}. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 19:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Needle as an {{ R from plural}} and move "Needles" entries from The Needles (disambiguation) to Needle. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Needle as an {{ R from plural}} and edit The Needles (disambiguation) to clarify that stuff listed there is not normally divided into components each of which is a single needle. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:26, 30 August 2022 (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.

Irish Internationals

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#Irish Internationals

Reticulating splines

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. ✗ plicit 00:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

While splines are mentioned at the target, reticulation is not: "Reticulating splines" is a meme that first appeared as a loading-screen buffer message in SimCity and other games by Maxis. Readers are unlikely to find anything relevant to their intended search at the current target, and I'm not seeing anywhere else on Wikipedia where we cover this phrase in detail. Deletion thus seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Sadly delete per nom. I'm amazed we don't have any content on this, but we don't. Courtesy ping to Mortee who has this on their to do list. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you Thryduulf, I appreciate the ping. Delete seems right to me. It doesn't quite work as a redirect. I was never sure I'd be able to write an article that would stick for the meme either, but that's the way forward if we want to have a target for this title, I think. ›  Mortee talk 17:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete wow this takes me back. Anyways, it's still just an obscure inside joke for Maxis games. -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:00, 25 August 2022 (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.

Color Line (Philadelphia SEPTA Name of Line)

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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a highly unnatural disambiguator to the point of implausibility. While it is not a double disambiguator it contains the entire target's former name in it. Media/Elwyn Line goes to the same place. Tartar Torte 14:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: As a note as well, it does not seem like the Media/Elwyn (recently renamed to Media/Wawa Line) is really ever referred to as the Blue Line anyways. SEPTA's regional rail lines are not given color designated names. The Blue Line with regards to SEPTA, would almost exclusively refer to the Market-Frankford Line. Tartar Torte 14:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Recently created and implausible. SEPTA Regional Rail line are colored on maps but never textually identified as such. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Update: my comment applies to all of them. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: After Mackensen's initial delete !vote, I found 5 more redirects that follow the same pattern. I don't think a procedural relist is needed as they were bundled on the same day, but I wanted to note as the nom that the bundling happened after Mackensen's initial !vote and that !vote was specifically on Blue Line (Philadelphia SEPTA Media/Elwyn Line). Tartar Torte 19:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as never ever going to be typed into Wikipedia. The "Purple Line" of Septa isn't any of these things, then nobody would type "Philadelphia Septa," etc. Seems to be done by a vandal and quite possibly we can speedy delete this. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as an FYI, the redirect creator has been blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Sir Joseph. Icabobin ( talk) 13:49, 25 August 2022 (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.

