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 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.
Lunarian
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.
There are other fictional uses. See the
search results. Sending users there or disambiguating would be more useful than keeping or retargeting to the Final Fantasy usage. Ultimately, it would be good to have something at
Moon in fiction on this.
Wiktionary accepts this as a general term for fictional denizens of the moon. --
BDD (
talk)
22:03, 6 February 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.
Earth and Moon
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.
Weak delete Per above, I'd expect that "Moon" is a better target than "Earth" since the discussion is more likely to be at the Moon article than Earth but I agree its still XY.Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep and refine per BDD. The Earth-Moon system is exactly where I would expect this redirect to take me; and discussing both the Earth and the Moon it avoids any XY issues.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:26, 8 February 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.
Earth's natural satellites
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.
CommentClaimed moons of Earth might also be a suitable target if the redirect is suggesting the presence of multiple moons, though that would redirect a title connoting truth to a list of proven falsehoods, which is probably not ideal either.
ComplexRational (
talk)
02:25, 7 February 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.
People from St Helens
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 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 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.
Target both to
Computer science, which is described as the study of computers. It is not be at all difficult to find sources using the phrase, "Computer studies" (in both capitalizations) to describe the concept covered under computer science.
bd2412T19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Target both to
Computer science: Having taught Computer Studies, Computer Science and Information Technology I have a clear idea of where one starts and one ends. We have some interesting issues here- firstly Computer Science has never been a science it really is a technology, information technology has never been a technology either. In the UK schools sense- lower school (to 16) studied computers doing Computer Studies, and upper school carried on and did Computer Science which was a university application subject. When Computer Studies was made compulsory- there was a massive shortage of teachers with analysis and programming skill- so that element was ripped out and the resulting Microsoft Office studies course that remained was called Information Technology or just IT. We have an inclusion issue here- the many have heard of IT and computer studies but never of computer science. For search purposes the redirect is correct, it is a common term that leads the reader to the correct term.
ClemRutter (
talk)
20:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Hildeoc: There are some places on Wikipedia where no same man should venture! You just directed me there! I looked at
Computer Science#Education to see whether the near synonyms were in bold. Me, who have been teaching CS to eleven year olds since 1981 see that: Since computer science is relatively new, it is not widely taught in schools. I now understand your comment. I can go in and edit that section but there will be knock on effects. The correct thing to do however is to place the redirect and fight it out on the landing page. I will put a target link in the education section- and copy across some of the comment I made above.
In the UK Computing has been obligatory for children over four since 2013 (
National curriculum) By 2013 there were serious doubts whether the KS4 NC could be achieve due to the 30% shortage of CD rather than IT teachers.
Michael Jones Report is helpful. By co-incidence I was teaching CS/IT at his school around 2001.
ClemRutter (
talk)
15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
ClemRutter: Thank you for your reply, but, since I'm not a native English speaker, I have to ask you for some clarifications: What exactly do mean by "no same man"? What does "CD" refer to here? And regarding the text you added in "Computer Science": What exactly is meant by the assertion that "provision was fractured" in the States?--
Hildeoc (
talk)
23:12, 9 February 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 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.
Keep. Neither redundancy nor incorrect capitalisation are reasons to delete a redirect and the current target is the best I can find.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:50, 29 January 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 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.
Keep. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, and redirects from plausible other capitalisations (such as this) are a Good Thing. Readers are not required to know our capitalisation conventions.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is an implausible typo, though, not just an alternative capitalization. CHEAP might apply, but in no way is this redirect a good thing.
Sideways713 (
talk)
17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment: If this redirect is fine, but unnecessary (as seems to be the consensus so far), then that opens the door for an endless directory of unnecessary redirects with typos and grammatical errors based on TV episodes. In this case, the proper redirect target would be to a specific episode or at least a specific season. Any time the target's title is modified, all redirects that point to it would also have to be modified to point to the proper target or be broken. I nominated this to lighten the workload.
Paper LuigiT •
C22:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Spelling error + lack of spacing + capitalisation variant + missing punctuation = implausible. Any one of those is a good reason for a redirect, but maybe not any pair of them, and definitely not all four at once.
Nyttend (
talk)
21:31, 3 February 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.
THEORY OF SOCIAL RESPONSE: COMPUTERS ARE SOCIAL ACTORS
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.
Delete per nom. Theory of social response isn't the formal pre-title of the phrase, but only used in some non-notable youtube video.
[3] I'm removing that from the lead sentence.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:48, 6 February 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 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 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 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.
Not mentioned at target page. Also they've discontinued adding 'Vevo' after the names of YouTube channels since last year. Its useless clutter.--
NØ11:46, 6 February 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.
E Agta
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 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.
Goel Ratzon
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 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.
Infinite Zero albums
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 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.
MAS 78
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At this time, the redirect is not mentioned in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The name really should be mentioned, but straight synonyms are one of the few cases an {{R without mention}} is acceptable, IMO. A reader familiar enough with gun culture should be helped and not surprised by this; one who isn't but reads something like "Bob was shot with a MAS 78" shouldn't be confused. If someone's wondering "why do they call it a MAS 78" we'll still fail them. --
BDD (
talk)
17:20, 5 February 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.
American Studies Journal
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.