Hyposomnia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#Hyposomnia

"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages

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. The strongest argument for deletion was that these are mostly accidental creations (see Uanfala's analysis) that are a borderline G6 case as "pages unambiguously created in error" (none of the "keep" votes disputed this). The main keep argument was that these redirects are old, and possibly have incoming links (especially those not detectable by Special:Whatlinkshere). However, it was also explained that some editors do see these redirects as harmful, as they interfere with the operation of certain bots and tools used in cleaning up links to disambiguation pages. CX Zoom noted that an edit notice (I would personally suggest Template:New page DYM) could be enhanced to direct people from captial D pages to lowercase d ones. Legoktm ( talk) 23:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the capitalized "D" in "(Disambiguation)", and all of the nominated redirects target disambiguation pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 08:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all per nom, after checking that they have no meaningful incoming links (which should be fixed at the originating page). Hqb ( talk) 09:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Borderline WP:G6 unambiguously created in error. Certes ( talk) 09:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all after fixing links per Hqb. Borderline WP:G6 unambiguously created in error. Certes ( talk) 09:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Certes: Wrong section? Steel1943 ( talk) 09:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yes, and repeated ecs trying to fix it. Certes ( talk) 09:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I re-verified that all of the nominated redirects have no incoming links in the "article" namespace. Steel1943 ( talk) 10:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Slightly weak keep all. They might not have any incoming links, but someone might hold the ⇧ Shift key for too long, which'll still get them to their destinations. Also, there might be incoming links from some webpages, as some !keep voters argue below me. While I wouldn't really encourage users to create miscapitalized redirects, those are still useful nonetheless, and will get readers to where they're looking for. Regards, SONIC 678 13:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC), updated 16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. 1. Wikipedia:RDAB is part of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly, which is just an essay, not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. 2. Wikipedia:Redirect, a Wikipedia editing guideline, clearly states that a major reason why deletion of redirects is harmful is: "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")". All these redirects are results of moving, and most of them are older than ten years. Their titles, although having capitalized D, are harmless. And, as Wikipedia:Redirect says, there may be incoming links that do not show up in "What links here". So, these redirects should be kept. -- Neo-Jay ( talk) 16:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Regarding "...1. Wikipedia:RDAB is part of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly, which is just an essay, not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines": That right there is why I created this nomination ... to test the strength of the essay. If this discussion ends with either "no consensus" or "keep", the part in WP:RDAB referencing redirects ending with "(Disambiguation)" should be removed from the essay. ( WP:RDAB is very heavily cited when it comes to redirects such as these to a point where it is figuratively a guideline, though obviously technically not.) Steel1943 ( talk) 16:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I created this redirect a long time ago by moving a doubly-mistitled dab page to its correct title. The correct redirect with small "d" exists. Pam D 16:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    This comment refers to The Wave (Disambiguation). Steel1943 ( talk) 16:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per Neo-Jay - old, harmless and potentially useful. I additionally don't see any benefits from deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per Neo-Jay. There is no harm in keeping these and no benefit in deleting them. At least some (Australian national football team, Massacre and Coy, for example) have incoming links from non-article spaces and there is no benefit in needlessly turning those links red. Station1 ( talk) 19:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all and fix incoming links if necessary. There is no point to these redirects compared to making redirects to any disambiguation page with the word "disambiguation" capitalized, which would clearly not be beneficial. Not convinced by Neo-Jay's argument as it's highly unlikely many people actually use these redirects (I spot-checked a few and they all had zero pageviews in the past month). Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. We have a very robust search bar that will take readers to the right place, even if they accidentally hold shift for too long, as Sonic678 fears. Short of blindly typing directly into the url bar, the likelihood of these redirects actually y'know redirecting someone is infinitesimal. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    People use a great variety of different ways to find content on Wikipedia, only some of them are case insensitive - indeed many people (myself included) do frequently navigate via the URL bar. People have still yet to identify any actual benefits that will accrue from deleting these. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per Neo-Jay et al. These are all harmless examples of {{ R from other capitalisation}}, and they take readers exactly where they intend to go to. Absolutely no benefit would result from deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 22:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment XFDCloser is giving a "too many values" error due to too many pages being nominated at once. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 07:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all: Neo-Jay makes good points, and it definately seeems to me that the adage if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it applies. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 10:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all: Although I try to give equal weightage to CHEAP and COSTLY, I sometimes find myself more convinced by the CHEAP arguments. On mainspace R from miscapitalisation is completely accepted, only because people do make that mistake. Same people can the same mistake for dab pages. Also, the "d" of disambiguation comes right after "(", shift key issues may obviously arise. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 07:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – CHEAP, avoid breaking possible incoming links from other websites. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 11:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all That type of redirect performs an important function in daily maintenance preventing unneccessary alerts to disambiguation pages (basicly fooling the maintenance bots into believing that this is not a link to a fill blown disambiguation page). The Banner  talk 11:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ The Banner: That's absolutely true for the version with a lowercase d, but the uppercase D variants aren't used for that purpose. Certes ( talk) 12:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Okay, I did not notice the capital. The Banner  talk 12:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all: Before someone sees this a justification to start creating more of these as useful. MB 15:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    We should not be discouraging the creation of useful redirects. That is completely contrary to the spirit of an NPOV encyclopaedia. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    A keep verdict might persuade editors that (Disambiguation) redirects (big D) are useful and that more should be created. That would not seem helpful. Certes ( talk) 16:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    If people find them useful then creating them would, by definition, be helpful. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    For what it's worth, there's about 500 of these type of redirects currently in existence on the English Wikipedia. (I ran out of UTC time to nominate them all the day I created this nomination.) From what I could tell, about 95% of them are {{ R from move}}s left over from correcting or removing the disambiguator. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    That's an argument for keeping them - we should always (and generally do) keep redirects from moves unless there is some specific reason the old name is harmful. Spelling "Disambiguation" with a capital letter instead of a lowercase one is not harmful. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is not an argument for keeping or deleting. It is a statement that the titles needed to be corrected. In addition, we don't always keep {{ R from move}}s, as you stated which I agree with; in this instance, I believe the harm in these redirects existing outweigh their usefulness since over the two decades Wikipedia has existed, bots and templates and other things recognize the use of "(disambiguation)", not "(Disambiguation)". In fact, the latter existing but not the former will most likely not trigger the creation of the former, which is more harmful to templates and other automated processes of Wikipedia. In fact, some saying this now has convinced me that if these redirects get deleted, there should be a title creation blacklist entry preventing titles that contain the phrase "(Disambiguation)". Steel1943 ( talk) 22:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    There's just the one legitimate use, Ø (Disambiguation), not to be confused with the dab Ø (disambiguation). Certes ( talk) 23:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Once again, as nobody has yet managed to articulate anything that stands up to even the briefest scrutiny, what harm? How can these be "corrected" when they are not incorrect in the first place - they take readers to the exact page they are looking for. If redirects with "Disambiguation" in the title cause issues for automated tools then it is those tools that are the problem and should be fixed or replaceed - benefits to readers are always more important than the convenience of editors and programmers. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is most likely the one case where catering to bots and templates is more important than any other search functionality. In addition, the whole "disambiguation page" concept is a Wikipedia invention that should be treated as so: There really isn't a need to have disambiguators using "(Disambiguation)" with a capital "D" to exist, and there have been a good amount of points brought so far in this discussion as of why the existence of the redirects is both unnecessary and somewhat harmful. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In regards to all the comments above regarding "shift key issues" since the "D" is immediately after the "("; these redirects existing are actually causing an issue with Wikipedia's search function. Wikipedia's search function is only case sensitive when an exact title match exists to what was typed in. In other words, if these "(Disambiguation)" redirects are deleted, when a reader types the hypothetically deleted "(Disambiguation)" titles using Wikipedia's search function, the title that will be used will be the closest capitalization mismatch, which would be their respective existing "(disambiguation)", lowercase "d" titles. (Somewhat unrelated tangent: The same applies to hyphens versus spaces: If a hyphen is used in a search term but the title with a hyphen doesn't exist but the same title exists with a space where the hyphen was typed, the search function returns the title with a space instead. I've been looking for a page in the "Wikipedia:" and "Help:" namespaces that explains all of this, but I couldn't find one: Surprisingly, the current state of Help:Searching doesn't seem to explain what I just explained.) Steel1943 ( talk) 15:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    You make the mistake of assuming that everybody uses the internal search engine to find the pages they are looking for, but this is not the case. Our job is to help people find the content they are looking for whatever search method they are using, not just those people using the internal search engine. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm making no such assumption; I'm really big on search optimization, and in my time and experience of working on the functionality of redirects and searching (experience that you have as well), my thoughts are that any other first or third-party search methods would be capitalization insensitive as well, so I don't see your point to be really valid in this case. And adding onto the claim of my aforementioned statement, the only use these redirects would have is to be linked, and there is absolutely no reason why these titles should ever be linked. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    While search engines are generally case insensitive, search engines are not the only method people use to find pages on Wikipedia. Some of those methods, for example URL entry and links on other websites, are case sensitive. It is also not the case that the only use of these redirects is links - people intentionally navigate directly to disambiguation pages, for example I do it when I want to find a topic that I know or suspect is not the primary topic for the term but I don't know what the title of the article is; other people have said they use disambiguation pages to find out what topics we have for a given title. Finally, there is your statement that there is absolutely no reason why these titles should ever be linked - why not? I don't personally have a reason to link to them at present, but it's an extremely bold claim you are making that nobody does or will ever have a reason to link to these pages so I'd like to know on what basis you are making it. The feeling I'm getting is increasingly strained or desperate (neither quite the right word) attempts to convert a personal dislike of something harmless into some, any, justification for deletion. This is not a search optimisation question, having only one redirect offers no benefits over having both. It's a very simple question of "does anybody find this useful?" and the very simple answer to that is "yes". Keeping it costs us nothing, costs our readers nothing, and costs anybody linking to it nothing. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    "Why not?" See my last response. (Running out of real life time right now; otherwise, my response probably would have been more detailed and answered more of the statement and more of the points.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    For the record, I have now had time to read the rest of the statement, and I don't have anything to add other than what I stated previously since it seems to encompass responding to the statment fully. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all The arguments for keeping are not convincing. That deletion would break external links is actually a good thing. Keeping promotes misspellings, and incoming sites do not get feedback that would allow them to know when to fix a link.
That links from old revisions/edit summaries are broken is an issue with the Mediawiki software. When an old revision is rendered, internal links should not point to the current versions, but to the revision of the target that existed at the same time as the revision linked from. The Wayback Machine does it, no reason we can't.
( Why aren't dab pages in their own namespace, anyway? ) Paradoctor ( talk) 16:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