Based on their
self-description, I would say they do. It's got a relatively long history (1960, as the American Newsletter, then American Studies Newsletter from 1983+, then American Studies Journal from 1996+), with circulation in the 20,000. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think it's plausible to call a journal named "American Studies" "American Studies Journal". Until the other journal gets an article, I see nothing wrong with the current set-up. --
Tavix(
talk)20:31, 17 February 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.
Direwolf
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.
If someone made a fictional monster and called it the Cavebear, would we also redirect it to the fictional monster and not
Cave bear? I think some
WP:COMMONSENSE is warranted in this situation where the real creature should take priority if it even so much as a chance of being confused with the fake one.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There's nothing counter to
WP:COMMONSENSE being asked, so we needn't beg the question. If someone made a fictional monster and called it "cavebear", would the readers who have so far made it to
cave bear without touching the redirect from
cavebear[5] suddenly be seized with the desire to omit the space? --
JHunterJ (
talk)
18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Consider that the direwolf is named after the real dire wolf and is defined as a larger relative of the wolf
https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Direwolf Also the redirect to GoT characters does not go to a page where they explain what the heck a direwolf is. The reader is left to guess that perhaps direwolf in GoT is similar to a dire wolf.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
JHunterJ, I think it would help the case if the direwolf in GoT is actually defined somewhere in the opening of the characters list paragraph or in
Westeros, like "A number of characters retain wolf-like pets called direwolves."
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The things you suggest to consider do not consider what the reader is seeking when they enter "direwolf" in the search bar and go. The addition of information might indeed change the case either way, but given the current information, the question still remains "Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)?" --
JHunterJ (
talk)
20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am calling for the addition of that information. It's like if someone made up a fictional race of creatures called "vam paires", which are essentially vampires. Doing general searches would assume they are looking for vampires or vam paires in equal proportions. If the result is a link to the characters list, and the only thing it said was "JHunterJ is a vam paire", "Angus is a vam paire", then we're not getting any more knowledge about the creature, so might as well just look at the vampire page. With GoT, people search for direwolf and want to know how it differs from dire wolf or whether they are essentially the same. A presented definition would be better than no definition, and would even sway searches to look for direwolf as GoT primary topic with hatnote pointing to the dab.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Per cursory Google searches, I think that the prehistoric creature is more of a primary topic than the GoT version. We can always a hatnote anyways. --
Lenticel(
talk)01:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think based on the comment that you intended to !vote Redirect? Regardless, "we can always hatnote anyways" is a valid option with the current arrangement, with retargeting to the GoT creature as primary topic, and with retargeting to the prehistoric creature. But a cursory Google search would indicate retargeting to GoT, not to the prehistoric creature.
[6] --
JHunterJ (
talk)
14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
dire wolf as primary. I don't think it's fair to say that "dire wolf" = the extinct canid and "direwolf" = fictional creatures. Searching an external search engine for "direwolf" minus Game of Thrones and Song of Fire and Ice gave me plenty of references to the
dire wolf. --
Tavix(
talk)19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looks like new opinions are coming in, so relisting this to explore those options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not suggesting "direwolf" = fictional creatures. I'm saying it can be either the extinct species or the GoT creature, and neither is the PTOPIC, so the dab page is the best option.
feminist (
talk)
03:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
dire wolf. The extinct species is the primary topic and the hatnote covers the other. On an aside, I always presumed the direwolves present in Game of Thrones were simply a fictional extant version of what is extinct in the real world. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT)21:11, 12 February 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.
Alabama (band)
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.
This redirect was recently retargeted to
Alabama (disambiguation) as an incomplete disambiguation (due to the existence of
Alabama (Canadian band)). I reverted the change as undiscussed, as there were incoming links. I have since resolved all incoming links, and bring this here for the appropriate discussion. My opinion is that the American band is the primary topic of the term either way, and perhaps
Alabama (American band) should be moved back to
Alabama (band). Precedents for this would be
Nirvana (band) and
Kiss (band), both at those titles despite other bands by those names in other countries. Alternately, the recent retargeting could be restored. It seems like an incorrect half-measure to maintain the redirect pointing to the further disambiguated title.
bd2412T13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse redirect per Tavix. The American band is clearly primary among bands, and as noted there are many other examples where one article is not primary overall but is primary within a topic area.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Alabama (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since
Alabama (Canadian band) exists. A reader forced to land on a certain band page when there are multiple notable bands of the same name can potentially be harmful of the reader arrives at the wrong article. Considering that there are multiple notable bands makes "Alabama", readers who look up this term would be better served by arriving at the disambiguation page to determine what subject they are attempting to locate.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: involved relist in order to close an old log page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk)21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The current setup allows the vast majority of readers to reach the band they want, and also shows them that there is more than one band named Alabama. Compare
Thriller (album). My second choice would be to reverse redirect.
feminist (
talk)
08:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Move target article over the redirect (i.e., reverse). The hatnote means someone looking for the Canadian band is one page away, regardless of whether they go first to a disambiguation page or one about the American band, and someone looking for the American band goes straight there. --
BDD (
talk)
15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as is, with no massive objection towards the reverse proposed (even though it's partial disambiguation, it seems like people don't hugely have an issue about that with bands, just see Kiss/Nirvana/Oasis for some examples.) Pointing to the DAB page does nothing but hinder readers.
Nohomersryan (
talk)
01:58, 1 February 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.
Crap Muzik
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 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.