It is not possible to get further away from a "good thing" than intentionally breaking links. As good digitial citizens it is our responsibility to avoid link rot where we can, not actively promote it. How does it benefit us, our readers or the external sites to break these links, causing extra work for all parties, than the zero effort solution of leaving them as is and them just working? Thryduulf ( talk) 16:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
How does it benefit us I hope you didn't stop reading after my second sentence above? ;) Paradoctor ( talk) 18:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
I read everything you wrote and none of it answers the question I asked, if it did I would not have asked it. These are not misspellings, and anyway we routinely (and correctly) keep redirects from common misspellings because doing so is beneficial to the project and, more importantly, our readers. External sites that link to our redirects may or may not get feedback from the people who follow broken links, and even when they do they may or may not have any (easy) way of changing them - nor can causing unnecessary work and disruption to three parties be of greater benefit than causing no disruption to anybody. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. A misspelt link > a broken link. (And some of these will inevitably have pageviews from old links.) J947 † edits 01:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:RDAB: User:DPL bot logs all links to DAB pages except ones precisely through a correctly-formed (disambiguation) qualifier as WP:INTDAB errors. -- Tavix ( talk) 02:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    We fix bots to work with the encyclopaedia, we don't break the encyclopaedia to work with bots. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. -- Tavix ( talk) 13:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    These redirects neither help nor hinder the bots, which are programmed to treat "Title (disambiguation)" (small d) specially but treat "Title (Disambiguation)" (big D) like any other page. They don't need to be kept or deleted for the bots' sake, but should go for other reasons. Certes ( talk) 13:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per Neo-Jay, Thryduulf etc. No convincing benefit from deletion has been advanced. Some harm may come from deletion. A7V2 ( talk) 06:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 12:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:COSTLY may only be an essay but it is sound good practice. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Redirects from miscapitalisations have some marginal usefulness, but even that is applicable to the specific part of the title, "Foo (bar)", and not the generic or technical portion, "Foo (bar)". The key point is that, regardless of the (im)plausibility of the redirects, consistency is important: we shouldn't be enabling navigational paths that will only ever work in a handful of cases (as explained, for a different context, at WP:RLOTE). In particular, there are around 400,000 redirects ending in "(disambiguation)": no-one is suggesting that the corresponding title-case versions should be created for all of them, and there's no reason why an exception should be made for the 121 redirects nominated here. The corresponding correct redirects already exist for all of them. The familiar {{ R from move}} considerations don't seem to apply either: I've had a look at the last 15 redirects:
  • The time that the dab pages have spent at those titles ranges from seconds to days (with a single outlier of 8 months in 2006), and none of that has been in the last decade. The "statute of limitation" for link rot has, therefore, long expired (and if there really is a reader who would now try accessing a bookmark that they created to a dab page in an unlucky moment 15 years ago, they shouldn't be stumped by the missing redirect because the location of the page is trivially easy to figure out). The only consideration that could reasonably block deletion is if any of those titles had meaningful history under them. That doesn't appear likely, but still: Steel1943, have you checked for any of that? If not, then that might be worth doing if there eventually is consensus for deletion. Uanfala ( talk) 11:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm 99% sure I checked all of the redirects for history prior to nominating them. I just checked the first few, and I'm fairly confident I checked the redirects prior to nominating them since I fixed the targets of the bottom 5 or 6 redirects, which had originally targeted non-disambiguation pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per Uanfala. For anyone interested, I've checked the page history for all of them; most had no substantial content, some [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] were previously dab pages redundant with the extant ones, one [30] had an attempted cut/paste move, one [31] had some spam, and two [32] [33] were previously CSD/RfDed. Nothing in the history is worth keeping. eviolite (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)] reply
  • Keep I don't see a compelling reason to treat these any different than any other miscapitalisations. They are no more COSTLY than, say, Barack obama. -- BDD ( talk) 15:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete all, as it stands these excess incoming links are a nuisance to editors trying to fix disambiguation errors. Deleting these will only enable access to the links with the proper capitalization. BD2412 T 03:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    If the editors fixing these redirects rely on some kind of bot report, which I assume is the case, then the bot code should be modified to ensure that "capital D" -> "small d" redirects are ignored. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 10:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Editors don't fix the redirects themselves, except by nominating inappropriate ones for deletion. Editors fix links to disambiguation pages, including links to redirects to disambiguation pages – except redirects which end in " (disambiguation)" with a small d. If someone links to dab SA or its redirect Sa when they meant Sa (film), a bot will report the error, then a human will judge which Sa was intended and edit the wikilink. Very occasionally, as in SAA#See also, we link to the dab deliberately; by convention we do so via the SA (disambiguation) redirect so the bot knows not to nag us about it daily. The Sa (Disambiguation) redirect with a capital D plays no role in this process; it is useless and confusing. Certes ( talk) 11:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    All it would take would be for the bot to be recoded to treat "(Disambiguation)" identically to "(disambiguation)" (I'd be frankly astounded if this was more than a handful of lines of code at most). No bother for the humans fixing the reports, no bother for anyone selecting it from a dropdown, no bother for anyone typing it into a search bar/url bar, no bother for anyone following the link. Nobody is confused by any other {{ R from other capitalisation}} redirects where two different capitalisations arrive at the same article so the claims of confusion here are extremely tennuous at best. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    We really don't want INTDAB links to the capitalised version, especially in the 99.99% of cases where it doesn't exist. The tools should continue to flag such links as errors; changing them to accept capital D would be counterproductive. Several tools would also require a complete rewrite, having been coded by an editor who is no longer active, and our formal proposal to do so was not granted any resources. Certes ( talk) 14:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:PANDORA it could cause more problems keeping the small number of redirects than just deleting them as it may make the small number of readers think redirects exist for all DAB pages, if they go to /info/en/?search=London_(Disambiguation) they may think London (disambiguation) doesn't exist for example. If we do want such URL typing to work then why not use automatic URL redirection or if we did want them all to exist then have a bot create them? rather than just for a few random DABs. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Again, WP:PANDORA is nonsense (and harmful given the amount of energy that has to be expended explaining this time and again) - redirects are evaluated on their own merits, the existence or otherwise of a redirect of any given type has zero impact on the creation or even likelihood of creation of other redirects let alone whether, once created, they should be kept or deleted. If someone created London (Disambiguation) it is because they find it useful, which is vastly more significant and important than a minor inconvenience to editors that could be completely eliminated if they just fixed the broken tools that cause it (any tool that means something that helps readers causes problems for editors is broken by definition).
    We don't want automatic URL redirection because that would cause major problems for pages that should be differentiated by case. There shouldn't be a need to automatically create all the (Disambiguation) equivalents, but if that is what it takes stop harmless, useful redirects being deleted then it will benefit the encyclopaedia to do so. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    If someone created London (Disambiguation), they would almost certainly be attempting to create a duplicate dab without realising that we had a good one at the proper title, possibly as a result of being confused by seeing one of the similar titles listed above. Certes ( talk) 22:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    In which case, as with every other accidental creation of a duplicate article/page it can be speedily redirected to the existing page, merging anything that needs it so that nobody else will make the same mistake in future. That way everybody wins and nobody loses. Thryduulf ( talk) Thryduulf ( talk) 23:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I know OSE is often not a good argument but if London (Disambiguation) existed wouldn't readers be more confused if they went to say /info/en/?search=Manchester_(Disambiguation) and found nothing? If you think they should all exist they why not suggest a bot does this? If titles like Ø (Disambiguation) need to be created users can still turn the redirect into a separate page. If URL redirection was used you could still go to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=London_(Disambiguation)&action=edit or https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=London_(disambiguation)&action=edit though this may make it slightly more difficult but only for the very small number of pages that need (Disambiguation) to be a separate article. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    One could create an editnotice activated on matching uppercase D "(Disambiguation)" from the right, directing editors to the correct capitalisation. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please please please do not create another 342,000 pointless redirects. 120 is more than enough. Ø (Disambiguation) can be left alone; it is the sort of sui generis exception for which IAR was written. Certes ( talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ CX Zoom: Editors trying to clear disambiguation links—not only from articles, but from templates, categories, and other user-facing spaces—must refer to the "What links here" page to do so. Can you provide a way to prevent these links from showing up on the "What links here" page to the disruption of those efforts? BD2412 T 05:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Why do the links need to be treated specially? Editors fixing disambiguation links are already perfectly capable of realising that links via (disambiguation) redirects are fine and dandy and don't need to be changed so they must be equally capable of treating links via (Disambiguation) identically (if they can't do that then there are some serious CIR issues). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Links via (Disambiguation) are neither fine nor dandy, and need to be changed. Even the most competent editor might miss the fact that the D is a capital, requiring action, rather than lower case, which is effectively a note from another editor saying it's been checked and no further action is required. It's the same reason we get rid of (disambugation) and other misspellings, one of which I disposed of here recently amid justified criticism for not simply using a speedy deletion tag. Certes ( talk) 13:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    The only reason that action is required for (Disambiguation) is because some editors insist that action is required and/or refuse to fix the bugs in the automated tools. There is no objective reason to treat (Disambiguation) and (disambiguation) separately - especially because, as you say, even the most competent error might not spot the difference (this is because there isn't one). Misspellings are completely unrelated and so unambiguously irrelevant here. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    "...even the most competent [editor] might not spot the difference..." sounds like a good reason to delete to me. Agreed, it's bad enough that bots don't (and shouldn't) see these differences, so it would obviously be even more difficult for editors to do so. And all these comments about some bot editor needing to "fix the code" or whatever: As someone who has learned a bit about coding over the past few years, I can attest it is not that simple. First, you have to have a volunteer who is willing to update the code; though this may, in most cases, be the bot owner, there is a very good chance that the bot owner doesn't have as much time as they used to when they initiated the bot to make such changes. But then again, if the volunteer who attempts to look through the code is not the bot owner or original writer of the code, it may pose quite a challenge for them since all programmers tend to have their own coding styles, so someone else jumping into examining the code may both not know where to look or possibly even break something (but in all honesty, the volunteer would probably just give up and move on to something else.) In addition, if the bot has been running for 10+ years, there's a good chance that the bot owner may not recall where in their bot's code they would need to make such changes due to there potentially being thousands and thousands of lines of code to look through. Expecting programmers to remember every line of code they write is incredibly unrealistic. So yes, in a nutshell, the deletion of these redirects is probably the best solution to all these technical issues with the capital "D" because the other solutions have an incredibly low chance of occurring. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    For a small (but probably growing) number of redirects I see little point in bothering fixing the code, in terms of WP:OSE we should up to a point assess each on its own merits but what is different about the small number to the other thousands of DABs that don't have upper case redirects? As far as I can see the only difference is that someone has bothered to create them which doesn't really make them that different to say a DAB that had been at the upper case for a while and discussed in the media before being moved to the correct case. So yes I would ask what is different about this small number, not much as far as I can see. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Bots simply check for titles ending in exactly "(disambiguation)" with a small d. Pages with that ending are handled specially, for example being excluded from the naughty list of unintentional links to dabs. Pages with any other ending, such as "(footballer)", "(discombobulation)", "(Disambiguation)" with a large D or no qualifier, aren't excluded. Bots don't treat "(Disambiguation)" specially and don't need to; they correctly report links to such pages (which shouldn't even exist) as errors. Certes ( talk) 20:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Uanfala. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 23:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom. Respublik ( talk) 14:45, 27 September 2022 (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.

"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects where respective disambiguation pages do not exist

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:RDAB error due to capitalization of disambiguator. In addition, the target pages are not disambiguation pages, and their respective disambiguation pages do not exist, and either never existed or were deleted. Steel1943 ( talk) 08:27, 24 August 2022 (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.

Fukushima Fukushima

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

there is nothing in the article about the repeated name being used to refer to the city - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a misspelling of Fukushima, Fukushima created yesterday. Paradoctor ( talk) 05:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yes, this is in reference to Fukushima (the city) in Fukushima (the prefecture). The city is Fukushima, Fukushima. This is the same as the redirects for New York New York, Seattle Washington, Erie Pennsylvania, or any other "[city] [state]" combo you can think of. purplepumpkins ( talk) 01:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete delete: per nom and Paradoctor. Tartar Torte 14:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    To give an actual explanation, I don't really think that the other examples cited of place names without the comma are themselves inherently helpful redirects. They do seem to receive some usage, but it seems like if deleted it would be unlikely that someone typing "Seattle Washington" into the search bar would not get to their destination, and in terms of incoming links, they seem to be minimal. Tartar Torte 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Fukushima the city is located in Fukushima Prefecture. I don't find it implausible that someone searching this would omit the comma. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 01:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unless we're going to delete the redirects for every other "city state" redirect, ie New York New York, Seattle Washington, Erie Pennsylvania, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, Los Angeles California, etc - purplepumpkins ( talk) 01:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm changing my vote (as nominator) after purplepumpkins explanation. I don't think that I should withdraw the nom, since there now votes on both sides. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 02:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a valid city state (prefecture) redirect per purplepumkins. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 07:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Purplepumpkins and Presidentman. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a plausible way of searching specifically for the city. A7V2 ( talk) 06:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: there is no error here. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:17, 28 August 2022 (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.

CORPSE

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#CORPSE

5100

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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 03:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

disambiguate multiple uses of 5100 on Wikipedia; and the year clearly isn't the primary topic. I previoiusly boldly did that [34] but it was contested -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 03:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment There are another 185 redirects of this kind, in the range 3002 to 9899. Paradoctor ( talk) 04:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
List of four digit numbers redirecting to Timeline of the far future
  • Many of these will have multiple uses already on Wikipedia, so should also be disambiguated -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 05:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Standard Wikipedia convention is that four-digit numbers are unambiguously years, and that it is any other topic also named by the same four-digit number that needs disambiguation. I don't see a good reason to deviate from that. So if we're going to have these at all, Timeline of the far future seems like as good a target as any. Also, which of these have other uses, for which the four-digit number alone would be an appropriate title? Name three. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Do you know something I don't?
    WP:NCDATES: Pages with numeric titles 151 and above usually represent an article about a calendar year in the Common Era, up till several decades in the future (my emphasis)
    I'm not aware of any guideline or RfC that says numbers in the range 3000-10000 are presumed to be years unless proven otherwise. Neither do I know of anything overriding WP:DAB, meaning the year gets the unqualified title only if it is the primary topic. Paradoctor ( talk) 06:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate. The year is clearly not a primary topic; in fact it doesn't even pass WP:DABMENTION. Several entries on the reverted dab could be referred to simply as "5100". It's six years since we got AD 1 moved from 1, and we continue to make steady progress with debunking the myth that readers who type in an integer far from 2022 are looking for a year. Certes ( talk) 09:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate and the other four-digit redirects might need DAB'd as well. Per Certes's 1st and 2nd sentence. — Danre98( talk^ contribs) 10:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate per above, continue debunking myth. MB 14:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak disambiguate as David Eppstein said, four-digit numbers are unambiguously years. However, considering Wiki might not be around by 5100, might as well make numbers in the far future disambiguation pages. Liliana ( UwU) 23:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate - Even if we assume that it should refer to a year, there is nothing whatsoever about this year in particular on wikipedia. If it was just a redirect with no other valid target it should be deleted, but since there are things which can be referred to by this number there's no reason not to have a dab page. Imagine how many hatnotes Timeline of the far future would need if every 4-digit number above 3000 redirected there and they had separate disambiguation pages?! A7V2 ( talk) 06:25, 26 August 2022 (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.

Prime Minister of Argentina

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 and added hatnote which points to President of Argentina. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The Cabinet Chief is not a prime minister, as in Argentina's presidential democracy the role of head of government is still bestowed upon the president. Thus retarget to President of Argentina Jueo ( talk) 08:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak retarget to President of Argentina. I'm not 100% on board with this solution, but the US example presents a compelling precedent. At any rate, keeping it at the current target would be misleading, but precedent seems to caution against outright deletion. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 17:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and hatnote per Jay. The lead of the target makes it very clear that it is a plausible (and likely common) misunderstanding. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, possibly with a hatnote. This position is similar to a prime minister, as explained in the article. A7V2 ( talk) 06:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because the current target is the closest analog to prime minister. But, I’ve put a hatnote at the top of the target, in case that’s what is being sought. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (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.

Colonization of Earth

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 Early human migrations. The singular form, Early human migration, is actually another redirect; so I've corrected that and retargeted to the appropriate article (which is the plural form) instead. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

There is nothing at the target section about humans colonizing the Earth. For that to even make sense, humans would have had to come from somewhere else. In the earlier section Origin of life and evolution, it says "life colonized Earth's surface", perhaps this could go there or to some other article. MB 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 24 August 2022 (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/2022_August_24&oldid=1220691591"